Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Send Senator Wanggaard a thank you.

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Somewhere, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,029

    Send Senator Wanggaard a thank you.

    We spend a lot of time "bitching" about those politicians and officials that oppose us. Lets thank those that support us.

    http://caledonia.patch.com/articles/...ty-legislation

  2. #2
    Regular Member BROKENSPROKET's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Trempealeau County
    Posts
    2,187
    I would love to, BUT he has not withdrawn his sponsorship of AB237 as of yet. AB237 worse than alot of crazy bills and amendments offered by liberal Democrats. Without a public apology to his constituents and removing his name from AB237, he should be recalled. I would hate see the Republicans lose the majority in the Senate, but.................

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Somewhere, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,029
    Sprocket: I agree AB237 is bad law and should not advance. I also accept that your personal opinion of Sen. Wanggaard is your business. However, the problem with law enforcement arrest powers goes beyond AB237 and Wanggaard. Below is the relevant state statute 968.07.


    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    968.07  Arrest by a law enforcement officer. 968.07(1) (1) A law enforcement officer may arrest a person when:
    968.07(1)(a) (a) The law enforcement officer has a warrant commanding that such person be arrested; or
    968.07(1)(b) (b) The law enforcement officer believes, on reasonable grounds, that a warrant for the person's arrest has been issued in this state; or
    968.07(1)(c) (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
    968.07(1)(d) (d) There are reasonable grounds to believe that the person is committing or has committed a crime.
    968.07(1m) (1m) Notwithstanding sub. (1), a law enforcement officer shall arrest a person when required to do so under s. 813.12 (7), 813.122 (10), 813.125 (6), 813.128 (1) (b), or 968.075 (2) (a) or (5) (e).
    968.07(2) (2) A law enforcement officer making a lawful arrest may command the aid of any person, and such person shall have the same power as that of the law enforcement officer.
    968.07(3) (3) If the alleged violator under s. 948.55 (2) or 948.60 (2) (c) is or was the parent or guardian of a child who is injured or dies as a result of an accidental shooting, no law enforcement officer may arrest the alleged violator until at least 7 days after the date of the shooting.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    968.07 History History: 1991 a. 139; 1993 a. 486; 2005 a. 104.

    968.07 Annotation If the police have probable cause for arrest without a warrant, they may break down a door to effect the arrest after announcing their purpose in demanding admission. The remedy for excessive force is not dismissal of the criminal charge. Nadolinski v. State, 46 Wis. 2d 259, 174 N.W.2d 483 (1970).

    968.07 Annotation An arrest based solely on evidence discovered after an illegal search is invalid. State ex rel. Furlong v. Waukesha County Court, 47 Wis. 2d 515, 177 N.W.2d 333 (1970).

    968.07 Annotation While probable cause for an arrest without a warrant requires that an officer have more than a mere suspicion, the officer does not need the same quantum of evidence necessary for conviction, but information that would lead a reasonable officer to believe that guilt is more than a possibility, which information can be based in part on hearsay. State v. DiMaggio, 49 Wis. 2d 565, 182 N.W.2d 466 (1971).

    968.07 Annotation An officer need not be in possession of a warrant to make a valid arrest. Schill v. State, 50 Wis. 2d 473, 184 N.W.2d 858 (1971).

    968.07 Annotation An arrest was valid when a defendant, approached by an officer, voluntarily stated that he assumed they would be looking for him because he had been the last person to see the victim alive. Schenk v. State, 51 Wis. 2d 600, 187 N.W.2d 853 (1971).

    968.07 Annotation Police have grounds to arrest without a warrant when they have information from a reliable informer that a crime is to be committed, when they check the information, and when the defendants attempt to escape when stopped. Molina v. State, 53 Wis. 2d 662, 193 N.W.2d 874 (1972).

    968.07 Annotation A person is not under arrest and the officer is not attempting an arrest, so far as the right to use force is concerned, until the person knows or should know that the person restraining or attempting to restrain him or her is an officer. Celmer v. Quarberg, 56 Wis. 2d 581, 203 N.W.2d 45 (1972).

