Involved in an accident, and they detain me & my weapons!??!?!?

[Interceptor_Knight]

imported post

Doug Huffman wrote:

Doug Huffman wrote:

The Leviathan will not be sated until we are all disarmed of wits and weapons.

The conspiracy of ignorance masquerades as common sense.

Your choices as I see it areto comply and fight the legislation up to and including file a lawsuit based on the law being unconstitutional while not risking confrontation with a LEO, or ignore the law and carry a prohibited weapon knowing that you may be cited and charged. You then need to be prepared for the consequences and whether or not you are willing and have the resources to appeal or otherwise fight the conviction.

I will refer you to the case of David Olofson. When you mess with the bull you may get the horns...

 

[Landose_theghost]

imported post

Hey thanks for all the insight on this one. I know somebody had asked for a pix of my knives...they're posted below. The s&w & Ekt are the EXACT ones I was wearing, the Dagger was custom made but looks close to the one i've posted here.

 

[pvtschultz]

imported post

That EKT sure doesn't look like a "switch blade" to me since it obviously has that little button on the blade such that it is required of your thumb or other digit to manually apply pressure to actually open the knife.



I'd fight it. And then I'd call Jesus' lawyer and talk about a Fourth Amendment federal civil rights lawsuit. By them taking you down to the "cop shop" with having been notified of your Miranda rights, you were unlawfully arrested. Plus, they could be charged with a "Color of Law" violation since they unlawfully arrested you. Ignorance of the law is not a defense in these cases. I don't have all the citations required to make this a truly proper post and IANAL so this is not legal advice, of course.

 

[Brass Magnet]

imported post

Sorrell v. McGuigan may be a useful cite in this case:

Crispin Sorrell sued Sergeant Michael F. McGuigan of the Charles County, Maryland, Sheriff's Department, claiming among other things that McGuigan was liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for illegally arresting him for carrying a folding knife with a three-inch blade. In summary judgment proceedings, the district court concluded that McGuigan arrested Sorrell without probable cause. The court also concluded that McGuigan was not entitled to qualified immunity because it was clearly established at the time of Sorrell's arrest that his knife fit within the penknife exception to Maryland's concealed weapons law.

Somewhat similar to say the least. This is also a case where the courts say that ignorance of the law is no excuse; and that INCLUDES the officers.

 

[Landose_theghost]

imported post

I'm not sure how to get in contact with Jesus' lawyer, anybody have an e-mail address?

 

[AaronS]

imported post

Now I do not know about the knife laws at all, but it would seem to me that a knife on your hip in a car, is just like a gun on your hip in a car. Am I way off?

I would have thought that a large (over 3") knife would be considered a weapon, and might fall into the concealed issue when it is in a car. Again, I have never looked up any knife laws...

 

[Shotgun]

imported post

I am assuming this knife if of the "assisted opening" variety? If so, it's not a switchblade. A "butterfly knife" is not a "gravity knife" either. There is as much ignorance and misunderstanding of knives as there is of guns.

 

[Landose_theghost]

imported post

Yea it's a "spring assisted" knife,much different than a "switch blade" and that's what I tried to tell the officer(s). They said there was no difference and that I'm still going to be booked. Idk,figure me wrong but why all the fuss about my knives in the 1st place? I mean, both parties were involved in a head on collision and they spent all their time dealing with me, that's what I don't get.:banghead:

 

[Landose_theghost]

imported post

on a related note, does anyone know how to go about obtaining the police report from the said incident? As well as officers names...etc?

 

[Doug Huffman]

imported post

Yes. Through a Freedom of Information Act request as specified in Wisc. Statute Chapter 19, General Duties of Public Officials, sub-section 19.31 - 19.39 and as explained in the Wisconsin Department of Justice Open Records Guide http://www.doj.state.wi.us/dls/2008-PRCO/2008_Pub_Rec_Outline.pdf 760 MB 90 pages.

