Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 27

Thread: Wisconsin is not a stop and identify State because ????

  1. #1
    Regular Member cowboyridn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    436

    Wisconsin is not a stop and identify State because ????

    Because......unless the officer reasonably suspects that such person is committing, is about to commit or has committed a crime, the officer cannot demand the name and address of the person and an explanation of the person's conduct.

    It should be a requirment that dispatchers be taught to determine while on the phone with the caller, the difference between a person committing, is about to commit or has committed a crime vs a citicen open carying during a MWG call.

    Statute

    968.24 Temporary questioning without arrest. After having identified himself or herself as a law enforcement officer, a law enforcement officer may stop a person in a public place for a reasonable period of time when the officer reasonably suspects that such person is committing, is about to commit or has committed a crime, and may demand the name and address of the person and an explanation of the person's conduct. Such detention and temporary questioning shall be conducted in the vicinity where the person was stopped.

    Just thought I would add this to the forum for those who are new to OCing.

    Keep in mind that Wisconsin Statute 968.24 only applies If you're out of your car. If you're in your car and get stopped you are required to show your drivers license.

    Additional reading.... http://wilawlibrary.gov/topics/justi...law/search.php


    Don
    Last edited by cowboyridn; 10-23-2010 at 04:41 AM.

  2. #2
    Regular Member cowboyridn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    436

    Scenario – what do you do ???

    You're walking in a perceved (by Law Enforcement) high crime area and your stopped while walking down the sidewalk by Law Enforcement, and the officer tells you there was a crime near the area your walking, and your OCing at the time, and the officer states he believes you fit the discription of the suspect and they detain you and ask for identification. What do you do, give your ID to the officer or refuse???

    Any other Scenario's to add, lets discuss them.


    Don

  3. #3
    Regular Member cowboyridn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    436

    Cases to ponder

    968.24 A defendant's flight from a police officer may, using the totality of circumstances test, justify a warrantless investigatory stop. State v. Jackson, 147 Wis. 2d 824, 434 N.W.2d 386 (1989).


    968.24 Actions suggesting to a reasonable police officer that an individual is attempting to flee is adequately suspicious to support an investigatory stop. State v. Anderson, 155 Wis. 2d 77, 454 N.W.2d 763 (1990).


    968.24 The Terry rule applies once a person becomes a valid suspect even though the encounter was initially consensual; if circumstances show investigation is not complete, the suspect does not have the right to terminate it. State v. Goyer, 157 Wis. 2d 532, 460 N.W.2d 424 (Ct. App. 1990).


    968.24 When a person's activity may constitute either a civil forfeiture or crime, an investigative stop may be performed. State v. Krier, 165 Wis. 2d 673, 478 N.W.2d 63 (Ct. App. 1991).


    968.24 A "showup" where police present a single suspect to a witness for identification, often at or near a crime scene shortly after the crime occurs, is suggestive but not impermissibly suggestive per se. State v. Garner, 207 Wis. 2d 520, 558 N.W.2d 916 (Ct. App. 1996), 96-0168.

    968.24 That the defendant is detained in a temporary Terry stop does not automatically mean Miranda warnings are not required. Whether the warnings are required depends on whether a reasonable person in the defendant's position would have considered himself or herself to be in custody. State v. Gruen, 218 Wis. 2d 581, 582 N.W.2d 728 (Ct. App. 1998), 96-2588.

    968.24 This section authorizes officers to demand identification only when a person is suspected of committing a crime, but does not govern the lawfulness of requests for identification in other circumstances. State v. Griffith, 2000 WI 72, 236 Wis. 2d 48, 613 N.W.2d 72, 98-0931.

    968.24 A police officer performing a Terry stop and requesting identification could perform a limited search for identifying papers when: 1) the information received by the officer was not confirmed by police records; 2) the intrusion on the suspect was minimal; 3) the officer observed that the suspect's pockets were bulging; and 4) the officer had experience with persons who claimed to have no identification when in fact they did. State v. Black, 2000 WI App 175, 238 Wis. 2d 203, 617 N.W.2d 210, 99-1686.

