• 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.

Sheriff's department has concealed weapon scenario-based training for traffic stops

H

Herr Heckler Koch

Guest
http://www.thenorthwestern.com/arti...affic-stops?odyssey=mod|defcon|text|FRONTPAGE
Wrage said officers will ask during a traffic stop or under other circumstances whether the person has a concealed carry permit and if they are carrying a weapon with them.
Wisc. Stats. said:
345.23 Officer’s action after arrest without a warrant.
If a person is arrested without a warrant for the violation of a traffic regulation, the arresting officer shall issue a citation under s.345.11, and in addition:
(1) May release the person; or
(2) Shall release the person when he or she:
(a) Makes a deposit under s. 345.26; or
(c) Deposits the person’s valid Wisconsin operator’s license with the officer. ...
(d) Presents a guaranteed arrest bond certificate under s.345.61.
(3) Shall, if the alleged violator is not released under sub. (1) or (2), ...
(4) Shall, if the alleged violator is released under sub. (1) or (2), ...
Wrage said. “People have the right to carry a concealed weapon with a permit. As long as those who carry a permit respect that right ..."
What irony, a cop requiring that we respect a right that we have wrested away from the gun controllers. Phaugh!
 
Last edited:

DangerClose

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2011
Messages
570
Location
The mean streets of WI
Mack said the sheriff’s department’s training helps deputies know exactly how to react during traffic stops when the driver or passengers have a weapon — which they can legally have as long as they have a license to carry it.

Pretty sure I can now have a weapon in the car even without a license. Well, except in Milwaukee....
 

amaixner

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2008
Messages
308
Location
Linn County, Iowa
“We might get called out on an everyday situation, but the new twist is there could be a weapon involved that we normally didn’t have,” Matz said. “Before, we were the only ones who could bring weapons to a scene, but we’ll have to deal with things a little differently now. We typically deal with good people who make poor decisions,and now weapons are added to those poor decisions.”

Well, he is obviously not someone who follows Wisconsin supreme court decisions. Also, is he saying that carrying weapons is a "poor decision"?
 

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
"I have nothing illegal in the vehicle."

I wouldn't use that specific.

How do you know?


Fair-use excerpt from the article:

We ask that people communicate with us. We’re training our officers in the knowledge that someone will be armed,” he said. “Communication will be the key in circumstances where our officers run across people who are armed. There’s no reason it should turn into a bad situation.”
It appears they desire to make it SEEM to be a lawful demand, yet they actually use the term "ask." What does statute require when in possession of a concealed or openly carried firearm, with the permit?
 
Last edited:

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
Because I am the only one that is ever in my vehicle.

Well, to the best of your knowledge that is the case. Also, you are basically stating that everything in your car IS actually not against a law, whether you are aware of all the laws or not.


Absolute statements such as you present are dangerous. Something you are unaware of could make that statement appear to be a false statement.
 
H

Herr Heckler Koch

Guest
It appears they desire to make it SEEM to be a lawful demand, yet they actually use the term "ask." What does statute require when in possession of a concealed or openly carried firearm, with the permit?
The statutes do not address any demand of a citizen legally and openly armed.
Wisc.Stats. said:
175.60(2g) CARRYING A CONCEALED WEAPON; POSSESSION AND DISPLAY OF LICENSE DOCUMENT OR AUTHORIZATION.
[ ... ]
(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.
I believe that it is well established that an enforcer using merely his big-boy voice has effected a seizure, making a "request" effectively a command.
 
Last edited:

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
The statutes do not address any demand of a citizen legally and openly armed.I believe that it is well established that an enforcer using merely his big-boy voice has effected a seizure, making a "request" effectively a command.

So, if such firearm is concealed per the permit, the 'request' IS a demand supported by that statute. If it is not concealed, then there is no legal 'demand' possible.
 

protias

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
7,308
Location
SE, WI
So, if such firearm is concealed per the permit, the 'request' IS a demand supported by that statute. If it is not concealed, then there is no legal 'demand' possible.

IIRC, they can demand if you are in a "banned" area for non-CCL holders, like public buildings, within 1000' of a school, a state park, or a class B liquor establishment (though, a nice letter from the manager or owner will also suffice for this).
 

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
"I am not aware of anything illegal in my vehicle"

Now THAT sounds like a decent statement.


I think I see the danger here, in that the permit might be perceived by LE as an open invitation to search a person for concealed firearms if a person known to have a permit does not declare a firearm. For instance, if oc, and LE asks for permit and declaration of CC, there is not a statutory requirement to either present the permit or to declare, is there?
 
