Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: Police Shut Down All Lanes Of Traffic After Weapon Reported

  1. #1
    Herr Heckler Koch
    Guest

    Police Shut Down All Lanes Of Traffic After Weapon Reported

    http://www.wisn.com/traffic/30151507/detail.html
    Quote Originally Posted by WISN
    WAUKESHA COUNTY, Wis. -- More than a dozen police cars surrounded a car on eastbound Interstate 94 near the Milwaukee/Waukesha county line Friday afternoon for what police called a "high risk traffic stop." Police said a call came in from a motorist reporting a person in a car waving a weapon around. Squads from several agencies closed down eastbound Interstate 94 near Elm Grove Road.

    After pulling over the car, officers discovered that a couple was having a dispute in the car and were grabbing a cellphone back and forth.

    Officers did not find a weapon in the car.
    Imagine if they had found a weapon, even if it had not been waved around?

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    The Northwoods, lakeland area, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,170
    Isn't the case law in Terry V. Ohio supposed to stop things like this from happening?

    It is my understanding that an uncorroborated tip does not make for probable cause or reasonable articulate suspicion. Now if the officer(s) responded on the tip, and witnessed the behavior that was reported, then they have a reason to stop the car, otherwise this is over reaction, and the forwarding of a police state.

    Sickening actually!!

  3. #3
    Herr Heckler Koch
    Guest
    Remember, especially in Wisconsin, "You may beat the rap, but you cannot beat our ride!"

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    The Northwoods, lakeland area, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,170
    Quote Originally Posted by Herr Heckler Koch View Post
    Remember, especially in Wisconsin, "You may beat the rap, but you cannot beat our ride!"
    I agree fully, but I will take "the ride" to defend my rights! Things feel different now than when I was under 40 yrs old, I see a little more respectful treatment from the ones in uniform these days, not much, but better than when I was in my 20's.
    or it may be the iPhone on my dashboard recording the interaction between us that keeps them a little more respectful. I want to believe it is my advanced age, but I doubt it!!

  5. #5
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974
    Ok, on the face of it, this sounds ridiculous and a total waste of resources to call out a dozen cars for this. However, on the flip side, I have to wonder when I read stuff like this, see a chase with a dozen cop cars following a stupid kid in mom's Camry, or any number of cases where I'm thinking "really, it takes 10 cops to arrest that one guy?? WTF?" if it is really a problem with the cops or the cops reaction to overreaction in the communities when a stop goes bad?

    I'm not quite sure how to explain what I mean. I'm trying to say, is that just what cops do now or is it a matter that sure, 2 cops and a baton could take that guy in, but the political fall out from the video makes it such that 10 cops tackle the guy instead leaving a huge section of the town without LEO support because they are all dealing with one belligerent idiot.

    I don't know the answer to this. Certainly it seems ridiculous to see a bunch of cops pointed at a guy and when he runs they continue to point their guns yelling stop when everyone involves knows damn well that they aren't going to shoot a fleeing suspect unless he shoots at them or at leats looks like he has the means and intent too (obviously I am not addressing bad shoots where the BG is misidentified as having a weapon).

  6. #6
    Regular Member davegran's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Cassville Area -Twelve Miles From Anything, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,565
    It sounds like Wisconsin has outsourced its 911 calls to India....


    Dave
    45ACP-For when you care enough to send the very best-
    Fight for "Stand Your Ground " legislation!

    WI DA Gerald R. Fox:
    "These so-called 'public safety' laws only put decent law-abiding citizens at a dangerous disadvantage when it comes to their personal safety, and I for one am glad that this decades-long era of defective thinking on gun issues is over..."

    Remember: Don't make old People mad. We don't like being old in the first place, so it doesn't take much to piss us off.

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

    IMHO they should start...

    ... prosecuting these dumb asses for calling 911 and making false reports. If that's not the problem, then I'll bet It can be stopped if a couple of dispatchers get their ass fired for being stupid. boar out.
    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 2009
    Location
    Southern MO
    Posts
    513
    Oh no we can't do that. Remember big Sis of DHS said if you see something report it. They will probably trace the reporting party down and give them a medal and a reward.

  9. #9
    Regular Member DangerClose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    The mean streets of WI
    Posts
    570
    More than once someone has called the local talk-radio show and said how they called in something like an obvious drunk driver to the police and then the police came to the caller's home acting as if the caller had done something wrong. The callers then said they would never report a crime to police again.

  10. #10
    Herr Heckler Koch
    Guest
    Really?

    Stuck in traffic, one of my great pleasures is calling 1-800-LITTERBUG (not in all cities) and ratting on smokers that flip their butts and dump their buttkits for litter pickers to clean up.

  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 wild boar
    ... prosecuting these dumb asses for calling 911 and making false reports.
    Unfortunately, it'd require proving deliberate lying.
    "I think I see a..." can't be disproven unless the phone the person was calling from wasn't in the area that the supposed offense occurred.

    Yes, I understand the whole idea that an officer has to witness the offense, but how often is that ignored?

    And when officers punish people for following the law (including things like "visiting" the caller who reported a suspected drunk), it diminishes them in the eyes of the public.
    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.

