[BlueMondaySkipper]

There's more to this story then what you are saying, but you might try to make it easier for us by linking to the statutes and providing the exact wording on the complaint.

Here Goes:

The plaintiff, State of Wisconsin, by it's attorney, for a complaint against the defendant alleges:

1. The defendant, name deleted, on or about the night of May 29th, 2004, was in the city of deleted.
2. The defendant was a patron at a local establishment so named deleted, located in the city of deleted
The defendant was witnessed as impersonating a police officer involving an occupied and unmoving vehicle outside of aforesaid establishment which is in violation of WI statute 939.51, a Class A misdemeanor, punishible by a forfeiture not to exceed $10,000 or imprisonment not to exceed 9 months, or both. (BlueMondaySkipper note: this is in error. 939.51 is actually the definition of the penalty for a class A misdemeanor. I did some research and WI statute 946.70 is probably what they mean)
4. The defendant caused such action as to lead the public-at-large to believe that he was an off-duty police officer.

WHEREFORE, the plaintiff demands a hearing with the defendant to face possible criminal charges. You will be notified within seven (7) days of the court date to be assigned in this case. You may wish to have an attorney present at the hearing.

Dated this 23rd day of June, 2004

It is signed by the Clerk of circuit court

[Chewbacca]

"BlueMondaySkipper note: this is in error. 939.51 is actually the definition of the penalty for a class A misdemeanor. I did some research and WI statute 946.70 is probably what they mean)"

I don't see how they can convict you of violating a definition of a crime. The legal document they sent you does not designate the correct statute they are charging you with, just a definition. Point that out to a lawyer and they will most likely get you off without any charges.

[waverna]

With a good attorney, the fact that they cited the wrong statute should be enough to get you off. Could be dismissed on a technicality

[GovernmentShrinker]

Honestly, I think you're blowing this way out of proportion. Write the clerk of the circuit court, explaining briefly what happened, and that you did not impersonate an officer at this or any other time, but that the drunken occupant of the car in question might, in his drunkenness, have mistakenly imagined that you did, since under the circumstances, he was quite reasonably expecting that he might be approached by a police officer. Request that any evidence the State has suggesting that you impersonated a police officer be forwarded to you in writing, so you can be better equipped to clear up the misunderstanding.

I seriously doubt you need a lawyer to handle this, unless you've got a colorful record yourself, that might make the State disinclined to believe your version of events.