• 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.

Madison PD tears up obstruction tickets D/O/C tickets to all 5 Culvers OCers!!

Shotgun

Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
Joined
Aug 23, 2006
Messages
2,668
Location
Madison, Wisconsin, USA
For Immediate Release:
Sep 22, 2010

For More Information Contact:
Joel DeSpain
266-4897

OPEN CARRY & THE MPD
New Charges To Be Issued Regarding Culver's Incident

The Madison Police Department (MPD) has conducted a review of an incident that took place this past Saturday night at Culver's Frozen Custard restaurant, 4301 East Towne Blvd. Based upon the further investigation, Chief Noble Wray has concluded the appropriate charge for all 5 armed individuals is Disorderly Conduct (DC). Accordingly, DC citations will be issued, and Obstructing a Peace Officer tickets given to two will be rescinded.

Officers were dispatched to the restaurant around 6:50 p.m. after a 62-year old Madison woman called 911. She had just observed several men with handguns in holsters enter the crowded Culver's restaurant. In her initial statement to officers, she stated" I didn't know what the law was, and I thought I should at least call so the police can come and check it out cause I didn't want to be that one person that saw guns and didn't call, and then have something terrible happen". In a follow-up interview with detectives, she further stated that she thought it was very odd that these individuals with guns would be at a family place. She noted she felt somewhat "rattled" and also "felt uneasy" about the subjects having the handguns at the family restaurant. She went on to say that they all appeared calm, but noted "people who shoot up restaurants also look calm before it happens." She did state that she was very concerned that if she didn't make the call and something did happen, she would feel horrible.

The MPD made contact Saturday night with the five men who were openly carrying handguns. Upon officers' requests, three of five produced identification so that officers could determine they were not convicted criminals. Two of five refused to produce identification and were issued Obstructing a Peace Officer citations. It was determined they were not felons and handguns were returned.

The officers were faced with an ambiguous situation. When responding to investigate suspicious - or potentially dangerous - circumstances, police must:

• Preserve or Restore Order and Public Safety.
• Investigate whether a crime had been committed, was being committed, or was about to be committed.
• Protect the Constitutional Rights of those involved.

The complainant's statement clearly reveals that she recognized the potential for violence from these armed men, and it was this fear that motivated her call to police. On the basis of this fact, the MPD will be rescinding the 2 obstructing citations. They were issued in error. Instead, citations for City Ordinance DC will be given to those who engaged in the behavior that led to the need for police to be called.

The DC statute does not require an actual disturbance take place, only that conduct in question is of a type that tends to cause or provoke a disturbance


Chief Wray wants to make clear: It is the department's wish that concerned citizens call 911 when they see armed subjects.

Following Saturday's incident, he sent an internal memo to all officers:

MPD officers regularly are dispatched to reports of individuals who are armed with firearms. When responding to these incidents, officers should:

• Approach the suspect using the proper tactical response. The individual should be contacted, controlled, and frisked for weapons if appropriate. Officers should separate the suspect from any weapons in his/her possession during the encounter.

• Officers should conduct a thorough investigation to determine whether any violations of state statute or city ordinance have occurred. Some of the relevant offenses to consider include:
• Carrying a Concealed Weapon (§941.23)
• Disorderly Conduct (§947.01)
• Carrying a Firearm in Public Building (§941.235)
• Carrying Handgun Where Alcohol Beverages May be Sold and Consumed (§941.237)
• Being a Felon in Possession of a Firearm (§941.29)
• Safe Use and Transportation of Firearms (§167.31)
• Possession of Short-Barreled Shotgun or Short-Barreled Rifle (§941.28)
• Gun-free School Zones (§948.605)
• Possession of a Dangerous Weapon by a Person Under 18 (§948.60)
• Endangering Safety by Use of Dangerous Weapon (§941.20)

• Officers should verify that the firearm is not stolen, and attempt to verify that the person possessing the firearm is not legally barred from doing so (as a felon, due to an injunction, etc.). However, someone who has been detained is not legally obligated to provide identification to officers if no criminal ordinance violations have occurred. A person who refuses to provide identification should not be arrested for obstructing; however, if probable cause for another offense exists the suspect should be arrested for that offense and can then be identified during the citation or booking process.

• When responding to incidents involving subjects openly carrying firearms in public places, officers should investigate to determine whether the suspect's actions caused or were likely to cause a disturbance. The primary factors to be considered include the location, time of day and witness/bystander perceptions. Remember that the disorderly conduct statute does not require that an actual disturbance take place, only that the conduct in question be of a type that tends to cause or provoke a disturbance.

• It is my expectation that MPD officers encountering individuals who are armed with firearms in public places will take a pro-enforcement approach. If the investigation shows probable cause for a violation, the suspect should be arrested or cited.
 
Last edited:

protias

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
7,310
Location
SE, WI
Took them long enough! And good luck on them proving DC when Van Hollen's memo clearly states otherwise.
 
Last edited:

Brass Magnet

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Messages
2,818
Location
Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
Boy does this make me mad.....:banghead:

How can they even legally "Change" the tickets? They were still illegally arrested for obstruction! They weren't illegally arrested for DC.

Then the big bad cops had to go up and harrass the poor old lady and coach her into saying she was "disturbed". That does not change the fact that; at the time, there was no indication of this so therefore NO RAS and NO PC at the time. You can't just go back in time! They could come and "legally" arrest them now if DC were actually the case but they still couldn't do it that night!