  12. #12
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    In my state you will now be in bigger trouble for handling a cell phone back-and-forth while driving.
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

  13. #13
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Nutczak View Post
    Isn't the case law in Terry V. Ohio supposed to stop things like this from happening?

    It is my understanding that an uncorroborated tip does not make for probable cause or reasonable articulate suspicion. Now if the officer(s) responded on the tip, and witnessed the behavior that was reported, then they have a reason to stop the car, otherwise this is over reaction, and the forwarding of a police state.

    Sickening actually!!
    Not exactly, but its no wonder you thought so. The courts are knocking holes in our 4A rights (search and seizure) almost faster than a person can keep up.


    Actually, the whole area of tips is a little complicated (made so by the courts). There is another idea called indicia of reliability. The concept is much broader legally speaking than just tips, but with regard to tips, it gets into things like whether the tipster was anonymous, whether the cops had received tips from the tipster before, whether the tipster's previous tips turned out to be true, whether the tipster had some special reason for having the knowledge, etc.

    Florida vs JL (linked below) has some info about reliability of tips, and cites another case for additional reading.

    Readers can learn about the 4A by reading wiki at the second link below. The article cites some of the more important cases so you can look them up and read them yourself.


    Florida v JL http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/htm...9_0266_ZO.html



    Wiki article on 4A http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_...s_Constitution
    Last edited by Citizen; 01-08-2012 at 07:34 PM.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Somewhere, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,029
    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.
    968.24 History History: 1993 a. 486.

    968.24 Annotation Suspicious behavior of a driver and passenger justified detention. State v. Goebel, 103 Wis. 2d 203, 307 N.W.2d 915 (1981).

    968.24 Annotation 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).

    968.24 Annotation 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).

    968.24 Annotation 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).

    968.24 Annotation 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).

    968.24 Annotation 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.

    968.24 Annotation 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.

    968.24 Annotation 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.

    968.24 Annotation 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.

    968.24 Annotation 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.

    968.24 Annotation 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.

    968.24 Annotation 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.

    968.24 Annotation 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.

    968.24 Annotation 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.

    968.24 Annotation 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.

    968.24 Annotation 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.

    968.24 Annotation 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).

    968.24 Annotation 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).

    968.24 Annotation 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.

    968.24 Annotation 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.

    968.24 Annotation Cell Phone Tips of Crime and `Reasonable Suspicion.' Andregg. Wis. Law. June 2005.
    968.24 Note NOTE: See also the notes to Article I, section 11, of the Wisconsin Constitution.

    968.25 968.25  Search during temporary questioning.
    When a law enforcement officer has stopped a person for temporary questioning pursuant to s. 968.24 and reasonably suspects that he or she or another is in danger of physical injury, the law enforcement officer may search such person for weapons or any instrument or article or substance readily capable of causing physical injury and of a sort not ordinarily carried in public places by law abiding persons. If the law enforcement officer finds such a weapon or instrument, or any other property possession of which the law enforcement officer reasonably believes may constitute the commission of a crime, or which may constitute a threat to his or her safety, the law enforcement officer may take it and keep it until the completion of the questioning, at which time the law enforcement officer shall either return it, if lawfully possessed, or arrest the person so questioned.

    968.25 History History: 1993 a. 486.
    968.25 Annotation An investigatory stop-and-frisk for the sole purpose of discovering a suspect's identity was lawful under the facts of the case. State v. Flynn, 92 Wis. 2d 427, 285 N.W.2d 710 (1979).

    968.25 Annotation A stop-and-frisk was not an unreasonable search and seizure. State v. Williamson, 113 Wis. 2d 389, 335 N.W.2d 814 (1983).

    968.25 Annotation This section permits an officer to search the passenger compartment of a vehicle for weapons if an individual who recently occupied the vehicle is stopped under s. 968.24 and the officer "reasonably suspects that he or another is in danger of physical injury." State v. Moretto, 144 Wis. 2d 171, 423 N.W.2d 841 (1988).

    968.25 Annotation Although Terry provides only for an officer to conduct a carefully limited search of the outer clothing in an attempt to discover weapons that might be used to assault him or her, under the circumstances of this case, the search was properly broadened to encompass the opening of the defendant's purse, which was essentially an extension of her person where the purse was accessible by her. State v. Limon, 2008 WI App 77, 312 Wis. 2d 174, 751 N.W.2d 877, 07-1578.

    968.25 Annotation Terry tempered or torpedoed? The new law of stop and frisk. Lewis. WBB Aug. 1988.



    Emphasis = mine

    The bolded excerpts are those I feel are somewhat related to this thread. There are other annotations I feel spit in the face of our 4A rights.

    It is interesting yet frightening how case law can slowly but incessently erode away our constitutional rights.
    Last edited by Captain Nemo; 01-09-2012 at 12:15 AM.

  15. #15
    Herr Heckler Koch
    Guest
    Thanks, Captain.

    I read also Chapter 345 VEHICLES — CIVIL AND CRIMINAL LIABILITY, Subchapter III ARRESTS, BAIL, PENALTIES to find statute law on Authority to arrest without a warrant (345.22), and Officer’s action after arrest without a warrant (345.23).

