Posted on 09/23/2010 5:24:36 AM PDT by marktwain
This is from a poster at madison.com:
Ben Masel said on: September 22, 2010, 6:47 am
@bones1954:
while police may REQUEST ID at any time, they may DEMAND that one identify oneself only when they have “reasonable articulable suspicion” of a particular crime. See Hiibel v Nevada, Brown v Texas, and Kolender v Lawson, Supreme Court cases.
Even then, it’s not required to carry a physical ID except when driving, boarding a plane, etc
Failing to meet the legal requirement, they could have reasonably requested that the guys voluntarily identify themselves just to make life easier for everybody. Refusal of that request would have been unnecessarily obstinate but not illegal.
The officers had reasonable suspicion the moment the woman called 911 and was frightened, imo.
It’s pretty clear that the officers were within WI law, imo.
In any case, read the annotations and examples and you’ll see a wide leeway in favor of the officers regarding stop and ID.
http://nxt.legis.state.wi.us/nxt/gateway.dll?f=templates&fn=default.htm&d=stats&jd=968.24
More good insight.
Like many have noted — this is a good issue to follow. *IF* you are behaving yourself, and there is no probable cause (e.g. as defined in your reference) then perhaps you are NOT REQUIRED to produce government-issued ID.
Thanks for posting that.
I hope this issue gets cleared up not just for WI but for all relevant states and locales.
why do the cops have dash cams ??? cya works both ways...
Been a Badge Lapper very long?
The Constitutional issues in this situation are hardly guarantees to be waived to keep statists, hoplophobic lil’ old ladies, or ill trained cops happy.
Unless you are a police state freak trolling for the out of control cops, I would suggest a revision of your perspectives on what citizens should do when officers violate the law and the citizen’s rights.
Element 1: possession of firearm. Clearly established, no suspicion necessary.
Element 2: felon. They need reasonable suspicion of that this element is present before the legal requirements under the statute kick in.
I disagree and I think the WI law is very clear on the matter.
AAAAARRRRGGGHhhh...define FELON please ??? and remember that the command of the language is half the battle in politics of control...
after that, remember that a 'felon' has 5A protections against self incrimination too...so even *if* the demand for ID was prudent, it would get tossed...
More good insight. Didn’t know that.
SO the ONLY way in WI to legally exercise your rights noted and guaranteed in the 2nd Amendment is to open carry.
THAT makes the citizens’ case a bit stronger I might add.
Ya know, a GOOD reporter would troll Free Republic to get good background for a story like this. (crickets)
Well, we are just going to have to disagree.
And since there is an open carry law in Wisconsin, it is the same as carrying a cell phone as far as the law is concerned.
“Madison Police Chief Noble Wray said a big factor in the new charges was that the 911 caller was worried.
“It’s reviewing the entire incident, from call to completion and determining it’s the appropriate charge,” Wray said.”
He’s clearly folloeing the Stop and ID law, like I said.
The law may be wrong, and we could certainly argue that, but that’s what he is following, imo.
when the officer reasonably suspects that such person is committing, is about to commit or has committed a crime
In the absence of reasonable suspicion that the elements of a crime are present, the statute doesn't apply. Fear by a bystander is not an element of the crime of felon in possession of a firearm.
Both agree that there has to be suspicion of a crime. For the most recent SCOTUS ruling, a cop was called on suspicion that a man was assaulting a woman. Since the cop was confronted with a person reasonably suspected of a specific crime (he was still in a heated argument with the woman at the scene) the cop had the authority to demand ID.
before/during IIRC...kills their ‘reasonable suspicion’ cya attempt...
Why were they wearing wires if they were just out to have a nice quiet dinner at Culver’s?
I don’t wear a concealed recording device to dinner.
No, the LAW states that the officer must "...reasonably suspect(s) that such person is committing, is about to commit or has committed a crime...". You and others in this thread have been dishonestly stonewalling and evading answering the simple question "what crime did the cops have a reasonable basis to suspect was going to be committed or had been committed?"
The law in WI is pretty clear and has a wide leeway for the officers.
The law is clear - it's your reading comprehension and ability to employ logic that is in error. If this wasn't a such a serious issue your illogical rationalizations would be comical. It is ironic that you can't even understand that the actual language of the law you cite refutes your argument.
50 cal might have more info...???
“We had two people that reported to police that they felt uncomfortable, felt there was a disturbance,” Madison Police Chief Noble Wray said. “They felt uneasy about the circumstances of what was taking place there.”
Two complaints...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.