• 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.

Search and seizure during arrest without warrant temporary questioning? §968.25

H

Herr Heckler Koch

Guest
We require judicial notice of the ordinariness of gun carry by law abiding persons.

How might a cop determine lawful possession during such detention and temporary questioning (§968.24) that shall be conducted in the vicinity where the person was stopped.

Seizure without arrest is not a statutory option.

Wisc. Stats. said:
§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.
History: 1993 a. 486.

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).

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

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).

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.

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

NOTE: See also the notes to Article I, section 11, of the Wisconsin Constitution.
 

Motofixxer

Regular Member
Joined
May 14, 2010
Messages
965
Location
Somewhere over the Rainbow
"The privilege against self-incrimination is neither accorded to the passive resistant, nor the person who is ignorant of his rights, nor to one indifferent thereto. It is a fighting clause. Its benefits can be retained only by sustained combat. It cannot be claimed by an attorney or solicitor. It is valid only when insisted upon by a belligerent claimant in person." US v Johnson, 76 F. Supp 538.

"The privilege against self-incrimination is neither accorded to the passive resistant, not
to the person who is ignorant of his rights, nor to one who is indifferent thereto. It is a
FIGHTING clause. It's benefits can be retained only by sustained COMBAT. It cannot be
claimed by attorney or solicitor. It is valid only when insisted upon by a BELLIGERENT
claimant in person." McAlister vs. Henkle, 201 U.S. 90, 26 S.Ct. 385, 50 L. Ed. 671;


See the reoccurring wording...you want a right, you have to fight for it.
 

Nutczak

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2008
Messages
2,165
Location
The Northwoods, lakeland area, Wisconsin, USA
"terry frisk of vehicle", yup, the're using that one regularly these days.

if asked to exit a vehicle, immediately lock the doors, and place the keys in your pocket, this removes "Immediately accessible" from the equation, and a non-consensual search is going to be awfully damn difficult for them to justify.
If the vehicle doors are left unlocked, or windows down, a cop can and will most likely justify their illegal search as making sure no weapons were 'Immediately accessible"
If the cop starts busting your chops about locking the car, just tell him it is habit, and do not, absolutely do not allow him to search for any reason whatsoever.

Can anyone cite the case law where it states fighting to protect your rights to not be violated is encouraged, because the court stated that simply being passive is the same as waiving your rights.
So, fight tooth and nail to protect your rights, be belligerent, because most likely the cop is doing the same already to try and bully you into submission.
 

AaronS

Regular Member
Joined
May 2, 2009
Messages
1,497
Location
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
if asked to exit a vehicle, immediately lock the doors, and place the keys in your pocket, this removes "Immediately accessible" from the equation, and a non-consensual search is going to be awfully damn difficult for them to justify.
If the vehicle doors are left unlocked, or windows down, a cop can and will most likely justify their illegal search as making sure no weapons were 'Immediately accessible"
If the cop starts busting your chops about locking the car, just tell him it is habit, and do not, absolutely do not allow him to search for any reason whatsoever.

Can anyone cite the case law where it states fighting to protect your rights to not be violated is encouraged, because the court stated that simply being passive is the same as waiving your rights.
So, fight tooth and nail to protect your rights, be belligerent, because most likely the cop is doing the same already to try and bully you into submission.

Words to live by.

Well worth reading twice.

The only rights you have, are the ones you use.
 

Plankton

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2010
Messages
398
Location
Just north of the Sheeple's Republik of Madistan
Don't wait to be commanded to exit.

Doug/Master Doug/Herr Heckler Huffman: This is not 1977 (the last time you claim to have been involved in a traffic stop). If you want to jump out of your car (possibly armed), and expect LEO to not draw down on you, cuff and stuff, go for it. You may "beat the rap" but you may not survive being shot. Your lack of honoring the rules of OCDO is very telling of your character (or lack thereof).:lol:
 

Lurchiron

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
1,011
Location
Shawano,WI.
Doug/Master Doug/Herr Heckler Huffman: This is not 1977 (the last time you claim to have been involved in a traffic stop). If you want to jump out of your car (possibly armed), and expect LEO to not draw down on you, cuff and stuff, go for it. You may "beat the rap" but you may not survive being shot. Your lack of honoring the rules of OCDO is very telling of your character (or lack thereof).:lol:

Have you no faith in the 4th, or do you just cow-tow to everyones wishes??? If so, I have some commands for you to follow:lol:

I see no statute broken by exiting your vehicle after being pulled-over...
 

Plankton

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2010
Messages
398
Location
Just north of the Sheeple's Republik of Madistan
if asked to exit a vehicle, immediately lock the doors, and place the keys in your pocket, this removes "Immediately accessible" from the equation, and a non-consensual search is going to be awfully damn difficult for them to justify.
If the vehicle doors are left unlocked, or windows down, a cop can and will most likely justify their illegal search as making sure no weapons were 'Immediately accessible"
If the cop starts busting your chops about locking the car, just tell him it is habit, and do not, absolutely do not allow him to search for any reason whatsoever.

Can anyone cite the case law where it states fighting to protect your rights to not be violated is encouraged, because the court stated that simply being passive is the same as waiving your rights.
So, fight tooth and nail to protect your rights, be belligerent, because most likely the cop is doing the same already to try and bully you into submission.

This.^^^^^
 

protias

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
7,308
Location
SE, WI
if asked to exit a vehicle, immediately lock the doors, and place the keys in your pocket, this removes "Immediately accessible" from the equation, and a non-consensual search is going to be awfully damn difficult for them to justify.
If the vehicle doors are left unlocked, or windows down, a cop can and will most likely justify their illegal search as making sure no weapons were 'Immediately accessible"
If the cop starts busting your chops about locking the car, just tell him it is habit, and do not, absolutely do not allow him to search for any reason whatsoever.

Can anyone cite the case law where it states fighting to protect your rights to not be violated is encouraged, because the court stated that simply being passive is the same as waiving your rights.
So, fight tooth and nail to protect your rights, be belligerent, because most likely the cop is doing the same already to try and bully you into submission.

I am able to lock my doors and toss the keys inside. I have an app (Viper Smart Start) on my phone that I can lock/unlock the car (as long as there is cell service). Plus I password protect my phone, so good luck getting that information from me.
 
Top