    Then I searched on "warrant" in the Wisconsin Constitution to find overwhelming material, particularly in the material following Article I Section 11 and bearing on "traffic."
    Last edited by Herr Heckler Koch; 01-09-2012 at 02:37 PM.

  16. #16
    Regular Member Motofixxer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Somewhere over the Rainbow
    Posts
    972
    Quote Originally Posted by Herr Heckler Koch View Post
    Thanks, Captain.

    I read also Chapter 345 VEHICLES — CIVIL AND CRIMINAL LIABILITY, Subchapter III ARRESTS, BAIL, PENALTIES to find statute law on Authority to arrest without a warrant (345.22), and Officer’s action after arrest without a warrant (345.23).

    Then I searched on "warrant" in the Wisconsin Constitution to find overwhelming material, particularly in the material following Article I Section 8 and bearing on "traffic."


    Anything interesting? Do share
    Last edited by Motofixxer; 01-09-2012 at 02:23 PM.
    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

  17. #17
    Herr Heckler Koch
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Herr Heckler Koch View Post
    Then I searched on "warrant" in the Wisconsin Constitution to find overwhelming material, particularly in the material following Article I Section 11 and bearing on "traffic."
    There was a lot of reading found. It will take me a long time to read and digest.

    The point that I am working towards is that the authority for a traffic stop in Wisconsin is called "arrest without warrant" and a warrant is essential to Article I Section 11.

  18. #18
    Regular Member PQ36's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Frozen Tundra, Wisconsin
    Posts
    50
    Captain, thank you for taking the time to post. Lots to digest, for sure.

    I could comment for hours, after reading all the annotations, but I won't. (applause machine)

    Just a couple of tid-bits:


    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Nemo View Post

    968.24 Annotation 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.

    This ^ would make a great bumper sticker, or perhaps a bobble head doll holding a sign, while driving in the entire lane, but never quite crossing the line. (did I just say that with my outside voice?)



    It is interesting yet frightening how case law can slowly but incessently erode away our constitutional rights.
    Yep. It's called 'incrementalism' and it has been used very effectively by purveyors of evil for quite some time now. Such a shame that counter-incrementalism is not/ has not been so effective. The principled approach is the only real way to fight incrementalism, but it takes a lot of character to do it (we can't lower ourselves to the level of snake belly, like they can). Keep up the efforts.

    Case law is, at it's core, relativistic. I is one embodiment of situation ethics. Reductio ad absurdum, when viewed it its totality. It is just plain bad.

    IANAL..... (I failed the morals test)

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    The Northwoods, lakeland area, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,170
    Quote Originally Posted by PQ36 View Post
    Captain, thank you for taking the time to post. Lots to digest, for sure.

    I could comment for hours, after reading all the annotations, but I won't. (applause machine)

    Just a couple of tid-bits:

    This ^ would make a great bumper sticker, or perhaps a bobble head doll holding a sign, while driving in the entire lane, but never quite crossing the line. (did I just say that with my outside voice?)
    But, if you explain that to the officer, they will simply change their story in court, it is best to ****, and have your attorney ask key questions that he knows the answer to during cross, and move for dismissal with that case law as a cite.
    What does this lead back to??? "never talk to the police, because everything little thing that you communicate to them will be used against you, not for you, but against you!!"
    if you feel a roadside explanation of your innocence is going to help you later in court, you are way wrong! the prosecutor can simply have the officers testimony to that matter dismissed as hearsay! Kinda sucks, don't it?

  20. #20
    Regular Member PQ36's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Frozen Tundra, Wisconsin
    Posts
    50
    Quote Originally Posted by PQ36 View Post


    This ^ would make a great bumper sticker, or perhaps a bobble head doll holding a sign, while driving in the entire lane, but never quite crossing the line. (did I just say that with my outside voice?)



    Quote Originally Posted by Nutczak View Post
    But, if you explain that to the officer, they will simply change their story in court, it is best to ****, and have your attorney ask key questions that he knows the answer to during cross, and move for dismissal with that case law as a cite.
    What does this lead back to??? "never talk to the police, because everything little thing that you communicate to them will be used against you, not for you, but against you!!"
    if you feel a roadside explanation of your innocence is going to help you later in court, you are way wrong! the prosecutor can simply have the officers testimony to that matter dismissed as hearsay! Kinda sucks, don't it?

    Oh, I agree 100%, wait for day in court! Just having fun with the bumper sticker/bobble head idea.

    My hindsight: I should have motioned for a directed verdict, based on case law prosecution cited for me, in limine. Also need to find out how to handle prosecution making impermissible inferences during closing statements, when I would have been dinged for doing such.

    On topic,

    two things:

    1) Stay psyched up/vigilant for that next bogus car stop/citation.

    2)Fight any the citation, fight the citation, fight the citation. Just showing up for court, even kangaroo court, well, they just hate it.

    Lots O folks are jumping on the Incompatano band wagon, and calling in their fear mongering nonsense. I "fear" it will only get worse!

Posting Permissions

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