Specifically,

The Request.
A. Requests do not have to be in writing. Wis. Stat. § 19.35(1)(h).
B. The requester generally does not have to identify himself or herself. Wis. Stat.
§ 19.35(1)(i). Caution: Certain substantive statutes, such as those concerning
student records and health records, may restrict record access to specified persons.
When records of that nature are the subject of a public records request, the custodian
should confirm before releasing the records that the requester is someone statutorily
authorized to obtain the requested records. See Wis. Stat. § 19.35(1)(i) for other
limited circumstances in which a requester may be required to show identification.
C. The requester does not need to state the purpose of the request. Wis. Stat.
§ 19.35(1)(h) and (i).
D. The request must be reasonably specific as to subject matter and length of time
involved. Wis. Stat. § 19.35(1)(h). Schopper v. Gehring, 210 Wis. 2d 208, 212-13,
565 N.W.2d 187, 189-90 (Ct. App. 1997) (request for tape and transcript of three
hours of 911 calls on 60 channels is not reasonably specific).
1. The purpose of the time and subject matter limitations is to prevent
unreasonably burdening a records custodian by requiring the custodian to
spend excessive amounts of time and resources deciphering and responding
to a request. Schopper, 210 Wis. 2d at 213, 565 N.W.2d at 190; Gehl,
2007 WI App 238, ¶ 17, 306 Wis. 2d 247, ¶ 17, 742 N.W.2d 530, ¶ 17.
2. The public records law will not be interpreted to impose such a burden upon
a records custodian that normal functioning of the office would be severely
impaired. Schopper, 210 Wis. 2d at 213, 565 N.W.2d at 190.
3. A custodian should not have to guess at what records a requester desires.
Seifert, 2007 WI App 207, ¶ 42, 305 Wis. 2d 582, ¶ 42, 740 N.W.2d 177,
¶ 42.
4. A custodian may not deny a request solely because the custodian believes
that the request could be narrowed. Gehl, 2007 WI App 238, ¶ 20,
306 Wis. 2d 247, ¶ 20, 742 N.W.2d 530, ¶ 20.
- 12 -
5. The fact that a public records request may result in generation of a large
volume of records is not in itself a sufficient reason to deny a request as not
properly limited. Gehl, 2007 WI App 238, ¶ 23, 306 Wis. 2d 247, ¶ 23,
742 N.W.2d 530, ¶ 23.
a. At some point, an overly broad request becomes sufficiently
excessive to warrant rejection pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 19.35(1)(h).
Gehl, 2007 WI App 238, ¶ 24, 306 Wis. 2d 247, ¶ 24,
742 N.W.2d 530, ¶ 24.
b. The public records law does not impose unlimited burdens on
authorities and custodians. Gehl, 2007 WI App 238, ¶ 23,
306 Wis. 2d 247, ¶ 23, 742 N.W.2d 530, ¶ 23 (request too
burdensome when it would have required production of voluminous
records relating to virtually all county zoning matters over a two-year
period, without regard to the parties involved or whether the matters
implicated requester’s interests in any way).
E. “Magic words” are not required.
1. A request which reasonably describes the information or record requested is
sufficient. Wis. Stat. § 19.35(1)(h).
2. A request, reasonably construed, triggers the statutory requirement to
respond. For example, a request made under the “Freedom of Information
Act” should be interpreted as being made under Wisconsin public records
law. See ECO, Inc. v. City of Elkhorn, 2002 WI App 302, ¶ 23,
259 Wis. 2d 276, ¶ 23, 655 N.W.2d 510, ¶ 23.
3. A request is sufficient if it is directed at an authority and reasonably
describes the records or information requested. Seifert, 2007 WI App 207,
¶ 39, 305 Wis. 2d 582, ¶ 39, 740 N.W.2d 177, ¶ 39 (request for records
created during investigation or relate to disposition of investigation not
construed to include billing records of attorneys involved in investigation).
F. “Continuing” requests are not contemplated by the public records law. “The
right of access applies only to records that exist at the time the request is made, and
the law contemplates custodial decisions being made with respect to a specific
request at the time the request is made.” 73 Op. Att’y Gen. 37, 44 (1984).

 

[Lammie]

imported post

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Remember the concealed weapon statute makes no mention of firearms it reads "goes armed with a concealed and dangerous weapon" Technically a knife (any knife) concealed in a pocket meets the definition. There also is no mention in the knife laws of "minimum" blade length. If a "pocket knife" is capable of conflictingsignificant bodily harm or death it is by definition a "dangerous weapon".

A sheath knife worn on the belt, but out of ordinary view and within reach, also falls under the scope of a concealed weapon, doesn't matter if it is a "switchblade" or not.

 

[Doug Huffman]

imported post

Thank you. And thank you for de-lurking and illuminating what should be fundamental knowledge. Here is an illustration of the benefits of a convocation of critical readers and literate correspondents.

Where's No1 to "Oh, mee two!"

 

[Doug Huffman]

imported post

Landose_theghost wrote:

I'm not sure how to get in contact with Jesus' lawyer, anybody have an e-mail address?

Krause's attorney works (or worked at the time) for http://www.housemanlaw.com/ I don't recall the other ever specifying his attorney.

 

[J.Gleason]

imported post

Landose_theghost wrote:

on a related note, does anyone know how to go about obtaining the police report from the said incident? As well as officers names...etc?

The form is in Word format and easy to use.