    968.24 Under Florida v. J.L., an anonymous tip giving rise to reasonable suspicion must bear indicia of reliability. That the tipster's anonymity is placed at risk indicates that the informant is genuinely concerned and not a fallacious prankster. Corroborated aspects of the tip also lend credibility; the corroborated actions of the suspect need be inherently criminal in and of themselves. State v. Williams, 2001 WI 21, 241 Wis. 2d 631, 623 N.W.2d 106, 96-1821.

    968.24 When a caller identifies himself or herself by name, placing his or her anonymity at risk, and the totality of the circumstances establishes a reasonable suspicion that criminal activity may be afoot, the police may execute a lawful investigative stop. Whether the caller gave correct identifying information, or whether the police ultimately could have verified the information, the caller, by providing the information, risked that his or her identity would be discovered and cannot be considered anonymous. State v. Sisk, 2001 WI App 182, 247 Wis. 2d 443, 634 N.W.2d 877, 00-2614.

    968.24 It was reasonable to conduct a Terry search of a person who knocked on the door of a house while it was being searched for drugs pursuant to a warrant. State v. Kolp, 2002 WI App 17, 250 Wis. 2d 296, 640 N.W.2d 551, 01-0549.

    968.24 Terry and this section apply to confrontations between the police and citizens in public places only. For private residences and hotels, in the absence of a warrant, the police must have probable cause and exigent circumstances or consent to justify an entry. Reasonable suspicion is not a prerequisite to an officer's seeking consent to enter a private dwelling. State v. Stout, 2002 WI App 41, 250 Wis. 2d 768, 641 N.W.2d 474, 01-0904.

    968.24 To perform a protective search for weapons, an officer must have reasonable suspicion that a person may be armed and dangerous. A court may consider an officer's belief that his, her, or another's safety is threatened in finding reasonable suspicion, but such a belief is not a prerequisite to a valid search. There is no per se rule justifying a search any time an individual places his or her hands in his or her pockets contrary to police orders. The defendant's hand movements must be considered under the totality of the circumstances of the case. State v. Kyles, 2004 WI 15, 269 Wis. 2d 1, 675 N.W.2d 449, 02-1540.

    968.24 The principles of Terry permit a state to require a suspect to disclose his or her name in the course of a Terry stop and allow imposing criminal penalties for failing to do so. Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, Humboldt County, 542 U.S. 177, 159 L. Ed 2d 292, 124 S. Ct. 2451 (2004).

    968.24 When the defendant's refusal to disclose his name was not based on any articulated real and appreciable fear that his name would be used to incriminate him, or that it would furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute him, application of a criminal statute requiring disclosure of the person's name when the police officer reasonably suspected the person had committed a crime did not violate the protection against self-incrimination. Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, Humboldt County, 542 U.S. 177, 159 L. Ed 2d 292, 124 S. Ct. 2451 (2004).

    968.24 The potential availability of an innocent explanation does not prohibit an investigative stop. If any reasonable inference of wrongful conduct can be objectively discerned, notwithstanding the existence of other innocent inferences that could be drawn, the officers have the right to temporarily detain the individual for the purpose of inquiry. State v. Limon, 2008 WI App 77, 312 Wis. 2d 174, 751 N.W.2d 877, 07-1578.

    Don

  4. #4
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    I thought Wisconsin's so-called stop-and-identify statute had no teeth because there was no penalty? Also, is there not a Wisconsin state appellate court ruling saying it was not a crime to refuse to answer up on identity questions?

    Maybe it was Michigan; I got enough trouble keeping track of my own state. But, I have this strong feeling it was Wisconsin.

  5. #5
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by cowboyridn View Post
    You're walking in a perceved (by Law Enforcement) high crime area and your stopped while walking down the sidewalk by Law Enforcement, and the officer tells you there was a crime near the area your walking, and your OCing at the time, and the officer states he believes you fit the discription of the suspect and they detain you and ask for identification. What do you do, give your ID to the officer or refuse???

    Any other Scenario's to add, lets discuss them.


    Don
    Not much point in adding scenarios. If the statute is enforceable, there is a whole other angle, much more important:

    The OCer will probably have no way to judge during the encounter whether the cop has genuine RAS. Remember, its the judge at the suppression hearing who will decide whether RAS existed. Meaning he will do it after the fact. Also, I've never read an opinion that granted the detainee the authority to determine whether the cop had RAS and then act on it contrary to the cop's decision to detain.

