me and my wife were talking...

bmwguy11 said:

edit: answered one of my own questions.


But, if we do tell an officer we are a CCW license holder and we are armed, does the officer have the authority to ask us to step out of the car and disarm us and/or search us?

Click to expand...

He can demand you step out of the car and disarm you, he may even pat you down, but not search you.

A legal search cannot occur, unless he has your consent, Probable Cause or a Warrant.

Your question is too vague. It all depends on the situation which was talked about in this thread and the "quick question" thread down lower on the page. What are the circumstances?

Click to expand...

Let's throw out "cop on fishing expedition" and go with whatever would allow a "lawful" request construct.

BROKENSPROKET said:

He can demand you step out of the car and disarm you, he may even pat you down, but not search you.

A legal search cannot occur, unless he has your consent, Probable Cause or a Warrant.

Click to expand...

Got it. Not that I would ever resist an officer, even if I felt what they were doing was unlawful, resisting on the spot isn't going to help anything.

technician said:

Let's throw out "cop on fishing expedition" and go with whatever would allow a "lawful" request construct.

Click to expand...

Basically, if he knows you have a weapon you lawfully need to comply with his demand to see your papers. Let's say that you are OC in a place that only allows OC with the CCL. In that case you must provide it if asked. Similarly, if your CCW was badly concealed and he, or someone else saw it, his demand would be with lawful authority. See below for the arguable point.

If you are OC in some place that it is lawful to OC without a CCL he would not be asking with lawful authority as the license is not needed.

If a cop has RAS (Reasonable articuable suspicion) that you have or are about to commit a crime he can search you for weapons. Then he'll know if you have one or not anyway so if he has RAS, he pretty much has lawful authority.

In a traffic stop, a cop only really has cause to cite you for whatever he pulled you over for. Anything beyond that is fishing. He may ask you all kinds of questions and depending on how you answer may develop RAS which is why it's important to not go along with the fishing.

Arguably, since people holding CCL's are in the minority, it may give a cop RAS if he believes you are carrying a weapon just because most people can't if it's concealed or you are in a place that only allows it with a CCL.

Brass Magnet said:

Sure he can. He can lie his arse off. Police are allowed to lie. That's like a drug dealer asking everyone that buys from him "are you a cop" under the mistaken impression that they have to say yes.


Sent from my DROID X2 using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

OK, I don't know for sure, but I -believe- there are some things that the LEO doesn't normally lie about, and that question "Am I legally required to answer...' is one of them as is 'Am I free to go'. I've no doubt people have been tricked, told they're allowed to go, but then shot in the back as 'escaping', but I think that is quite a rare occurrence. Generally, I think what they lie about (besides making up 'laws' on the fly) is 'Your buddy told us you did it...' and so forth. I could be wrong so your point has merit.

Brass Magnet said:

Basically, if he knows you have a weapon you lawfully need to comply with his demand to see your papers.

Click to expand...

So if, at this point, I do not consent to showing ID (by remaining silent or simply saying I do not consent to showing identification) where would this net me? If I am in a vehicle, does he have access to knowing whether or not I have a license based on the info provided by the driver's license? If I am outside a vehicle (saying walking down the street) and have no identification, can he arrest me for carrying (concealed) a firearm? Or would the latter be cause for the $25 fine (if he could identify me)?

Badger Johnson said:

OK, I don't know for sure, but I -believe- there are some things that the LEO doesn't normally lie about, and that question "Am I legally required to answer...' is one of them as is 'Am I free to go'. I've no doubt people have been tricked, told they're allowed to go, but then shot in the back as 'escaping', but I think that is quite a rare occurrence. Generally, I think what they lie about (besides making up 'laws' on the fly) is 'Your buddy told us you did it...' and so forth. I could be wrong so your point has merit.

Click to expand...

I've seen video of cops lying about the "am i legally required to answer" question.

technician said:

So if, at this point, I do not consent to showing ID (by remaining silent or simply saying I do not consent to showing identification) where would this net me? If I am in a vehicle, does he have access to knowing whether or not I have a license based on the info provided by the driver's license? If I am outside a vehicle (saying walking down the street) and have no identification, can he arrest me for carrying (concealed) a firearm? Or would the latter be cause for the $25 fine (if he could identify me)?

Click to expand...

Please read Act 35 and google "reasonable articuable suspicion" and "Terry v. Ohio". Act 35 would tell you that if you are taking advantage of the exemptions afforded you under your CCL, you are required to carry ID. The other two will go a long way in helping you understand your rights in the situation. I know it may seem arduous, but it'll be better for you in the long run than us spoon feeding you info that shouldn't necessarily be taken as fact.

We try to be accurate but a better understanding of the basics is really mandatory to get the most out of the conversation.

Plus, I'm on my phone...

Sent from my stupid phone using Tapatalk instead of a computer with a real keyboard.

Brass Magnet said:

Please read Act 35 and google "reasonable articuable suspicion" and "Terry v. Ohio". Act 35 would tell you that if you are taking advantage of the exemptions afforded you under your CCL, you are required to carry ID. The other two will go a long way in helping you understand your rights in the situation. I know it may seem arduous, but it'll be better for you in the long run than us spoon feeding you info that shouldn't necessarily be taken as fact.

