It's official, MKEGal charged with 941.23

[Grapeshot]

Still ongoing it appears, and not to end real soon either, from reading about it.

And still in need of funds - we're in this for the long haul.

Either use PayPal


or send it to Krysta c/o her attorney, check made out to Krysta Sutterfield.

Krysta Sutterfield
c/o Mastantuono Law Office
817 N Marshall St.
Milwaukee, WI
53202

http://www.mastantuono-law.com

 

[MKEgal]

Still ongoing, both the "loitering" and the "concealed carry" charges.
And slight correction - make the check to the law firm. I have to sign everything over anyway.
They do usually give me any note that came with the check, so if you want me to have your user or real name, or anything else, put it on there.

 

[Herr Heckler Koch]

“As long as it’s in your vehicle, they consider it concealed,” said Tuscaloosa ALOC

Wisconsin is not the only one. “As long as it’s in your vehicle, they consider it concealed,” said Tuscaloosa ALOC

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...s-police-to-quot-challenge-quot-open-carriers

http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/article/20120221/NEWS/120229979/1007?p=3&tc=pg

Even though no permit is required to carry a pistol openly when the person is on foot, a concealed carry permit is required to carry a handgun in a car.

“As long as it’s in your vehicle, they consider it concealed,” said Chaise Billings, a member of the Tuscaloosa Open Carry group.

The group backs proposed legislation that would make it legal for citizens to carry a pistol in a car without a permit.

 

[protias]

Wisconsin is not the only one. “As long as it’s in your vehicle, they consider it concealed,” said Tuscaloosa ALOC

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...s-police-to-quot-challenge-quot-open-carriers

http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/article/20120221/NEWS/120229979/1007?p=3&tc=pg

Good thing Alabama law has no bearing on Wisconsin law. Not to mention, Act 35 took away the restriction of a loaded firearm in the vehicle.

 

[Plankton]

Good thing Alabama law has no bearing on Wisconsin law. Not to mention, Act 35 took away the restriction of a loaded firearm in the vehicle.

Doug/Master Doug/Herr Heckler Doug has always claimed: "IANAL".:lol:

 

[rcawdor57]

Different States...Different Laws....

Several states don't require a license of any kind to have a handgun or even a long arm in the vehicle ready to go. Every state is different.

It's obvious to me that ACT 35 removed any license requirement for having a handgun in or on a vehicle.

The court date is soon to be and we need to help as much as we can....till it hurts.

 

[thenewchance]

was the weapon a handgun or rifle?


167.31(2)(b)1.

 

[rcawdor57]

was the weapon a handgun or rifle?


167.31(2)(b)1.

Handgun worn on her hip in plain sight.

 

[Herr Heckler Koch]

Handgun worn on her hip in plain sight.

The elements for a violation of s. 941.23 are: 1) a dangerous weapon is on the defendant’s person or within reach; 2) the defendant is aware of the weapon’s presence; and 3) the weapon is hidden.
State v. Keith, 175 Wis. 2d 75, 498 N.W.2d 865 (Ct. App. 1993).

A handgun on the seat of a car that was indiscernible from ordinary observation by a person outside, and within the immediate vicinity, of the vehicle was hidden from view for purposes of determining whether the gun was a concealed weapon under this section.
State v. Walls, 190 Wis. 2d 65, 526 N.W.2d 765 (Ct. App. 1994).

 

[Packfanatic]

Glass Doors

The elements for a violation of s. 941.23 are: 1) a dangerous weapon is on the defendant’s person or within reach; 2) the defendant is aware of the weapon’s presence; and 3) the weapon is hidden.
State v. Keith, 175 Wis. 2d 75, 498 N.W.2d 865 (Ct. App. 1993).

A handgun on the seat of a car that was indiscernible from ordinary observation by a person outside, and within the immediate vicinity, of the vehicle was hidden from view for purposes of determining whether the gun was a concealed weapon under this section.
State v. Walls, 190 Wis. 2d 65, 526 N.W.2d 765 (Ct. App. 1994).

bold mine guess we would need to have had clear glass doors then all would be good lol

 

[rcawdor57]

Don't Forget...Dope On Front Seat Is "In Plain Sight" But Handgun Is "Concealed"...??

The elements for a violation of s. 941.23 are: 1) a dangerous weapon is on the defendant’s person or within reach; 2) the defendant is aware of the weapon’s presence; and 3) the weapon is hidden.
State v. Keith, 175 Wis. 2d 75, 498 N.W.2d 865 (Ct. App. 1993).