Jesus' Attorney info:

John R. Monroe
Attorney at Law
9640 Coleman Road
Roswell, GA 30075
Telephone: (678) 362-7650
Facsimile: (770) 552-9318
john.monroe1@earthlink.net

 

[Doug Huffman]

imported post

Well, since now the requirements for the response have been brought to issue, here is the relevant portion of of the above specified compliance guide.

The Response to the Request.
A. Mandatory. The custodian must respond to a public records request. ECO, Inc,
259 Wis. 2d 276, ¶¶ 13-14.
B. Timing. Response must be provided “as soon as practicable and without delay.”
Wis. Stat. § 19.35(4)(a).
1. The public records law does not require response within any specific time,
such as “two weeks” or “48 hours.”
2. DOJ policy is that ten working days is generally a reasonable time for
response, or, if the response cannot be completed within that time, a
communication indicating that a response is being prepared.
3. What constitutes a reasonable time for a response to any specific request
depends on the nature of the request, the staff and other resources
available to the authority to process the request, the extent of the request,
and related considerations.
4. Requests for public records should be given high priority.
5. Compliance at some unspecified future time is not authorized by the
public records law. The custodian has two choices: comply or deny.
WTMJ, Inc. v. Sullivan, 204 Wis. 2d 452, 457-58, 555 N.W.2d 140
(Ct. App. 1996); WIREdata, 2007 WI App 22, ¶ 53.
6. An arbitrary and capricious delay or denial exposes the custodian to punitive
damages and a $1,000.00 forfeiture. Wis. Stat. § 19.37. See Section XIII. of
this outline for further information.
C. Format. If the request is in writing, a denial or partial denial of access also must be in writing. Wis. Stat. § 19.35(4)(b).
D. Content. Reasons for denial must be specific and sufficient. Cf. Hempel,
284 Wis. 2d 162, ¶¶ 25-26.
1. A custodian need not provide facts supporting the reasons it identifies for
denying a public records request, but must provide specific reasons for the
denial. Hempel, 284 Wis. 2d 162, ¶ 79.
2. Just stating a conclusion without explaining specific reasons for denial does
not satisfy the requirement of specificity.
a. If confidentiality of requested records is guaranteed by statute,
citation to that statute is sufficient.
b. If further discussion is needed, a custodian’s denial of access to a
public record must be accompanied by a statement of the specific
public policy reasons for refusal. Chvala v. Bubolz, 204 Wis. 2d 82,
86-87, 552 N.W.2d 892 (Ct. App. 1996). The specificity
requirement is not met by mere citation to the open meetings
exemption statute, or bald assertion that release is not in the public
interest. Journal/Sentinel, Inc. v. Aagerup, 145 Wis. 2d 818, 823,
429 N.W.2d 772 (Ct. App. 1988). But see State ex rel. Blum v.
Board of Education, 209 Wis. 2d 377, 386-88, 565 N.W.2d 140
(Ct. App. 1997) (failure to cite statutory section that warrants
withholding requested records does not mandate that court order
access).
c. Need to restrict access must still exist at the time the request is made
for the record. Reason to close a meeting under Wis. Stat. § 19.85 is
not sufficient reason alone to subsequently deny access to a record of
the meeting. Wis. Stat. § 19.35(1)(a).
3. The purpose of the specificity requirement is to give adequate notice of the
basis for denial, and to ensure that the custodian has exercised judgment.
Journal/Sentinel, Inc, 145 Wis. 2d at 824.
4. The specificity requirement provides a means of preventing custodians from
arbitrarily denying access to public records.
5. The sufficiency requirement provides the requester with sufficient notice of
reasons for denial to enable him or her to prepare a challenge, and provides a
basis for review in the event of a court action.
6. An offer of compliance, but conditioned on unauthorized costs and terms,
constitutes a denial. WIREdata, 2007 WI App 22, ¶ 57.
7. Denial of a written request must inform the requester that the denial is
subject to review in an action for mandamus under Wis. Stat. § 19.37(1), or
by application to the local district attorney or Attorney General. Wis. Stat.
§ 19.35(4)(b).
8. If denial of a public records request is challenged in a mandamus proceeding,
the court will examine the sufficiency of the reasons stated for denying the
request.
a. On review, it is not the court’s role to hypothesize or consider
reasons not asserted by the custodian’s response. If the custodian
fails to state sufficient reasons for denying the request, the court will
issue a writ of mandamus compelling disclosure of the requested
records. Osborn v. Board of Regents, 2002 WI 83, ¶ 16, 254 Wis. 2d
266, 647 N.W.2d 158; accord Beckon v. Emery, 36 Wis. 2d 510,
516, 153 N.W.2d 501 (1967) (court may order mandamus even if
sound, but unstated, reasons exist or can be conceived of by the
court); Kroeplin v. Wisconsin Dep’t of Natural Res.,
2006 WI App 227, ¶ 45, 297 Wis. 2d 254, 725 N.W.2d 286. Cf.
Blum, 209 Wis. 2d at 388-91 (an authority’s failure to cite specific
statutory exemption justifying nondisclosure does not preclude the
court from considering statutory exemption).
b. The reviewing court is free to evaluate the strength of the custodian’s
reasoning, in the absence of facts. But factual support for the
custodian’s reasoning in the statement of denial likely will strengthen
the custodian’s case before the reviewing court. Hempel,
284 Wis. 2d 162, ¶ 80.
E. Redaction. If part of the record is disclosable, that part must be disclosed. Wis.
Stat. § 19.36(6).
1. An authority is not relieved of the duty to redact non-disclosable portions
just because the authority believes that redacting confidential information is
burdensome. Osborn, 254 Wis. 2d 266, ¶ 46.
2. However, an authority does not have to extract information from existing
records and compile it in a new format. Wis. Stat. § 19.35(1)(L); WIREdata,
2007 WI App 22, ¶ 36.
F. Motive and Context. A requester need not state or provide a reason for his or her request. Wis. Stat. § 19.35(1)(i). When performing the balancing test described
below in Section VIII.F., however, a custodian “almost inevitably must evaluate
context to some degree.” Hempel, 284 Wis. 2d 162, ¶ 66.

