Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: Van Hollen Re: Citizens Arrest & Authority Private Guards & TSA

  1. #1
    Regular Member Motofixxer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Somewhere over the Rainbow
    Posts
    974

    Van Hollen Re: Citizens Arrest & Authority Private Guards & TSA

    I ran across this and thought it might be useful info. It's a discussion of authority of Private security guards, citizens, and TSA agents in different possible scenarios. It's an interesting and informative read. The citizens arrest could be particularly useful to know if it's ever needed.

    Click Here for JB Van Hollen's responses
    Click Here for New to WI Open Carry Legal References and Informational Videos--- FAQ's http://Tinyurl.com/OpenCarry-WI

    The Armed Badger A WI site dedicated to Concealed Carry in WI

    "To disarm the people... was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." -- George Mason, Speech of June 14, 1788

    http://Tinyurl.com/New-To-Guns to DL useful Info

  2. #2
    Founder's Club Member protias's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    SE, WI
    Posts
    7,322
    Am I reading this right?

    A law enforcement officer is entitled to arrest a person whenever the officer has reasonable grounds to believe the person has committed a crime.
    That is garbage!
    No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. Thomas Jefferson (1776)

    If you go into a store, with a gun, and rob it, you have forfeited your right to not get shot - Joe Deters, Hamilton County (Cincinnati) Prosecutor

    I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few politicians. - George Mason (father of the Bill of Rights and The Virginia Declaration of Rights)

  3. #3
    Regular Member MKEgal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    in front of my computer, WI
    Posts
    4,426
    a) it's worse than that - I've been told, by someone whose legal understanding I trust, that SCOTUS recently decided that it was acceptable in TX for an officer to arrest a woman solely for not wearing a seatbelt.

    b) in WI law, crime = punishable by jail/prison

    a private security guard may, in some circumstances where an alleged felony is involved, detain a person for up to ten minutes even if the guard does not personally witness the felony being committed. With regard to misdemeanors, I agree with your conclusion that a private security guard may not detain a suspect - for any length of time - if the guard does not personally witness the crime being committed.
    He goes on to say that detaining based on viewing a video "may be" illegal.
    But based on his reasoning on pg. 3, the TSAgent could make a citizen's arrest if whatever imagined infraction constitued a "breach of the peace".
    We know how rubbery that's been over the years.
    Quote Originally Posted by MLK, Jr
    The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort & convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge & controversy.
    Quote Originally Posted by MSG Laigaie
    Citizenship is a verb.
    Quote Originally Posted by Proverbs 27:12
    A prudent person foresees the danger ahead and takes precautions.
    The simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences.
    Quote Originally Posted by Proverbs 31:17
    She dresses herself with strength and makes her arms strong.

  4. #4
    Herr Heckler Koch
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by protias View Post
    Am I reading this right? That is garbage!
    The traffic stop stuff that I have been posting is authority to make "an arrest without warrant" and requires only "reasonable suspicion." More...

    ETA:968.07 Arrest by a law enforcement officer. (1) A law
    enforcement officer may arrest a person when:
    (a) The law enforcement officer has a warrant commanding
    that such person be arrested; or
    (b) The law enforcement officer believes, on reasonable
    grounds, that a warrant for the person’s arrest has been issued in
    this state; or
    (c) The law enforcement officer believes, on reasonable
    grounds, that a felony warrant for the person’s arrest has been
    issued in another state; or
    (d) There are reasonable grounds to believe that the person is
    committing or has committed a crime.
    Last edited by Herr Heckler Koch; 12-22-2011 at 10:02 PM.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Somewhere, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,029
    ETA:968.07 Arrest by a law enforcement officer. (1) A law
    enforcement officer may arrest a person when:

    (a) The law enforcement officer has a warrant commanding
    that such person be arrested; or
    (b) The law enforcement officer believes, on reasonable
    grounds, that a warrant for the person’s arrest has been issued in
    this state; or
    (c) The law enforcement officer believes, on reasonable
    grounds, that a felony warrant for the person’s arrest has been
    issued in another state; or
    (d) There are reasonable grounds to believe that the person is
    committing or has committed a crime.



    939.12  Crime defined. A crime is conduct which is prohibited by state law and punishable by fine or imprisonment or both. Conduct punishable only by a forfeiture is not a crime.