A handgun on the seat of a car that was indiscernible from ordinary observation by a person outside, and within the immediate vicinity, of the vehicle was hidden from view for purposes of determining whether the gun was a concealed weapon under this section.
State v. Walls, 190 Wis. 2d 65, 526 N.W.2d 765 (Ct. App. 1994).

Strange how a bag of dope is "In Plain Sight" when the handgun sitting next to that bag of dope is "Concealed". Don't we all love "case law"??

 

[protias]

Strange how a bag of dope is "In Plain Sight" when the handgun sitting next to that bag of dope is "Concealed". Don't we all love "case law"??

Shhhh, quit thinking so logically! :lol:

 

[wrightme]

Shhhh, quit thinking so logically! :lol:

Yeah, it might put doug off his feed.....

 

[MKEgal]

was the weapon a handgun or rifle?

I don't have any weapons.

The elements for a violation of s. 941.23 are... (Ct. App. 1993).
A handgun on the seat of a car... State v. Walls (Ct. App. 1994).

WI Constitution, Article 1 Section 25 1998.
Act 35 2011.

 

[Herr Heckler Koch]

Strange how a bag of dope is "In Plain Sight" when the handgun sitting next to that bag of dope is "Concealed". Don't we all love "case law"??

Which "bag of dope" case law would that be, please, a citation?

 

[wrightme]

Which "bag of dope" case law would that be, please, a citation?

That was already cited in one of these mkegal threads doug. A little review, and you can add that one to your list.

 

[Big Dipper]

Which "bag of dope" case law would that be, please, a citation?

Even though the specifics of the existing SCOTUS decisions were not about a "bag of dope", that is a reasonable extenstion of their decisions, including the most recent -- HORTON v. CALIFORNIA, 496 U.S. 128 (1990) 496 U.S. 128 HORTON v. CALIFORNIA CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT No. 88-7164.

"...Held:

"The Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the warrantless seizure of evidence in plain view even though the discovery of the evidence was not inadvertent.
...

"It is well established that under certain circumstances the police may seize evidence in plain view without a warrant. But it is important to keep in mind that, in the vast majority of cases, any evidence seized by the police will be in plain view, at least at the moment of seizure.
..."

Other SCOTUS cases cited are -- Coolidge v. New Hampshire (1971) and Arizona v. Hicks (1987)

 

[rcawdor57]

There Are Many, Many "Plain View" Cases Available For Review

Here are a few: http://www.wisbar.org/res/sup/2011/2009ap002934.htm

http://www.wisbar.org/AM/Template.c...=/CustomSource/Search/Search.cfm&q=plain+view

http://www.wisbar.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=News&CONTENTID=107951&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/where-do-police-have-a-right-be.html

http://www.policemag.com/Channel/Patrol/articles/2006/03/Point-of-Law.aspx

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/id-court-of-appeals/1587836.html

The first few are Wisconsin related....the others are across the states...

Now...isn't it interesting how that gun sitting next to that contraband is "concealed" when the contraband is "in plain sight"?

 

[Herr Heckler Koch]

22 Feb 2012 Wis CA District II Appeal judgement Racine County. 941.23 not charged

http://www.wicourts.gov/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=78325

¶1 PER CURIAM. William C. Bunch appeals a judgment convicting him of possession of a firearm by a felon. The trial court denied Bunch’s motion to suppress the gun found in his car during a traffic stop, ruling that the plain-view exception justified its seizure. Bunch argues that the trial court made insufficient factual findings and that it applied an incorrect legal standard in determining witness credibility. We reject his arguments and affirm.

[ ... ]

¶3 By this time two back-up officers had arrived. Batwinski reapproached Bunch, and Riegelman and another officer removed Hudson from the car and placed him in custody. Batwinski testified that, as the officers removed Hudson from the vehicle, Bunch also moved, shifting almost out of his seat, allowing Batwinski to see the handle of a handgun protruding from the front
of the seat.

The contrasts in Bunch and your lengthy citations seems to indicate - perhaps - a different standard for a handgun that is hazardous and a particular risk to the cops and the dope that is not. I note the contrast between the precise application of case law to the hidden gun and the broad brush for dope.

 

[MKEgal]

The trial court denied Bunch’s motion to suppress the gun found in his car during a traffic stop, ruling that the plain-view exception justified its seizure.
[ ... ]
as the officers removed Hudson from the vehicle, Bunch also moved, shifting almost out of his seat, allowing Batwinski to see the handle of a handgun protruding from the front of the seat.

So a gun that was either tucked under his legs, or maybe under the seat itself, is considered in plain view even though the officer didn't see it when he first looked in the car (or he certainly would have blown a fuse then, instead of later).
Hmmm...
And only the grip was visible.
Hmmm, again.