    Appeals courts have been churning out reams of decisions on what did and what didn't consitute sufficient circumstances to give RAS in the case that was before the court. Is there any OCer who has read all the cases? And, even if he did, he still has to guess what the judge in his case will rule.

    Also, we can take a clue from Terry vs Ohio where the court said each case will have to be decided on its own circumstances.

    If an OCer judges the cop's RAS during the stop, and gets it wrong, he may be up for whatever is the penalty for violating the statute.

    If a stop-and-identify statute exists and is enforceable, I'm thinking the safer way to avoid charges for violating the statute is to politely comply with an identity demand while refusing consent. If it turns out later that the cop did not have genuine RAS, then he is open to whatever trouble you can make for him. If it turns out later that he did in fact have genuine RAS, the OCer complied with the law and is less likely to be charged for violating it.
    Last edited by Citizen; 10-23-2010 at 04:42 AM.

  6. #6
    Regular Member cowboyridn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    436

    Wisconsin's so-called stop-and-identify statute had no teeth

    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    I thought Wisconsin's so-called stop-and-identify statute had no teeth because there was no penalty? Also, is there not a Wisconsin state appellate court ruling saying it was not a crime to refuse to answer up on identity questions?

    Maybe it was Michigan; I got enough trouble keeping track of my own state. But, I have this strong feeling it was Wisconsin.
    I'll have to do some research on this to find the case you discribe.

    Don

  7. #7
    Regular Member cowboyridn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    436

    reasonable suspicion

    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Not much point in adding scenarios. If the statute is enforceable, there is a whole other angle, much more important:

    The OCer will probably have no way to judge during the encounter whether the cop has genuine RAS. Remember, its the judge at the suppression hearing who will decide whether RAS existed. Meaning he will do it after the fact. Also, I've never read an opinion that granted the detainee the authority to determine whether the cop had RAS and then act on it contrary to the cop's decision to detain.

    Appeals courts have been churning out reams of decisions on what did and what didn't consitute sufficient circumstances to give RAS in the case that was before the court. Is there any OCer who has read all the cases? And, even if he did, he still has to guess what the judge in his case will rule.

    Also, we can take a clue from Terry vs Ohio where the court said each case will have to be decided on its own circumstances.

    If an OCer judges the cop's RAS during the stop, and gets it wrong, he may be up for whatever is the penalty for violating the statute.

    If a stop-and-identify statute exists and is enforceable, I'm thinking the safer way to avoid charges for violating the statute is to politely comply with an identity demand while refusing consent. If it turns out later that the cop did not have genuine RAS, then he is open to whatever trouble you can make for him. If it turns out later that he did in fact have genuine RAS, the OCer complied with the law and is less likely to be charged for violating it.

    So, it comes down to these three

    A consensual interaction is no different than an interaction between two civilians on the street. It gives the cop the right to ask the civilian questions, but it also gives the right for the civilian to refuse to answer those questions, including providing identification.

    A detention interaction is where a person is being legally detained, meaning the officer needs to have some sort of reasonable suspicion that the person is involved in a crime. This is generally known as a “Terry Stop.” In the states that have stop and identify laws, the person could be arrested for refusing to provide identification.

    The arrest interaction is when police have probable cause to arrest a person, which requires more evidence than mere reasonable suspicion. This, of course, allows the officer to search the person for identification once the arrest is made. If the suspect does not have identification, it could be illegal to refuse to identify oneself depending on the jurisdiction.


    Don

  8. #8
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by cowboyridn View Post
    So, it comes down to these three

    A consensual interaction is no different than an interaction between two civilians on the street. It gives the cop the right to ask the civilian questions, but it also gives the right for the civilian to refuse to answer those questions, including providing identification.

    A detention interaction is where a person is being legally detained, meaning the officer needs to have some sort of reasonable suspicion that the person is involved in a crime. This is generally known as a “Terry Stop.” In the states that have stop and identify laws, the person could be arrested for refusing to provide identification.