    968.07 Annotation An arrest pursuant to a valid warrant is legal even though the officer entered the defendant's home without warning or knocking; therefore the court had personal jurisdiction. State v. Monsoor, 56 Wis. 2d 689, 203 N.W.2d 20 (1973).

    968.07 Annotation The fact that a witness had identified the defendant by photograph was sufficient to support an arrest, even though the witness was not allowed to identify the defendant at the trial. State v. Wallace, 59 Wis. 2d 66, 207 N.W.2d 855 (1973).

    968.07 Annotation When an officer, mistakenly believing in good faith that the occupants of a car had committed a crime, stopped a car and arrested the occupants, the arrest was illegal, but a shotgun in plain sight on the back seat could be seized and used in evidence. State v. Taylor, 60 Wis. 2d 506, 210 N.W.2d 873 (1973).

    968.07 Annotation Enforcement officers may make constitutionally valid arrests without warrants under sub. (1) (d) if they have reasonable grounds to believe that the person has committed a crime. Rinehart v. State, 63 Wis. 2d 760, 218 N.W.2d 323 (1974).

    968.07 Annotation The police force is considered as a unit. If there is a police-channeled communication to the arresting officer who acts in good faith, the arrest is based on probable cause when facts exist within the police department. State v. Shears, 68 Wis. 2d 217, 229 N.W.2d 103 (1975).

    968.07 Annotation When bags were heavy and contained brick-like objects obtained in an overnight trip and the defendant's house was under surveillance, there was probable cause for arrest for possession of marijuana. State v. Phelps, 73 Wis. 2d 313, 243 N.W.2d 213 (1976).

    968.07 Annotation The test under sub. (1) (d) is whether the arresting officer could have obtained a warrant on the basis of information known prior to the arrest. Police may rely on eyewitness reports of citizen informers. Loveday v. State, 74 Wis. 2d 503, 247 N.W.2d 116 (1976).

    968.07 Annotation An officer may make a warrantless arrest for an ordinance violation if a statutory counterpart of the ordinance exists. City of Madison v. Ricky Two Crow, 88 Wis. 2d 156, 276 N.W.2d 359 (Ct. App. 1979).

    968.07 Annotation Evidence obtained during a mistaken arrest is admissible as long as the arresting officer acted in good faith and had reasonable, articulable grounds to believe that the suspect was the intended arrestee. State v. Lee, 97 Wis. 2d 679, 294 N.W.2d 547 (Ct. App. 1980).

    968.07 Annotation An arrest by an out-of-state police officer was a valid citizen's arrest. State v. Slawek, 114 Wis. 2d 332, 338 N.W.2d 120 (Ct. App. 1983).

    968.07 Annotation When a defendant's mother admitted police into her home to talk to her son, the subsequent arrest of her son was valid. State v. Rodgers, 119 Wis. 2d 102, 349 N.W.2d 453 (1984).

    968.07 Annotation Municipal police may arrest and detain a person for whom another municipality in another county has issued a civil arrest warrant. 61 Atty. Gen. 275.

    968.07 Annotation A city police officer is a law enforcement officer and traffic officer within s. 345.22. 61 Atty. Gen. 419.

    968.07 Note NOTE: See also the notes to Article I, section 11, of the Wisconsin Constitution.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The problem is not so much with 968.07 as it was originally written. For the most part it says that arrest is appropriate in matters of on-going or resonably perceived crime and outstanding felony or criminal warrants. The problem arises with the case law history of 968.07. I have read literally hundreds of state statutes. I have not found another that has the amount of history as has 968.07. I'm sure as you read it that you will be appalled as I was at the utter disregard the Wisconsin court sytem has for citizens 4th, and 5th amendment rights. All in the court's perverse interest to preserve the police state. While I agree that AB237 is bad law and should not be allowed to go forward I wonder what difference it will really make if push comes to shove at the judicial level. As the History shows: The cops don't even need to witness a crime in order to arrest. They can arrest based on a third party witness to the crime. If I had an axe to grind with you and called the cops and claimed you were stealing hub caps off cars the cops can arrest you even though they were miles away at the time I called. They don't need to witness the crime in progress even though the base statute implies they need reasonable grounds. Our problem with police arrest powers goes deeper than AB237.