H

Herr Heckler Koch

Guest
So, if such firearm is concealed per the permit, the 'request' IS a demand supported by that statute. If it is not concealed, then there is no legal 'demand' possible.
Correct, if such firearm is legally (licensed) concealed then the enforcer has no ceteris paribus PC/RAS to request/demand to interrogate a citizen.

Further statute law prohibits a officer knowing prima facie a carrier's status. His permissible queries of the database are limited to after the fact.

Wisc. Stats. said:
175.60(12g) PROVIDING LICENSEE INFORMATION TO LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES.
(a) The department shall provide information concerning a specific individual on the
list maintained under sub. (12) (a) to a law enforcement agency, but only if the law enforcement agency is requesting the information for any of the following purposes:
1. To confirm that a license or certification card produced by an individual at the request of a law enforcement officer is valid.
2. If an individual is carrying a concealed weapon and claims to hold a valid license issued under this section or a valid certification card issued under s. 175.49 (3) but does not have his or her license document or certification card, to confirm that an individual holds a valid
license or certification card.
3. If the law enforcement agency is a Wisconsin law enforcement agency, to investigate whether an individual submitted an intentionally false statement under sub. (7) (b) or (15) (b) 2.
(b) 1. Notwithstanding s. 19.35, neither a law enforcement agency nor any of its employees may make information regarding an individual that was obtained from the department under this subsection available to the public except in the context of a prosecution for an offense in which the person’s status as a licensee or holder of a certification card is relevant.
2. Neither a law enforcement agency nor any of its employees may store or maintain information regarding an individual that was obtained from the department under this subsection based on the individual’s status as a licensee or holder of a certificate card.
3. Neither a law enforcement agency nor any of its employees may sort or access information regarding vehicle stops, investigations, civil or criminal offenses, or other activities involving the agency based on the status as licensees or holders of certification cards of any individuals involved.
 
Last edited:

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
Correct, ff such firearm is legally (licensed) concealed then the enforcer has no ceteris paribus PC/RAS to request/demand to interrogate a citizen.
An interesting conundrum, but it does not say the same as my statement. I spoke of open carry.

The conundrum you seem to present is that statute requires a licensee to respond as defined upon 'request' [which is a statutory demand], yet without knowing a licensee IS concealing a firearm, there is no legal standing for LE to make the demand?
 
H

Herr Heckler Koch

Guest
An interesting conundrum, but it does not say the same as my statement. I spoke of open carry.

The conundrum you seem to present is that statute requires a licensee to respond as defined upon 'request' [which is a statutory demand], yet without knowing a licensee IS concealing a firearm, there is no legal standing for LE to make the demand?
Wisconsin statute does not particularly address an openly armed citizen. Weapons are regulated as to prohibited place and purpose and may not be concealed except as permitted.

It is precisely my point that an enforcer has no standing to make the demand - all things being equal.
 

Outdoorsman1

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2011
Messages
1,248
Location
Silver Lake WI
I thought is was S.O.P. for L.E.O. to treat ALL encounters with caution (not to mention BASIC COMMON SENCE) that as in WHOM ever they encounter WHERE ever the encounter takes place, under ANY circumstances the citizen could be armed... But hey, lets single out law abiding carriers simply because they MIGHT be carrying or actuall carrying LEGALLY....:mad: :banghead:

Outdoorsman1
 
H

Herr Heckler Koch

Guest
I thought is was S.O.P. for L.E.O. to treat ALL encounters with caution
My PD made all SOPs publicly accessible. It was the first in the state CALEA accredited. It would be interesting to know which departments in Wisconsin are accredited. Let me see...

I am waiting for a response to my request for access.
 
Last edited:

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
"No offense, officer. I know you are just doing your job. But, I would not answer questions without an attorney." This has worked for me.
 

hermannr

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2011
Messages
2,327
Location
Okanogan Highland
Officer friendly, could you please explain to me how my having a CPL, or not, or having a personal carry on my person, or not, have anything to do with this (traffic) stop?

Actually, I think the problem in WI will be evident until a few police departments have to go to federal court for civil rights violations and pay out some sizable sums before you will see a change in attitudes.

MKEgal is doing everyone in WI a favor by being a test case. It is in everyones interest that she be supported to the greatest extent possible.

It is just too bad WI does not? have a law like we have here in WA. Malicious prosecution envokes the law that states, the state loses, the state automatically pays the defenses costs. and It is automatically malicious prosecution if the state loses.
 
Top