Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: I have a quick CCW question..

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Wi
    Posts
    54

    Cool I have a quick CCW question..

    I have a question, When must one "Legally" tell a police officer if he or she has a CCW? Right away or when asked? I cant find the statute..

    Thanks

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    La Crosse, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    286
    Quote:

    The concealed carry law (Wisconsin) requires you to display your photo identification and CCL upon the request of the officer when you are carrying a concealed weapon.

    Unquote:

    It also states: "For your safety and the safety of the LEO it's recommended to declare calmly inform the officer that you have a CCL permit and are carrying a weapon". (IMMEDIATELY).

    "Don't reach for anything unless the LEO "Specifically" told to do so by the LEO".

    This was taken from the pamplet included when I recieved my CCL.

    Hope this helps.

    JJC

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran GLOCK21GB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    4,348
    When asked.....
    Last edited by GLOCK21GB; 11-14-2011 at 07:59 PM.
    http://youtu.be/xWgVGu3OR4U AACFI, Wisconsin / Minnesota Carry Certified. Action Pistol & Advanced Action pistol concepts + Urban Carbine course. When the entitlement Zombies begin looting, pillaging, raping, burning & killing..remember HEAD SHOTS it's the only way to kill a Zombie. Stockpile food & water now.

    Please support your local,county, state & Federal Law enforcement agencies, right ???

  4. #4
    Founder's Club Member Brass Magnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,818
    The pamphlet is not the law. Read Act 35. You must provide the license and your ID when requested with lawful authority. Lawful authority is key.

    For example, if you're OC'ing in a place that you don't need a CCL and a cop asks you, it's without lawful authority and you need not comply.

    Cop on a fishing expedition that doesn't have suspicion you may be carrying....no lawful authority.

    I would never resist and would comply to what I felt was a demand though. I can work it out in court later.

    I'm not a lawyer of course and you shouldn't take my word for it.
    Last edited by Brass Magnet; 11-14-2011 at 08:20 PM.
    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Lex malla, lex nulla

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Wi
    Posts
    54
    So just to be clear, lets throw out a hypothetical... I was pulled over by Johnny Q Law while I was CCing and he askes me for my Drivers license and proof of insurance. I must then show him my CC License as well? I'm not one to push the issues, I just want the facts so my other friends know as well.. seams like a issue that can happen often..

    Thanks

  6. #6
    Regular Member Trip20's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Wausau Area
    Posts
    527
    Here's the part of Act 35 referred to above:

    (2g) CARRYING A CONCEALED WEAPON; POSSESSION
    AND DISPLAY OF LICENSE DOCUMENT OR AUTHORIZATION.
    (a) A licensee or an out−of−state licensee may carry a
    concealed weapon anywhere in this state except as provided
    under subs. (15m) and (16) and ss. 943.13 (1m) (c)
    and 948.605 (2) (b) 1r.
    (b) Unless the licensee or out−of−state licensee is carrying
    a concealed weapon in a manner described under s.
    941.23 (2) (e), a licensee shall have with him or her his
    or her license document and photographic identification
    card and an out−of−state licensee shall have with him or
    her his or her out−of−state license and photographic identification
    card at all times during which he or she is carrying
    a concealed weapon.
    (c) Unless the licensee or out−of−state licensee is carrying
    a concealed weapon in a manner described under s.
    941.23 (2) (e), a licensee who is carrying a concealed
    weapon shall display his or her license document and
    photographic identification card
    and an out−of−state
    licensee who is carrying a concealed weapon shall display
    his or her out−of−state license and photographic
    identification card to a law enforcement officer upon the
    request of the law enforcement officer while the law
    enforcement officer is acting in an official capacity and
    with lawful authority.

  7. #7
    Regular Member Trip20's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Wausau Area
    Posts
    527
    Quote Originally Posted by TheManInBlack View Post
    So just to be clear, lets throw out a hypothetical... I was pulled over by Johnny Q Law while I was CCing and he askes me for my Drivers license and proof of insurance. I must then show him my CC License as well? I'm not one to push the issues, I just want the facts so my other friends know as well.. seams like a issue that can happen often..

    Thanks
    I'll be corrected if wrong, but I don't believe you must offer your CC license in this scenario. If he asks if you have any weapons in the vehicle, I think it's in your best interest to be honest. If he then asks if you have a permit for your firearm, at that point you must provide your permit.

