Required to show Wisconsin permit to LEO?

From the SB93 FAQ: A licensee who is carrying a concealed weapon must display the license and photo identification to a LEO upon request of the LEO while the LEO is acting in an official capacity and WITH LAWFUL AUTHORITY. (emphasis added by me)

OK, so what is "Lawful Authority" to demand to see ID and/or a CCW permit? Presently we can refuse to show ID unless driving in WI.

Let's say I'm carrying openly within 1000ft of a school. Does the mere fact that I'm OC'ing within that area provide reasonable suspicion that I'm breaking the law? Wouldn't it be more reasonable to believe that since I'm carrying openly, I probably understand the law, and I have a permit? If a person didn't have a permit, wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that they would carry concealed to not draw attention to the fact that they're breaking the law?

Or is there a provision somewhere in SB93 that a LEO can demand ID and the permit even if they don't have reasonable suspicion of a violation? It appears to all hinge on this "Lawful Authority" definition.

Anyone have thoughts or citations from SB93 to clear this up?

Okay, I'll bump my own thread with some more info...

The wording "official capacity and with lawful authority" exists in multiple places in the WI Statutes.

For example, 946.415(2) regarding Resisting and Obstructing: "... whoever knowingly resists or obstructs an officer while such officer is doing any act in an official capacity and with lawful authority is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor."

According to this statute, "Lawful Authority requires that police conduct be in compliance with both the federal and state constitutions, in addition to any applicable statutes."

So the issue of requiring to show ID appears to be a big-time gray area... LEO's are lawfully allowed to ask questions of anyone, for any reason. So therefore a LEO may ask anyone for their ccw license for any reason, and since the LEO is acting in official capacity and is not breaking the law, it appears the citizen must comply and provide ID.

On the other side of this argument, the conversation is entirely voluntary by the person being questioned unless they are being briefly detained due to the officer having "reasonable articulable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or will commit a crime."

So it's reasonable to conclude that, unless the person being requested to show ID is being detained, they are not required to have a conversation with the officer, and therefore they aren't required to comply with any requests of the officer - as long as they don't specifically obstruct the officer.

My thoughts... When a LEO asks for my permit, I'll be willing to discuss the matter, but I won't ID myself and I will have conveniently left my permit and ID in my Jeep, which won't be searched without a warrant. And we'll see how it goes...

Thoughts??

One final post, talking to myself...

It seems clear that if one is lawfully detained by a LEO (either for a brief stop due to RAS, or as part of a traffic violation or other lawful reason), and one is carrying concealed, then one must show ID and a permit.

However if one is not detained, then apparently one's obligations to LEO's are limited to simply not resisting or obstructing an officer. And simply carrying openly or concealed doesn't appear to be RAS for detainment and involuntary questioning, as that fact alone shouldn't lead one to believe a crime is being committed - even if the person is carrying openly in an area that requires a permit, because there would be no reason to believe the carrier doesn't have a permit.

So, question #1 to the LEO: Am I being detained? That lets us know immediately where we stand, whether we can leave, and whether we must provide ID and a permit.

Only my opinion... Grinner Out.

My thoughts based upon the facts that I haven't read the final version of the new law since the Governor hasn't signed it yet and hasn't struck out any portions of it, and based upon the fact that I am not a lawyer. I'm just a reasonable and prudent man and the following seems reasonable and prudent to me.

1. If you eventually have a permit and are not carrying then there is no reason to show your permit, your driver's license will suffice if an Officer requires you to show I.D.

2. If you are carrying concealed and if you also have a permit then it would be prudent to have your permit on your person any time you carry concealed on your person.

3. If you are legally carrying openly then you may or may not be required to have a permit with you if you have one.

My personal thoughts are that the dual status and confusion caused by potential misunderstandings of when a permit is required, and due to the pending law making two otherwise law abiding people doing the same thing in the same location without any criminal intent, yet having a permit makes one legal or simply subject to a fine but also exposes the non-permit holder to a potential felony charge might seem unreasonably inequitable and could potentially find a case making it's way through the judicial system. I'd personally rather not be that person.

If you make waves in a bathtub you usually end up with a wet floor. Legal or not, it still makes a mess. YMMV

We may have to wait to see what the Supreme Court says to know for sure.