    The arrest interaction is when police have probable cause to arrest a person, which requires more evidence than mere reasonable suspicion. This, of course, allows the officer to search the person for identification once the arrest is made. If the suspect does not have identification, it could be illegal to refuse to identify oneself depending on the jurisdiction.


    Don

    That matches my understanding.

    Two points of clarification I might chip in.

    First, the main character of a detention is that it is involuntary and non-consensual. The RAS aspect, while very important legally, does not become useful for the detainee until after the detention. Meaning, it don't really matter whether the cop really has RAS, he's got you. What really matters is whether the cop thinks he has RAS, not whether the OCer thinks the cop does, nor whether a court will rule later that RAS existed.

    Second, identifying oneself does not equate to handing over an ID document. Identifying oneself verbally may fill the bill. Depends on whether the state stop-and-identify statute compels handing over an identity document. I've read at least one state statute that required giving specified documents if the person had them on him at the time of the demand. Other states may only compel verbal identification.

    Something else to watch out for: We've reports from a cop that when issuing citations, if the misdemeanant refuses to show ID, cops generally figure he is giving a ficticious name so he can skip the court date. In which case the cops ensure his appearance before a judge by just arresting him on the spot. The cop that reported that limited the arrests to the top two classes of misdemeanors. OCers who plan to refuse identity documents if they are being cited for something, and give only verbal identity may want to see if there is a state statute that allows arrest if the cop thinks the person will disregard the summons, or some other authorization for arrest.
    Last edited by Citizen; 10-23-2010 at 05:18 AM.

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Well said! I could not say it better.

    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    The OCer will probably have no way to judge during the encounter whether the cop has genuine RAS. Remember, its the judge at the suppression hearing who will decide whether RAS existed. [DH emphasis] Meaning he will do it after the fact. Also, I've never read an opinion that granted the detainee the authority to determine whether the cop had RAS and then act on it contrary to the cop's decision to detain.
    .

  10. #10
    Regular Member 1245A Defender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    north mason county, Washington, USA
    Posts
    4,381

    some thoughts,,,

    Quote Originally Posted by cowboyridn View Post
    You're walking in a perceved (by Law Enforcement) high crime area and your stopped while walking down the sidewalk by Law Enforcement, and the officer tells you there was a crime near the area your walking, and your OCing at the time, and the officer states he believes you fit the discription of the suspect and they detain you and ask for identification. What do you do, give your ID to the officer or refuse???

    Any other Scenario's to add, lets discuss them.


    Don
    Stand up for your rights!!!
    your name and address will have no bearing on the cops suspicions of your involvement!
    NEVER talk to cops,,,, BUT
    i would tell them, to make sure to keep looking for the perp in the crime, cause you aint the one.
    Tell them to ARREST Me NOW, for the crime in question, or release me Now!
    IF you are arrested, and charged for the crime, or you are still detained, for investigation...
    SHUT YOUR MOUTH!!!! tell them YOU WANT YOUR LAWYER!!!

    no one should carry the lethal means of self defense,
    unless they are ready to be arrested unlawfully!
    if you stand up for the 2nd amendment,
    you need to be ready to stand up for the 4th and 5th too!!!
    EMNofSeattle wrote: Your idea of freedom terrifies me. So you are actually right. I am perfectly happy with what you call tyranny.....

    “If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.”

    Stand up for your Rights,, They have no authority on their own...

    All power is inherent in the people,
    it is their right and duty to be at all times ARMED!

  11. #11
    Regular Member RR_Broccoli's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    WI
    Posts
    172
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    That matches my understanding.

    Two points of clarification I might chip in.

    First, the main character of a detention is that it is involuntary and non-consensual. The RAS aspect, while very important legally, does not become useful for the detainee until after the detention. Meaning, it don't really matter whether the cop really has RAS, he's got you. What really matters is whether the cop thinks he has RAS, not whether the OCer thinks the cop does, nor whether a court will rule later that RAS existed.
    So the choice the OCer has is to automatically assume the cop has RAS, to automatically assume the cop does not have RAS, or to try to make a judgement in between. The only reasonable course is to assume there is no RAS, as the other two options can get the OCer tricked into being the bad guy by any number of things that are unrelated to his or her conduct at the time.