============================================================
Ockham's razor is the principle that "entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily." including legalistic entities.

 

[Shotgun]

imported post

Landose_theghost wrote:

Yea it's a "spring assisted" knife,much different than a "switch blade" and that's what I tried to tell the officer(s). They said there was no difference and that I'm still going to be booked. Idk,figure me wrong but why all the fuss about my knives in the 1st place? I mean, both parties were involved in a head on collision and they spent all their time dealing with me, that's what I don't get.:banghead:

If the officer doesn't know the difference, then he's ignorant and about to get a much needed education. Um, for starters, switchblades have "a switch."

 

[Shotgun]

imported post

Lammie wrote:

Technically a knife (any knife) concealed in a pocket meets the definition. There also is no mention in the knife laws of "minimum" blade length. If a "pocket knife" is capable of conflictingsignificant bodily harm or death it is by definition a "dangerous weapon".

Not really. Not all knives are designed as weapons. Technically to be a "concealed weapon" something has to either be designed as a weapon, or employed as a weapon. A steak knife is not designed as a weapon, but could certainly be used as a weapon-- but that's also true of a ballpoint pen, a baseball bat, a screwdriver, and countless other objects.

Landose was not charged with concealing, but with having a switchblade-- obviously by an ignorant police officer. Perhaps the DA's office will be smarter.

 

[Brass Magnet]

imported post

Shotgun wrote:

Lammie wrote:

Technically a knife (any knife) concealed in a pocket meets the definition. There also is no mention in the knife laws of "minimum" blade length. If a "pocket knife" is capable of conflictingsignificant bodily harm or death it is by definition a "dangerous weapon".

Not really. Not all knives are designed as weapons. Technically to be a "concealed weapon" something has to either be designed as a weapon, or employed as a weapon. A steak knife is not designed as a weapon, but could certainly be used as a weapon-- but that's also true of a ballpoint pen, a baseball bat, a screwdriver, and countless other objects.

Landose was not charged with concealing, but with having a switchblade-- obviously by an ignorant police officer. Perhaps the DA's office will be smarter.

Really? I don't know. It's pretty vauge.

939.22

(10) “Dangerous weapon” means any firearm, whether
loaded or unloaded; any device designed as a weapon and capable
of producing death or great bodily harm; any ligature or other
instrumentality used on the throat, neck, nose, or mouth of another
person to impede, partially or completely, breathing or circulation
of blood; any electric weapon, as defined in s. 941.295 (4); or any
other device or instrumentality which, in the manner it is used or
intended to be used, is calculated or likely to produce death or
great bodily harm.

Looks like it fits any knife to me.:uhoh: I suppose that you could argue that a pocket knife isn't intended to be used to produce death or great bodily harm. However; if you were to say to the officer that you were carrying anything at all for "protection" then your item, be it a knife, or a wooden spoon would probably fit the definition.

 

[GlockMeisterG21]

imported post

Yea, that's why I say it's for "utility" proposes. You never know when you need to open a box or slice off a piece of apple.

 

[AaronS]

imported post

GlockMeisterG21 wrote:

Yea, that's why I say it's for "utility" proposes. You never know when you need to open a box or slice off a piece of apple.

I am not thinking that one would use a dagger for this, but who am I...

Of the three knifes I see, I would say two could have gotten you a concealed charge, but again IANAL, or a cop... If a concealed charge could have been filed, I think you might have gotten off easy.