• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Some Advice?

arkluball

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2012
Messages
19
Location
Baraboo WI
Hello everybody,

My name is Alexander and I have been OC for about a month and a half. before I went out for my first time I read up on what I need to know and am running in to a little bit of a dilemma here. I am aware of 968.24 Temporary questioning without arrest statute that is in place. It states that "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."

So here was the dilemma I was in tonight. I was at the rang in the after noon and left from Madison and was heading up to Wisconsin Dells. I had encased my .40cal Glock in the case and had it unloaded. I got to the dells and the movie theater up there has a no weapon policy so i left it in the car. After that movie I went to the Ho Chunk Casino. I already knew about the casinos no gun policy so i left it in my car encased and ammo in a different compartment. I however forgot to take my holster off. I went in and played roulette on the table for about 4 hours before I was confronted by 2 sauk county officers. The on addressed me and asked if I was conceal carrying and I stated that no I was not. My sidearm was encased in my vehicle and that I only had my holster on. He explained that someone seen the holster and someone reported it. Before the left he said now that we have that clear and you do not have a weapon can I get your ID.

I asked him if I was obligated to show him my ID when I have done nothing wrong. he stuttered for a few seconds and then stated in the state of Wisconsin yes you do.

Is this true? From my understanding from the 968.24 statute it states "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."

So I guess I am trying to figure out if I have to because he said or better yet how would you all approach this situation? Because even as much as it draws attention, Last time I checked it was not a crime to still carry your holster with out the gun in it.
 

HandyHamlet

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2010
Messages
2,772
Location
Terra, Sol
With the sounds of silence.

[video=youtube;6wXkI4t7nuc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc[/video]
 
H

Herr Heckler Koch

Guest
Man Without a gun!

Which crime did the Sauk County occifers reasonably suspect? Once their suspicions were eased, you were not concealing, then you were no longer a suspect.

Do the Sauk County occifers routinely hang out in a casino, or was this a hysterical Man Without A Gun call?

Be careful of trespass law, it's not so simple as enFORCErs and their employers would have us believe.

When they bluff 968.24, call their bluff, make them document the incident with custodial detention/arrest. 968.24 is satisfied by oral identification, a demand to surrender your papers, a violation of the Fourth Amen., requires a warrant or arrest. I ANAL advice is free. Get a lawyer, get the cops radio traffic with a FOIA.
 
Last edited:

arkluball

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2012
Messages
19
Location
Baraboo WI
Which crime did the Sauk County occifers reasonably suspect? Once their suspicions were eased, you were not concealing, then you were no longer a suspect.

Do the Sauk County occifers routinely hang out in a casino, or was this a hysterical Man Without A Gun call?

Be careful of trespass law, it's not so simple as enFORCErs and their employers would have us believe.

When they bluff 968.24, call their bluff, make them document the incident with custodial detention/arrest. 968.24 is satisfied by oral identification, a demand to surrender your papers, a violation of the Fourth Amen., requires a warrant or arrest. I ANAL advice is free. Get a lawyer, get the cops radio traffic with a FOIA.

He asked me is I was "conceal carrying" and I stated no I was not, I am aware of the Casinos policy regarding firearms inside. He then asked for my ID and I asked if I was obligated to show him my ID. He stated yes I was after he fumbled over his words for a few seconds.

See I am totally confused because people say no I don't have to show it, but then on this site http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_Identify_statutes#States_with_.E2.80.9Cstop-and-identify.E2.80.9D_statutes I see Wisconsin is listed as a state that has a "Stop and Identify" thing. I guess it was a call placed to 911 about a possible man carrying a concealed gun. He stated that security could not tell weather or not there was a gun in the holster when they did a walk by.
 
Last edited:
H

Herr Heckler Koch

Guest
You've already done better than the Wikipedia, its citation is just to 968.24. Please talk with your personal attorney. Your rights were arguably violated, there should be a record and you should consider taking action.
 

Mlutz

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2010
Messages
758
Location
, ,
No, you are not required to give any form of ID, unless of course you had done something wrong. Watch the video that was posted above... Time to file an o.r.r... Also, when did Desert Star post? I had OC'd there before Nov 1, no issues.
 

scm54449

Opt-Out Members
Joined
Jun 17, 2010
Messages
220
Location
Marshfield, WI

Brass Magnet

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Messages
2,818
Location
Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
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 com-
mitted a crime
, and may demand the name and address of the per-
son and an explanation of the person’s conduct. Such detention
and temporary questioning shall be conducted in the vicinity
where the person was stopped.

As others have stated, you don't need to show ID; even by this statute, as long as you aren't operating a motor vehicle (there is a small caveat with CWL but since that's not what we're talking about here...). First, the officer must have reasonable suspicion that you are committing or are about to commit a crime; this was quite obviously absent. Even having that, the statute doesn't say ID; it says "name and address". But forget about that for a minute because even though it says they may demand it; there is no penalty offered by law if you refuse!

946.41
Resisting or obstructing officer.

........blah blah blah.......

No law allows officers to arrest for obstruction on a person’s refusal to give his or
her name. Mere silence is insufficient to constitute obstruction. Henes v. Morrissey,
194 Wis. 2d 339, 533 N.W.2d 802 (1995).

So, WI is a "stop and ID" state; however, our stop and ID statute has no teeth.

I am not a lawyer of course, do your own due diligence.



P.S. I live pretty close to Baraboo myself, as do a few of the other members.
 