    Second, identifying oneself does not equate to handing over an ID document. Identifying oneself verbally may fill the bill. Depends on whether the state stop-and-identify statute compels handing over an identity document. I've read at least one state statute that required giving specified documents if the person had them on him at the time of the demand. Other states may only compel verbal identification.
    Yes, you need to know the rules for your state. Too bad the cops apparently don't know them. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse now is it?

    Something else to watch out for: We've reports from a cop that when issuing citations, if the misdemeanant refuses to show ID, cops generally figure he is giving a ficticious name so he can skip the court date. In which case the cops ensure his appearance before a judge by just arresting him on the spot.

    The cop that reported that limited the arrests to the top two classes of misdemeanors. OCers who plan to refuse identity documents if they are being cited for something, and give only verbal identity may want to see if there is a state statute that allows arrest if the cop thinks the person will disregard the summons, or some other authorization for arrest.
    And consequentiality violates the person's rights, makes himself look bad personally, and sets up the municipality for a lawsuit. Look, if you can't handle the job, quit. Part of the job is to eat this situation cheerfully and with a smile and stick by the constitutional and human rights rules set up by our society.

    I am sick and tired of this excuse laid out for the police.

    "Oh, the police are only human, therefore you are arrested" That, is unacceptable at any end of the spectrum be it a slight inconvenience of a night in jail and dropped charges or a trumped up disorderly conduct charge. Deal with these situations gracefully or quit the force. If you cannot manage to go through your job without "letting the bad guy go" once in a while due to the bad luck of not having justification for the arrest, you are in the wrong job and a menace to society.

    It is not up to the cop to decide if the guy did something, that's for the courts to do. To violate civil rights in the process the arrest, is a decision that the person has done something illegal without having the court's say. The cop is going to do everything he can to funnel you into jail while following the rules (hopefully anyway). You should do everything you can to get OUT of that funnel to jail by standing up for your rights.
    Last edited by RR_Broccoli; 10-23-2010 at 09:00 AM.

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193
    The only option is to comply while asserting your rights without resisting. Force the rights issue and make the cop clearly violate them - ideally, hopefully while being recorded.

    Know your rights and how to assert them. The cops job is to observe, investigate, apprehend, detain and perhaps recommend a charge to the state.

  13. #13
    Campaign Veteran rcawdor57's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,643

    Exclamation Remember that all of the "arrests" for failure to identify occurred on private land..

    For the Wisconsin Carry members that have been cited and/or arrested for failure to I.D. they were all (to my knowledge) on either their own property (Frank on his front porch) or on other private property (Culvers restaurant). The other times the police have overstepped their authority was also on private property (Protias at China Wok restaurant in Sussex) and of course when Brad Krause was planting a tree in his own yard. (Yes, I know Brad did not fail to I.D.).

    So how much RAS did the police have to cite and/or arrest someone sitting on their own front porch, in their home, their garage...etc. There is no RAS or PC that I can come up with for the situations I mentioned to provide the police with the authority to cite and/or arrest. Do not talk to the police. Works for me.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Fond du Lac Wisconsin
    Posts
    171
    Quote Originally Posted by cowboyridn View Post
    You're walking in a perceved (by Law Enforcement) high crime area and your stopped while walking down the sidewalk by Law Enforcement, and the officer tells you there was a crime near the area your walking, and your OCing at the time, and the officer states he believes you fit the discription of the suspect and they detain you and ask for identification. What do you do, give your ID to the officer or refuse???

    Any other Scenario's to add, lets discuss them.


    Don
    If a person was OCing and a LEO suspected them of commiting a crime I hope the LEO would have this person at GUNPOINT for their own safety.

    Now if a LEO approaches an OCer and is asking you to identify yourself because you fit the description why not just cooperate. Victims and witnesses sometimes give such vague descriptions almost everyone fits. The LEO is just developing a list of possible suspects AND WITNESSES for further investigation. Since you know that you didn't commit the crime you have nothing to worry about. You may be useful in solving the crime!
    Keeping yourself safe isn't just about OCing. It also includes helping law enforcement anyway we can to get the bad guys off the streets.

  15. #15
    Wisconsin Carry, Inc. Wisconsin Carry, Inc. - Chairman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,197
    how many times are we going to try to invent a law that does not exist?