  8. #8
    Founder's Club Member Brass Magnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,818
    Quote Originally Posted by TheManInBlack View Post
    So just to be clear, lets throw out a hypothetical... I was pulled over by Johnny Q Law while I was CCing and he askes me for my Drivers license and proof of insurance. I must then show him my CC License as well? I'm not one to push the issues, I just want the facts so my other friends know as well.. seams like a issue that can happen often..

    Thanks
    In that hypothetical, No.

    Personally, I don't want to be drug out of my truck by an overzealous LEO like what happened in Ohio so I won't just volunteer it.
    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Lex malla, lex nulla

  9. #9
    Founder's Club Member Brass Magnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,818
    Quote Originally Posted by Trip20 View Post
    I'll be corrected if wrong, but I don't believe you must offer your CC license in this scenario. If he asks if you have any weapons in the vehicle, I think it's in your best interest to be honest. If he then asks if you have a permit for your firearm, at that point you must provide your permit.
    Thanks for citing the actual language.

    Yes, you are correct. My answer to the LEO inquiring about weapons would probably be along the line of "none of your business" though. Then he'd have no lawful authority to demand my papers. Once again, my opinion.
    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Lex malla, lex nulla

  10. #10
    Herr Heckler Koch
    Guest

    The higher standard in Wisconsin law with interesting annotations, 968.24

    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.
    History: 1993 a. 486.
    • Suspicious behavior of a driver and passenger justified detention. State v. Goebel, 103 Wis. 2d 203, 307 N.W.2d 915 (1981).
    • 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).
    • 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).
    • 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).
    • 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).
    • 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.
    • Detaining a person at his home, then transporting him about one mile to the scene of an accident in which he was involved, was an investigative stop and a reasonable part of an ongoing accident investigation. State v. Quartana, 213 Wis. 2d 440, 570 N.W.2d 618 (Ct. App. 1997), 97−0695.
    • 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.
    • 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.
    • 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.
    • 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.
    • An anonymous tip regarding erratic driving from another driver calling from a cell phone contained sufficient indicia of reliability to justify an investigative stop when: 1) the informant was exposed to possible identification, and therefore possible arrest if the tip proved false; 2) the tip reported contemporaneous and verifiable observations regarding the driving, location, and vehicle; and 3) the officer verified many of the details in the tip. That the tip reasonably suggested intoxicated driving created an exigency strongly in favor of immediate police investigation without the necessity that the officer personally observe erratic driving. State v. Rutzinski, 2001 WI 22, 241 Wis. 2d 729, 623 N.W.2d 516, 98−3541.
    • 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.
    • 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.
    • 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.
    • 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.
    • 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).
    • 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).
    • Weaving within a single traffic lane does not alone give rise to the reasonable suspicion necessary to conduct an investigative stop of a vehicle. The reasonableness of a stop must be determined based on the totality of the facts and circumstances. State v. Post, 2007 WI 60, 301 Wis. 2d 1, 733 N.W.2d 634, 05−2778.
    • 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.
    • Cell Phone Tips of Crime and ‘Reasonable Suspicion.’ Andregg. Wis. Law. June 2005.
    • NOTE: See also the notes to Article I, section 11, of the Wisconsin Constitution.

  11. #11
    Regular Member msteinhilber's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Verona, WI
    Posts
    125
    If the LEO doesn't have lawful authority to ask me to provide my license, he won't be none the wiser that I'm carrying.

    I had an officer that I got into this discussion with, he's a bit of an acquaintance of mine and is of the opinion that LEO's should flat out know who is and isn't carrying and insistent he would simply ask every contact and I promptly told him he was an idiot. As a LEO, they should by default, approach every scenario as though somebody may be armed - they're trained for that. Under no circumstances should they have a need to know ahead of time if somebody is a CCW licensee because that simple act of wanting to know would imply they would treat contact with someone they know to be carrying than they would treat a contact with somebody they have no idea if they are carrying or not. If officers like this guy got their way and they were able to simply query a database to learn if a contact is holds a CCW license it would serve no purpose other than perhaps make some officers complacent with their jobs and begin to unconsciously be less aware of the situation when dealing with people whom do not show up as a licensee.

  12. #12
    Herr Heckler Koch
    Guest

    The lower standard for CWL licensees. Wisc. Stats. Subsection 175.60(2g)(c)

    (c) Unless the licensee or out−of−state licensee is carrying a concealed weapon in a manner described under s. 941.23 (2)(e), a licensee who is carrying a concealed weapon shall display his or her license document and photographic identification card and an out−of−state licensee who is carrying a concealed weapon shall display his or her out−of−state license and photographic identification card to a law enforcement officer upon the request of the law enforcement officer while the law enforcement officer is acting in an official capacity and with lawful authority.