    Simple logic would imply that in Wisconsin a person may not be arrested for conduct punishable only by a forfieture.

    emphasis = mine.
    Last edited by Captain Nemo; 12-23-2011 at 10:01 AM.

  6. #6
    Herr Heckler Koch
    Guest
    I agree, but worry about the effect of AB-237

  7. #7
    Regular Member wild boar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    wisconsin
    Posts
    445

    In it's presentation of Case Law, the WI DOJ...

    ...has made it quite clear, that It's not clear at all. I can say that given the bullsh(t set forth by Van Hollen he makes it clear that third party intervention is never a wise choice. I don't know about the rest of you but, I will not get involved with any thing than does not present an imminent threat to those I conceder to be duty bound to protect, my family.


    The WI DOJ, and law enforcement do not want a citizen to protect themselves, if they did, we would have the same legal protection from both criminal, and civil suits as they do in a good shoot. Anything goes down, I will retreat if possible. When the smoke clears I will be telling anyone who will listen that my actions were a direct result of the States intent to persecute a would be good actor.


    This puts conceal carry in a less than piratical light. I am willing to give up the element of concealed surprise for the potential of open carry deterrent. boar out.
    Last edited by wild boar; 12-23-2011 at 03:40 PM.
    The purpose of fighting is to win,
    there is no victory in defense.
    The sword is more important than the shield,
    and skill is more important than either.
    The final weapon is the brain,
    all else is supplemental.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Somewhere, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,029
    Yes, AB-237 is indeed worrisome.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,510
    Quote Originally Posted by MKEgal View Post
    a) it's worse than that - I've been told, by someone whose legal understanding I trust, that SCOTUS recently decided that it was acceptable in TX for an officer to arrest a woman solely for not wearing a seatbelt.
    Not to sidetrack from the Wisconsin discussion, but Texas law is pretty clear on that: every traffic infraction is a Class C misdemeanor or higher. A traffic ticket is a court summons -- an order to appear, or to plead guilty and pay the fine in advance. The traffic stop itself is an arrest. Other than speeding and open container, officers can take a driver into custody to appear before the magistrate for any infraction of the Texas Transportation Code.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    The Northwoods, lakeland area, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,170
    Quote Originally Posted by wild boar View Post
    ...has made it quite clear, that It's not clear at all. I can say that given the bullsh(t set forth by Van Hollen he makes it clear that third party intervention is never a wise choice. I don't know about the rest of you but, I will not get involved with any thing than does not present an imminent threat to those I conceder to be duty bound to protect, my family.

    .
    EXACTLY. and well said.

  11. #11
    Regular Member MKEgal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    in front of my computer, WI
    Posts
    4,426
    Quote Originally Posted by KBCraig
    Not to sidetrack from the Wisconsin discussion, but Texas law is pretty clear on that: every traffic infraction is a Class C misdemeanor or higher... Other than speeding and open container, officers can take a driver into custody to appear before the magistrate for any infraction of the Texas Transportation Code.
    That's screwey.
    So people have the possibility ofbeing cuffed & stuffed, spending the weekend in jail to see a judge, then being sentened to jail time maybe for just running a stop sign?!?!

  12. #12
    Herr Heckler Koch
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by MKEgal View Post
    That's screwey.
    So people have the possibility of being cuffed & stuffed, spending the weekend in jail to see a judge, then being sentened to jail time maybe for just running a stop sign?!?!
    Yep, where's our wannabe, with his, "you may beat the rap but you can't beat the ride" rap?

    It is time to end that attitude.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,510
    Quote Originally Posted by MKEgal View Post
    That's screwey.
    So people have the possibility ofbeing cuffed & stuffed, spending the weekend in jail to see a judge, then being sentened to jail time maybe for just running a stop sign?!?!
    Yes.

    Most police departments have policies against custodial arrest for Class C traffic violations, but it's legally permissible (other than speeding and open container).

    The Texas LEO who has the best explanation of the relevant statutory and case law is "srothstein" at texaschlforum.com. He's a good guy, by every measure.

    If anyone wants follow-up, please post it in the Texas forum. Wisconsin has enough to worry about without interstate cross-talk.

  14. #14
    Herr Heckler Koch
    Guest
    See Wisconsin Statutes 345.22 and 345.23 on "arrest without warrant" and subsequent legal actions.

Posting Permissions

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