• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

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

LOERetired

New member
Joined
Mar 15, 2010
Messages
434
Location
, ,
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/justice/crimlaw/search.php


Don
 
Last edited:

LOERetired

New member
Joined
Mar 15, 2010
Messages
434
Location
, ,
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
 

LOERetired

New member
Joined
Mar 15, 2010
Messages
434
Location
, ,
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
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
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.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
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:

LOERetired

New member
Joined
Mar 15, 2010
Messages
434
Location
, ,
Wisconsin's so-called stop-and-identify statute had no teeth

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
 

LOERetired

New member
Joined
Mar 15, 2010
Messages
434
Location
, ,
reasonable suspicion

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
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
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:

Doug Huffman

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
9,180
Location
Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin,
Well said! I could not say it better.

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.
.
 

1245A Defender

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2009
Messages
4,365
Location
north mason county, Washington, USA
some thoughts,,,

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!!!
 

RR_Broccoli

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2010
Messages
170
Location
WI
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:

Doug Huffman

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
9,180
Location
Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin,
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.
 

rcawdor57

Campaign Veteran
Joined
May 18, 2009
Messages
1,643
Location
Wisconsin, USA
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.
 

Peacekeeper

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2010
Messages
171
Location
Fond du Lac Wisconsin
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.
 

Wisconsin Carry Inc. - Chairman

Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
Joined
Jan 23, 2010
Messages
1,197
Location
, ,
how many times are we going to try to invent a law that does not exist?

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?79636-Stop-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)".
 

Mike

Site Co-Founder
Joined
May 13, 2006
Messages
8,706
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
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.
 

rcawdor57

Campaign Veteran
Joined
May 18, 2009
Messages
1,643
Location
Wisconsin, USA
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?
 

Doug Huffman

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
9,180
Location
Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin,
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:

Peacekeeper

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2010
Messages
171
Location
Fond du Lac Wisconsin
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.
 
Top