This is crazy east Berlin B.S.
 

Brass Magnet

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Messages
2,818
Location
Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
The two that denied ID are now in the best shape IMHO. That is, if the others don't argue that they were coerced by the prescence of multiple officers into giving it. The "two's" ID's were illegally obtained because there was no RAS or PC at the time. So, the officers shouldn't even know their identities and wouldn't be able to make an arrest or cite for DC after the fact.
 

apierce918

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2009
Messages
276
Location
Appleton, WI
from my understanding of the events that took place.... there wasnt anything even remotely considered a disturbance, or about to be a disturbance until the police showed up... then there was a "scene"

so shouldnt the officers involved be cited for disorderly conduct?
 

metalman383

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2009
Messages
282
Location
Eau Claire WI, ,
I have a feeling they just stirred up a hornets nest. I would be proud to stand with you guys, and participate in any actions, you deem necessary!
 

aadvark

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
1,600
Location
, ,
Disorderly Conduct is only levied against a Persons Actions while in Public, not the fears or premenitions of another.
IF Wisconsin takes the stand that Peoples Fears also give rise to Disorderly Conduct, then, it would also be Disorderly to do anything throughout Wisconsin that any other Person within Ear-shot or Eye-shot did not agree with or like!

Example: If you drive a big Car in Wisconsin, and I feel scared of that big Car, having never seen a Car before, does that make it Disorderly on your part to Drive such Car? ...even if you are Licensed/Insured to do so?
 

Wisconsin Carry Inc. - Chairman

Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
Joined
Jan 23, 2010
Messages
1,197
Location
, ,
There is no way Madison can make this stick. Open-carry is legal, that is settled fact.

One person being "fearful" and calling police does NOT suddenly make everyones constitutional rights un-exercisable.

Over the weekend, I was prepared to accept that Madison just had a couple ignorant-of-the-law officers. Now, its clear that from bottom to top, Madison PD is willing to subvert state law to try to harass and discourage a state and federally guaranteed constitutional right.

Madison did indeed just kick a hornets nest.

Open-Records requests where initiated on Monday. Attorneys were contacted on Monday. This will not stand.
 

das

New member
Joined
Sep 22, 2010
Messages
4
Location
Madison, WI
The two that denied ID are now in the best shape IMHO. That is, if the others don't argue that they were coerced by the prescence of multiple officers into giving it. The "two's" ID's were illegally obtained because there was no RAS or PC at the time. So, the officers shouldn't even know their identities and wouldn't be able to make an arrest or cite for DC after the fact.

The trouble is that the individuals who declined to identify themselves were arrested, and were subsequently identified as a part of that process (their identification was obtained as part of a standard search, with no consent to search needed).
 
Last edited:

1FASTC4

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2007
Messages
505
Location
Tomahawk
How ironic that we live in the same Country and I routinely open carry in Culver's and places like it without so much as a second look.(Arizona)

I really sympathize with you guys and I'm watching WI events closely as there is a good chance we will be relocating to the Minocqua area in December.

I firmly believe that Wisconsin law will be changed to be more in line with the Consititution, after your incumbent whackjobs are thrown out of office.

I'm no lawyer, but I bet the DC charges will go away.

Best wishes,

Steve
 

Brass Magnet

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Messages
2,818
Location
Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
The trouble is that the individuals who declined to identify themselves were arrested, and were subsequently identified as a part of that process (their identification was obtained as part of a standard search).

If we agree that the arrests were illegal that identification is inadmissable in court because it was an illegal search and the evidence (ID) was illegally obtained.
 
Last edited:

Brass Magnet

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Messages
2,818
Location
Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
WHY?????

After I read it, I was grinning from ear to ear, cuz I can already smell the $$$$$$$.

I'm mad because this shouldn't happen and because lawsuits are not our goal. If they are yours, I think you have an issue. I would have been much happier with a public apology and admitting that it was perfectly legal to OC and what the officers did was not.

Unfortunately these lawsuits keep becoming necessary to reach our goal.

There is no way Madison can make this stick. Open-carry is legal, that is settled fact.

One person being "fearful" and calling police does NOT suddenly make everyones constitutional rights un-exercisable.

Over the weekend, I was prepared to accept that Madison just had a couple ignorant-of-the-law officers. Now, its clear that from bottom to top, Madison PD is willing to subvert state law to try to harass and discourage a state and federally guaranteed constitutional right.

Madison did indeed just kick a hornets nest.

Open-Records requests where initiated on Monday. Attorneys were contacted on Monday. This will not stand.

I agree with you but they are probably using silly Addlemans version of things. Can a case in a state of appeal be cited?

I definitely agree that Wisconsin is special in that we can ONLY open carry and we have a strong RKBA in our constitution. Therefore issuing DC tickets totatlly obliterates the right, making the DC statute itself unconstitutional as appliled to OC. IANAL IMHO of course.
 
Last edited:

Canard

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2010
Messages
148
Location
SE, Wisconsin, USA
If we agree that the arrests were illegal that identification is inadmissable in court because it was an illegal search and the evidence (ID) was illegally obtained.

I believe the id's of the other 3 were also illegally obtained by means of intimidation. The threat to arrest was obvious intimidation.
 
Top