  13. #13
    Regular Member Trip20's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Wausau Area
    Posts
    527
    Quote Originally Posted by Brass Magnet View Post
    Thanks for citing the actual language.

    Yes, you are correct. My answer to the LEO inquiring about weapons would probably be along the line of "none of your business" though. Then he'd have no lawful authority to demand my papers. Once again, my opinion.
    No problem there, it's not a lie

  14. #14
    Herr Heckler Koch
    Guest

    Drivers License, Wisc. Stats. 343.18 License to be carried

    343.18 License to be carried; verification of signature.
    (1) Every licensee shall have his or her license document, including any special restrictions cards issued under s. 343.10 (7) (d) or 343.17 (4), in his or her immediate possession at all times when operating a motor vehicle and shall display the same upon demand from any judge, justice or traffic officer.
    History: 1989 a. 105; 1991 a. 316; 1997 a. 84.

    There is a public interest in permitting police to request a motorist’s license and to run a status check on the license. State v. Ellenbecker, 159 Wis. 2d 91, 464 N.W.2d 427 (Ct. App. 1990).

    Under Ellenbecker, it was reasonable for an officer who stopped a motorist whose vehicle and general appearance matched that of a criminal suspect to make a report of the incident, even if the officer had already decided that the driver was not the suspect. For that purpose, it was reasonable to ask for the motorist’s name and identification. Once the motorist stated that he had no identification, there was a reasonable grounds for further detention. State v. Williams, 2002 WI App 306, 258 Wis. 2d 395, 655 N.W.2d 462, 02−0384.

  15. #15
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047
    Quote Originally Posted by TheManInBlack View Post
    So just to be clear, lets throw out a hypothetical... I was pulled over by Johnny Q Law while I was CCing and he askes me for my Drivers license and proof of insurance. I must then show him my CC License as well? I'm not one to push the issues, I just want the facts so my other friends know as well.. seams like a issue that can happen often..

    Thanks
    Just to be clear, you don't have to volunteer anything, however, what I would do is pull out my wallet before the LEO gets to the door and have my drivers license and insurance cards in my hand and my cc license easily accessible. I would NOT reach anywhere toward my firearm with the LEO watching me so since my wallet and firearm would be on my rights side, I would get the reaching around done before the LEO shows up.

    If I had either forgotten or the LEO approached so fast that I couldn't complete the retrieval, I would most likely volunteer that I had a firearm if I had to reach towards it. I would rather not get shot.

    Sorry I was brusque in the other thread. Just tying to stay on topic and this way others can see the actual question and a good discussion.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    wisconsin
    Posts
    461
    Quote Originally Posted by Herr Heckler Koch View Post
    (c) Unless the licensee or out−of−state licensee is carrying a concealed weapon in a manner described under s. 941.23 (2)(e), a licensee who is carrying a concealed weapon shall display his or her license document and photographic identification card and an out−of−state licensee who is carrying a concealed weapon shall display his or her out−of−state license and photographic identification card to a law enforcement officer upon the request of the law enforcement officer while the law enforcement officer is acting in an official capacity and with lawful authority.
    In other words a cop conducting a traffic stop just has to say "can I see your driver's license and CCW permit?" and you have to show them your permit, even though they ask the question not even knowing if you are supposed to have one?

  17. #17
    Founder's Club Member Brass Magnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,818
    Quote Originally Posted by bmwguy11 View Post
    In other words a cop conducting a traffic stop just has to say "can I see your driver's license and CCW permit?" and you have to show them your permit, even though they ask the question not even knowing if you are supposed to have one?
    No. Asking out of the blue is not asking with lawful authority, it's just asking. Same as if I met you on thee street and randomly asked you a question. You don't have to answer me either.
    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Lex malla, lex nulla

  18. #18
    Herr Heckler Koch
    Guest
    My argument would be - I ANAL - an officer may have lawful authority to make a traffic stop, he may invent a reason for it. He does not have authority or cause to fish for a CWL in a traffic stop. Someone will get to be the test case.

    Beyond the traffic stop compliance demands on the driver, if an officer tries to initiate a conversation just walk away. You will learn soon enough if he thinks that he has RAS/PC for a non-consensual interrogation. Everything that you say will be used against you. Enforcers are not your friends.

Posting Permissions

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