    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...p-and-Identify

    The arrest interaction is when police have probable cause to arrest a person, which requires more evidence than mere reasonable suspicion. This, of course, allows the officer to search the person for identification once the arrest is made. If the suspect does not have identification, it could be illegal to refuse to identify oneself depending on the jurisdiction.
    NO LAW allows police to arrest you for refusal to identify yourself. NONE. Not obstruction, not disorderly conduct, not some local ordinance. NO LAW.

    How do you know if an officer thinks he has RAS. If he arrests you for WHATEVER he thinks you did wrong.

    “No law allows officers to arrest for obstruction on a person’s refusal to give his or her name. Mere silence is insufficient to constitute obstruction.” Henes v. Morrissey,194 Wis. 2d 339, 533 N.W.2d 802 (1995)".
    www.wisconsincarry.org Wisconsin Carry, Inc. is not affiliated with opencarry.org or these web forums. Questions about discussion forum policy or forum moderation should be directed to the owners of opencarry.org not Wisconsin Carry, Inc.

  16. #16
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711
    A better answer to the question posed is that Wisconsin is not a stop and ID state because no statute requires a person to answer police demands for identity.

    They can ask of course in the course of lawful consensual encounters, and, in the case of seizures based upon rasonable suspicion of crime, but you don't have to tell.

  17. #17
    Campaign Veteran rcawdor57's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,643

    Exclamation Why cooperate? Why not cooperate?

    Do your homework and see how many people have actually cooperated with the police and see what happened to some of them for "cooperating". I know of one WCI member who was detained for over an hour when he exited a pawn shop in Janesville (IIRC) when a police officer asked him "Can I ask you a few questions". Next thing you know they demanded ID and ran a background check on him and questioned him about his sanity. I won't go into details as to who it was but I think he may just see this post and add to what I have stated.

    When you get stopped for a driving violation and the cop asks "Do you mind if I look around in your car?" Do you allow it? Not me. The more rights we don't stand up for the more we don't have. I saw an episode of COPS once where the guy let the cop search his truck. Guess what the cop "found"? A spray tube from a WD-40 can. The guy was arrested for "Drug paraphernalia". So you never know what they may find that is illegal in the jurisdiction you are in.

    Besides that, cops are people and usually we do not know them personally. So why would you entrust your privacy to a complete stranger? Especially one that can arrest you because of anything he finds when talking to you or searching you or your property?

  18. #18
    Regular Member Russf's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    107

    Supreme Court Ruling

    Dont know if this applies in Wisconsin......

    Just had a conversation With a Fedral Agent and according to him this does apply in Wisconsin...He believes that you must show ID....

    http://articles.cnn.com/2004-06-24/j...cion?_s=PM:LAW
    Last edited by Russf; 10-23-2010 at 01:02 PM.

  19. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Well, that's six pages from CNN in 2004, reviewing Hiibel.

    Well, that's six pages from CNN in 2004. Please distill them into the requirement that is in force in Wisconsin and apart from Wisconsin Statutes. Hiibel was arrested in Nevada that has very different laws. What applies in
    Wisconsin, please?

    Thanks for the edit.
    Last edited by Doug Huffman; 10-23-2010 at 01:06 PM.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Fond du Lac Wisconsin
    Posts
    171
    Quote Originally Posted by rcawdor57 View Post
    Do your homework and see how many people have actually cooperated with the police and see what happened to some of them for "cooperating". I know of one WCI member who was detained for over an hour when he exited a pawn shop in Janesville (IIRC) when a police officer asked him "Can I ask you a few questions". Next thing you know they demanded ID and ran a background check on him and questioned him about his sanity. I won't go into details as to who it was but I think he may just see this post and add to what I have stated.

    When you get stopped for a driving violation and the cop asks "Do you mind if I look around in your car?" Do you allow it? Not me. The more rights we don't stand up for the more we don't have. I saw an episode of COPS once where the guy let the cop search his truck. Guess what the cop "found"? A spray tube from a WD-40 can. The guy was arrested for "Drug paraphernalia". So you never know what they may find that is illegal in the jurisdiction you are in.