Last edited:

rcawdor57

Campaign Veteran
Joined
May 18, 2009
Messages
1,643
Location
Wisconsin, USA
Attorney General's Memo....Have A Look...

Here is a link to the memo from the Attorney General on 20APRIL2009: http://www.doj.state.wi.us/news/files/FinalOpenCarryMemo.pdf

Pertinent to your question: ¶9. And “even when officers have no basis for suspecting a particular individual, they may generally ask questions of that individual, [and] ask to examine the individual's identification,” as long as the police do not convey a message that compliance is mandatory. Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429, 434-35 (1991). The Fourth Amendment does not prevent police from making voluntary or consensual contact with persons engaged in constitutionally protected conduct. See United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544, 553-54 (1980). Accordingly, a law enforcement officer does not violate the Fourth Amendment by approaching an individual in public and asking questions. Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 497 (1983). An officer may approach and question someone as long as the questions, the circumstances and the officer's behavior do not convey to the subject that he must comply with the requests. Bostick, 501 U.S. at 435-36. The person approached need not answer any questions. As long as he or she remains free to walk away, there has been no intrusion on liberty requiring a particularized and objective Fourth Amendment justification. See Mendenhall, 446 U.S. at 554.
5


The police lied to you. They do it all the time...due to ignorance or outright lies...never talk to the police.

Added: Never use Wikipedia.
 
Last edited:

Brass Magnet

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Messages
2,818
Location
Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
Added: Never use Wikipedia.
Meh, Wiki is pretty useful for a lot of things. It also provides sources at the bottom of the articles so if you have a problem with the information you can check for yourself. Lastly, if something is incorect; someone should edit the page, that's what Wiki is for.

Here's the pertinent section from the Wiki article:
Interaction with other laws

In states whose “stop and identify laws” do not directly impose penalties, a lawful arrest must be for violation of some other law, such as one to the effect of “resisting, obstructing, or delaying a peace officer”. For example, the Nevada “stop and identify” law challenged in Hiibel did not impose a penalty on a person who refused to comply, but the Justice Court of Union Township, Nevada, determined that Hiibel’s refusal to identify himself[SUP][24][/SUP] constituted a violation of Nevada’s “obstructing” law.[SUP][25][/SUP] A similar conclusion regarding the interaction between Utah’s “stop and identify” and “obstructing” laws was reached in Oliver v. Woods (10th Cir. 2000).

There's no reason it can't be edited in a fashion similar to this:

Interaction with other laws

In states whose “stop and identify laws” do not directly impose penalties, a lawful arrest must be for violation of some other law, such as one to the effect of “resisting, obstructing, or delaying a peace officer”. For example, the Nevada “stop and identify” law challenged in Hiibel did not impose a penalty on a person who refused to comply, but the Justice Court of Union Township, Nevada, determined that Hiibel’s refusal to identify himself[SUP][24][/SUP] constituted a violation of Nevada’s “obstructing” law.[SUP][25][/SUP] A similar conclusion regarding the interaction between Utah’s “stop and identify” and “obstructing” laws was reached in Oliver v. Woods (10th Cir. 2000). In Wisconsin, the court decided that the opposite was true in Henes v. Morrissey,194 Wis. 2d 339, 533 N.W.2d 802 (1995). No law allows officers to arrest for obstruction on a person’s refusal to give his or her name. Mere silence is insufficient to constitute obstruction.

So, if someone wants to edit the Wiki to show this, more power to them.
 
Last edited:

HandyHamlet

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2010
Messages
2,772
Location
Terra, Sol
Mere silence is insufficient to constitute obstruction. Henes v. Morrissey,
194 Wis. 2d 339, 533 N.W.2d 802 (1995)


[video=youtube;eZGWQauQOAQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZGWQauQOAQ[/video]
 

protias

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
7,308
Location
SE, WI
I wouldn't tell them about the firearm in the car as they do not need to know it is there. Perhaps someone else can answer this, isn't the casino part of tribal land?

If an officer ever asks if you are conceal carrying, reply with, "As you can clearly see I am not," or, "What is your reasonable articulate suspicion (RAS)?"

Read this thread: Identifying ourselves to police?
 
H

Herr Heckler Koch

Guest
If an officer ever asks if you are conceal carrying, reply with ... "What is your reasonable articulate suspicion (RAS)?"
An enforcer not under penalty of perjury is not bound to the truth, nor is he bound to dispute with a suspect citizen.
 

Motofixxer

Regular Member
Joined
May 14, 2010
Messages
965
Location
Somewhere over the Rainbow
You might also want to review This Thread regarding the types of detentions and stops. There is lots of info regarding what courts rule to be casual consensual encounters and what is defined as an investigatory stop.

The most difficult issue, is overcoming the fear and intimidation!
 
Last edited:

Brass Magnet

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Messages
2,818
Location
Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
I could be wrong but I thought having a firearm on tribal land or a tribal casino property was a BIG no no.
Found a draft of the Ho-Chunk code. It appears you may store a weapon in your vehicle in the parking lot but it must be unloaded and encased. With exceptions for LEO and such, you must also have a CWL or be a hunter. In the case of a hunter, the weapon must be appropriate for the current hunting seasons...blah blah blah.

http://ho-chunknation.com/UserFiles/Weapons Code - Draft posted on 11-4-11AMENDED - FINAL.pdf
 
Last edited:

Nam-Vet

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2011
Messages
32
Location
Wisconsin/Mfld.
Top