Holy cow...
And this was done after Act 35 specifically stated that carry, in & of itself, is not DC.
Supposed to not be reason for LEO interference.
One officer says that OP had a leg holster; how is it that the shirt covered that?
(If, indeed, the shirt was even untucked... might be another lie by employees.)
And the employee admits that OP agreed to remove the nasty wasty pistol.
I have issues with many of the actions described, mostly on the part of police & WM employees.
(The only one of the OP's would be 'consenting' to the search of his car, but again, that was apparently coerced... being prisoner in the squad car, presence of many officers, etc.)
I'd get in touch with the area/regional manager (don't know the right title), highlighting where the employee admits to violating company policy (does he even have the authori-tay to tell a customer to leave? probably not),
& highlight where the manager was complicit in this violation of company policy.
Maybe also send a copy to WalMart corporate.
Issue #2 is to deal with the police response.
VERY similar to the Brookfield case (church), the Madison 5 case (Culver's), the West Allis case (planting a tree in his own front yard): the police were told someone was doing something
perfectly legal & overreacted.
(In this case, the most they could get from the lies of employees was that someone was trespassing. Woohoo. Big effin' hairy deal, pardon my language. Hardly justification for having various firearms drawn, ready to use.)
In dealing with this part, be sure that the IA person (or Chief) is given a copy of:
66.0409 (6)
Unless other facts and circumstances that indicate a criminal or malicious intent on the part of the person apply, no person may be in violation of, or be charged with a violation of, an ordinance of a political subdivision relating to disorderly conduct or other inappropriate behavior for loading, carrying, or going armed with a firearm, without regard to whether the firearm is loaded or is concealed or openly carried.
The officer who suggested that, despite this being a protected Constitutional right, the exercise thereof gives RAS for them to bother people in this manner needs to be re-educated.
Might also be interested in some of the court case references I've collected in
my blog here.
Miller v. U.S.
"The Claim and exercise of a Constitutional Right cannot be converted into a crime."
Wisconsin v. Kiekhefer
"The mere presence of firearms does not create exigent circumstances."
County of Kenosha v. C. & S. Management, Inc.
“Selective prosecution when referring to the decision to prosecute in retaliation for the exercise of a constitutional right gives rise to an actionable right under the constitution."
Wisconsin v. Hoppe
"Police conduct does not need to be egregious or outrageous in order to be coercive. Subtle pressures are considered to be coercive if they exceed the defendant’s ability to resist. Pressures that are not coercive in one set of circumstances may be coercive in another set of circumstances."
St. John v. McColley
"Mr. St. John’s lawful possession of a loaded firearm in a crowded place could not, by itself, create a reasonable suspicion sufficient to justify an investigatory detention."
United States v. Ubiles (3rd Cir. 2000):
The Third Circuit found that an individual’s lawful possession of a firearm in a crowded place did not justify a search or seizure.
United States v. King (10th Cir. 1993)
The Tenth Circuit found that an investigatory detention initiated by an officer after he discovered that the defendant lawfully possessed a loaded firearm lacked sufficient basis because the firearm alone did not create a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.