We try to be accurate but a better understanding of the basics is really mandatory to get the most out of the conversation.

Plus, I'm on my phone...

Sent from my stupid phone using Tapatalk instead of a computer with a real keyboard.

Click to expand...

You typed ALL THAT with your thumbs?

BROKENSPROKET said:

You typed ALL THAT with your thumbs?

Click to expand...

One thumb actually...I've got the Swype keyboard installed. IIRC you've got a droid. Give it a try.

Sent from my DROID X2 using Swype keyboard andTapatalk

Brass Magnet said:

Act 35 would tell you that if you are taking advantage of the exemptions afforded you under your CCL, you are required to carry ID.

Click to expand...

That is the answer, sort of. Thanks.

skidmark said:

I'm not an expert on your new CCW law but I do not see a mandatory inform clause in it. I am not aware of a mandatory inform clause if you are OCing.

Click to expand...

(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.

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.

Wisconsin doesn't have a duty to inform provision, like Ohio for example, where you are required to immediately inform a LEO, during a traffic stop for example, that you have been issued a CCL and are in possession of a handgun (Ohio code 2923.16). Failure to promptly inform could result in a criminal charge - I believe a misdemeanor.

Wisconsin's law does state that we are required to carry our CCL and picture ID and if a LEO asks to see it during a lawful stop, we are required to provide the CCL. Failure to have the CCL on your person is a civil forfeiture.

McNutty said:

Wisconsin's law does state that we are required to carry our CCL and picture ID and if a LEO asks to see it during a lawful stop, we are required to provide the CCL. Failure to have the CCL on your person is a civil forfeiture.

Click to expand...

We are required to carry our CCL and picture ID when using the CCL however we must only provide it for inspection by the enforcer if asked to provide it with lawful authority. Unless RAS develops that you may be carrying under exemptions afforded to you by your CCL, that lawful authority does not exist.

I know I've been harping on this but it's important to differentiate.

Enforcers always think that they have lawful authority. That's what makes AB-235/7 so dangerous. If an enforcer wants to talk the best way to avoid his stupid chatter is to walk away. Unfortunately this bill will give an enforcer courage to detain you and let the DA sort out the paperwork.

I think I was only trying to differentiate skidmark’s comment of the fact that we don’t have a preemptive duty to inform a LEO like some other states and, as Herr pointed out, we are required to carry and provide the CCL to a LEO who is acting with lawful authority during a lawful stop if requested.

Acting with lawful authority simply means that the officer was acting in accordance with the law. Correct me if you think I am wrong but if I am lawfully stopped based on RAS (traffic stop or jaywalking) and the officer becomes aware of the fact that I am carrying in a manner that would require me to possess a CCL or be in violation of 941.23, because I tell him or he somehow observes what he reasonably suspects to be a handgun while getting out my wallet, for example, he can ask for my CCL and I am required to provide it.

McNutty said:

I think I was only trying to differentiate skidmark’s comment of the fact that we don’t have a preemptive duty to inform a LEO like some other states and, as Herr pointed out, we are required to carry and provide the CCL to a LEO who is acting with lawful authority during a lawful stop if requested.

Acting with lawful authority simply means that the officer was acting in accordance with the law. Correct me if you think I am wrong but if I am lawfully stopped based on RAS (traffic stop or jaywalking) and the officer becomes aware of the fact that I am carrying in a manner that would require me to possess a CCL or be in violation of 941.23, because I tell him or he somehow observes what he reasonably suspects to be a handgun while getting out my wallet, for example, he can ask for my CCL and I am required to provide it.

Click to expand...

Yes, The enforcer MUST become aware or have RAS (as you stated in the above quote) that you are carrying. He must have suspicion for that specifically in order to be acting with lawful authority in asking for the CCL. That's an important distinction that wasn't made in your first post, unless I misread it. If he pulls you over or talks to you about something else and just fishes by asking for your license and CCL it is without lawful authority.

RAS is of a crime, neither jaywalking nor a traffic infraction are criminal. Carry of a gun is not per se criminal. 175.60(2g)(c) does not require RAS but only lawful authority. It will take a test case for clarification.

Brass Magnet said:

Yes, The enforcer MUST become aware or have RAS (as you stated in the above quote) that you are carrying. He must have suspicion for that specifically in order to be acting with lawful authority in asking for the CCL. That's an important distinction that wasn't made in your first post, unless I misread it. If he pulls you over or talks to you about something else and just fishes by asking for your license and CCL it is without lawful authority.

Click to expand...

I think we were headed in the same direction just on different tracks...In my first post, I glossed over the basis for the LEO requesting to see your CCL and was simply focused on the the no duty to inform point.

It's been a while since I've been pulled over for driving a little in excess of the speed limit. I don't recall being asked whether there were any weapons in the vehicle as being a part of the initial question being asked by a LEO during the stop while asking for my license but maybe that will become SOP.

Brass Magnet said:

One thumb actually...I've got the Swype keyboard installed. IIRC you've got a droid. Give it a try.

Sent from my DROID X2 using Swype keyboard andTapatalk

Click to expand...

I used to know a guy named Hans...he used to keep one thumb in a dyke, that is when he wasn't out tearing up the ice rinks on his silver skates.
View attachment 7418