    Besides that, cops are people and usually we do not know them personally. So why would you entrust your privacy to a complete stranger? Especially one that can arrest you because of anything he finds when talking to you or searching you or your property?
    You have valid points here. If I was stopped in my car I would not consent to a search either.
    However, in the scenario presented I would prefer to help out as much as possible.
    It's a matter of choice. It's ok that our choices might be different.

  21. #21
    Campaign Veteran rcawdor57's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,643

    Exclamation Peacekeeper, are you a young person?

    When I was young I felt as you do. As I have grown older (past 50 now) my eyes have been opened to many things. The country I grew up in is no more. What happened to it? One by one the people were trained in public schools and from ridiculous tv shows to bow down to "authority" and that it was our duty to comply. Now we have a nation of people that do not even know their rights. Let me give some examples of what is no more: When I was a teen I rode the school bus with either my double barrel 16 gauge shotgun and a box of shells or it was my .22LR bolt action Glenfield with several boxes of ammo. Into the school I would go and put the gun and ammo in the "coat closet" at the back of my homeroom class. In that closet there were usually quite a few shotguns and .22 rifles during hunting season. What happened? Guns were demonized by the LEFT and by their tv shows and news reporters. Gun owners were demonized to the point that now many gun owners are even ashamed to TALK about owning a gun. I have several neighbors that own guns but will not go to the range with me or even show me their guns. They are afraid of what their neighbors will think. What happened?

    When I was a teen and we had a run in with the police we told them to get off our property and they left. (No crime had taken place, they were there to harass us). End of story. Try that now and see what happens. The police do not have the authority to enter your home or property just because they want to....but many police think they do and even more people believe it to be true.
    What happened?

    When I was a teen it was no big deal to photograph police or anyone else for that matter in public. Now try that openly in many states and the police will arrest you. For what? For taking pictures of them. What happened?

    So here we are today in 2010 working to restore this country back to something that resembles a Republic instead of a police state. We don't have many "rights" left and I will be damned if I am going to "voluntarily" submit to any government representatives "request".

    Every right we have must be fought for and not be "given away" just because a police officer asks you to or tells you you have no choice. You DO have a choice. Make the right one.

  22. #22
    Regular Member cowboyridn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    436

    The correct response

    Quote Originally Posted by cowboyridn View Post
    You're walking in a perceved (by Law Enforcement) high crime area and your stopped while walking down the sidewalk by Law Enforcement, and the officer tells you there was a crime near the area your walking, and your OCing at the time, and the officer states he believes you fit the discription of the suspect and they detain you and ask for identification. What do you do, give your ID to the officer or refuse???

    Any other Scenario's to add, lets discuss them.


    Don
    INVOCATION OF RIGHTS

    I wish to invoke all my rights under the statutes and Constitution of the United States and State of Wisconsin. I do not want to talk with anyone from law enforcement or participate in any lineup until I consult with a lawyer and he/she is present. I do not consent to a search of my person, property, or possessions under my control or in which I have interest. I do not wave any of my legal rights.

    This is from a criminal defense attorney who is a public defender for Dane County whom I know personally. Put this on a card and when you are stopped, recite this, and then shut up..........

    Don
    Last edited by cowboyridn; 10-23-2010 at 09:22 PM. Reason: words

  23. #23
    Wisconsin Carry, Inc. Shotgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,668
    Quote Originally Posted by Russf View Post
    Dont know if this applies in Wisconsin......

    Just had a conversation With a Fedral Agent and according to him this does apply in Wisconsin...He believes that you must show ID....

    http://articles.cnn.com/2004-06-24/j...cion?_s=PM:LAW
    He is wrong. The reason Wisconsin is not a "stop and identify state" is due to the decision in the Wisconsin Supreme Court case Henes v. Morrissey, 194 Wis. 2d 339 (1995) which ruled that the obstruction statute does not include a requirement to provide identification. It was not a constitutional interpretation, it was the court's interpretation of the statute.

    "We do not equate the failure to identify oneself with the act
    of giving false information…mere silence, standing alone,
    is insufficient to constitute obstruction under the statute…
    without more than mere silence, there is no obstruction."