  4. #4
    Regular Member davegran's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Cassville Area -Twelve Miles From Anything, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,565

    Question How can we chip away at it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Nemo View Post
    Sprocket: I agree AB237 is bad law and should not advance. I also accept that your personal opinion of Sen. Wanggaard is your business. However, the problem with law enforcement arrest powers goes beyond AB237 and Wanggaard. Below is the relevant state statute 968.07.


    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    968.07  Arrest by a law enforcement officer. 968.07(1) (1) A law enforcement officer may arrest a person when:
    968.07(1)(a) (a) The law enforcement officer has a warrant commanding that such person be arrested; or
    968.07(1)(b) (b) The law enforcement officer believes, on reasonable grounds, that a warrant for the person's arrest has been issued in this state; or
    968.07(1)(c) (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
    968.07(1)(d) (d) There are reasonable grounds to believe that the person is committing or has committed a crime.
    968.07(1m) (1m) Notwithstanding sub. (1), a law enforcement officer shall arrest a person when required to do so under s. 813.12 (7), 813.122 (10), 813.125 (6), 813.128 (1) (b), or 968.075 (2) (a) or (5) (e).
    968.07(2) (2) A law enforcement officer making a lawful arrest may command the aid of any person, and such person shall have the same power as that of the law enforcement officer.
    968.07(3) (3) If the alleged violator under s. 948.55 (2) or 948.60 (2) (c) is or was the parent or guardian of a child who is injured or dies as a result of an accidental shooting, no law enforcement officer may arrest the alleged violator until at least 7 days after the date of the shooting.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    <clip legal perversity>
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The problem is not so much with 968.07 as it was originally written. For the most part it says that arrest is appropriate in matters of on-going or resonably perceived crime and outstanding felony or criminal warrants. The problem arises with the case law history of 968.07. I have read literally hundreds of state statutes. I have not found another that has the amount of history as has 968.07. I'm sure as you read it that you will be appalled as I was at the utter disregard the Wisconsin court sytem has for citizens 4th, and 5th amendment rights. All in the court's perverse interest to preserve the police state. While I agree that AB237 is bad law and should not be allowed to go forward I wonder what difference it will really make if push comes to shove at the judicial level. As the History shows: The cops don't even need to witness a crime in order to arrest. They can arrest based on a third party witness to the crime. If I had an axe to grind with you and called the cops and claimed you were stealing hub caps off cars the cops can arrest you even though they were miles away at the time I called. They don't need to witness the crime in progress even though the base statute implies they need reasonable grounds. Our problem with police arrest powers goes deeper than AB237.
    Thanks for all the research, Captain. You're saying that all those "annotations" are published case law that can be drawn on for future court decisions? Is that because the actors involved chose not to appeal the decision to a higher court? How can we change what has gone before? I'm asking because it looks like we already have a police state in Wisconsin.... How can we chip away at it?
    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.

  5. #5
    Herr Heckler Koch
    Guest
    Case law, stare decisis can only come from an appeals court. Appeals end at the whim of the appellant or when the next court higher declines to hear the case. We citizens are a loong long way from being able to influence case law, thank goodness, being a nation of laws and not of tyrant democrat men.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Somewhere, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,029
    I more correctly should have referred to the history as case precedent.

    stare decisis: [Latin, Let the decision stand.] The policy of courts to abide by or adhere to principles established by decisions in earlier cases.

    In the United States, courts seek to follow precedent whenever possible, seeking to maintain stability and continuity in the law. Devotion to stare decisis is considered a mark of judicial restraint, limiting a judge's ability to determine the outcome of a case in a way that he or she might choose if it were a matter of first impression.

    West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008


    A case decision becomes a "case law" if a lower court opinion is confirmed by a higher court. At that time the decision becomes a binding precedent on all lower courts within the higher court's jurisdiction. Generally it is rare that any court will deviate from a previous court decision concerning an incident of similarity. my opinion
    Last edited by Captain Nemo; 01-15-2012 at 11:56 AM.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Somewhere, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,029
    The closest higher court case I can find that says much of anything about police arrest powers is the case of State v Michael R. Hess. Hess was arrested under authority of a faulty warrant. The WSC implied that the officer that performed the arrest was without fault.

Posting Permissions

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