    Because of this, Hiibel has no effect in Wisconsin. The Hiibel case basically boils down to saying "If you have a state stop and identify statute, it is constitutional and therefore valid." The reason it has no effect in Wisconsin is because Wisconsin's highest court has ruled that the state has no "stop and identify" statute in the first place, because they do not interpret the obstruction statute to include a requirement to identify one's self.
    A. Gold

    Failure to comply may result in discipline up to and including termination.
    The free man is a warrior. - Nietzsche "Twilight of the Idols"

  24. #24
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by RR_Broccoli View Post
    SNIP And consequentiality violates the person's rights, makes himself look bad personally, and sets up the municipality for a lawsuit.
    I think you missed something.

    In the paragraph from my post to which you were responding, I was not talking about a citation for refusing to identify oneself. I was talking about situations where a citation is already being issued.

    For example, lets say a cop is citing you for disorderly conduct or trespassing. In some states, perhaps all, the cop is allowed to write a citation, basically a summons, something you sign there on the sidewalk in front of the cop, promising thereby to appear in court to answer the charge.

    In some states, perhaps all, the cop is allowed to arrest instead of cite, if certain circumstances occur. For example, if a person cannot stop committing the misdemeanor. An example would be a streaker. He ain't got no clothes, so its gonna be kinda hard to stop committing the offense. A DUI might be another example--the DUI driver can't really stop committing the offense for a while, and there is a danger he may go on committing the offense by driving where ever it was he was going.

    One of the circumstances that some states, perhaps all, allow an arrest instead of citation, is if the misdemeanant gives the cop reason to believe the misdemeanant is going to skip the court date.

    Refusing to provide an ID document to the cop while he is writing the citation is interpreted by some cops to mean they've received a ficticious name so the misdemeanant can skip the court date.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Fond du Lac Wisconsin
    Posts
    171
    Quote Originally Posted by rcawdor57 View Post
    When I was young I felt as you do. As I have grown older (past 50 now) my eyes have been opened to many things. The country I grew up in is no more. What happened to it? One by one the people were trained in public schools and from ridiculous tv shows to bow down to "authority" and that it was our duty to comply. Now we have a nation of people that do not even know their rights. Let me give some examples of what is no more: When I was a teen I rode the school bus with either my double barrel 16 gauge shotgun and a box of shells or it was my .22LR bolt action Glenfield with several boxes of ammo. Into the school I would go and put the gun and ammo in the "coat closet" at the back of my homeroom class. In that closet there were usually quite a few shotguns and .22 rifles during hunting season. What happened? Guns were demonized by the LEFT and by their tv shows and news reporters. Gun owners were demonized to the point that now many gun owners are even ashamed to TALK about owning a gun. I have several neighbors that own guns but will not go to the range with me or even show me their guns. They are afraid of what their neighbors will think. What happened?

    When I was a teen and we had a run in with the police we told them to get off our property and they left. (No crime had taken place, they were there to harass us). End of story. Try that now and see what happens. The police do not have the authority to enter your home or property just because they want to....but many police think they do and even more people believe it to be true.
    What happened?

    When I was a teen it was no big deal to photograph police or anyone else for that matter in public. Now try that openly in many states and the police will arrest you. For what? For taking pictures of them. What happened?

    So here we are today in 2010 working to restore this country back to something that resembles a Republic instead of a police state. We don't have many "rights" left and I will be damned if I am going to "voluntarily" submit to any government representatives "request".

    Every right we have must be fought for and not be "given away" just because a police officer asks you to or tells you you have no choice. You DO have a choice. Make the right one.
    Hi rcawdor57,
    I agree with everything you've stated here. I've had very few bad incidents involving police contact in my lifetime. When necessary, I stood up for my rights. As a hobby photographer I'm awhere of the current events involving LEOs. I never took guns to school because I was not a hunter - but my friends did.
    In the scenario presented the OCer wasn't a suspect. As a potential witness the OCer may have been able to provide information to prove or disprove guilt or innocence.
    I understand that I have choices. My favorite uncle, a retired LEO, gave me my first firearm for xmas when I was 10. I just look at LEOs differently. Still believe than most are good and honorable people. And still believe that it is the right thing to do to help out when I can.
    PS ... I'm over 50 too!

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •