Posted on 09/23/2010 5:24:36 AM PDT by marktwain
A 62-year-old woman visiting a local Culver's sees several restaurant patrons with guns on holsters in plain view.
She doesn't know that Wisconsin law allows people to openly carry a firearm, so she notifies authorities, later telling them, "I didn't want to be that one person that saw guns and didn't call and something horrible happens."
Officers arrive to find five armed men at the restaurant near East Towne Mall. In an effort to determine whether there is any threat to public safety, they ask to see the men's identification to make sure they're not felons, who are prohibited from possessing firearms.
To some, the actions by Madison police Saturday evening are reasonable. But members of gun rights organizations say police had no reason to suspect the men were felons. And what happened next, they say, amounted to the illegal search and detention of two of the men when they refused to provide their IDs.
Shawn M. Winrich, 33, of Madison, said he remained silent when police asked if he would provide his ID. Police then told him he was being placed under arrest, and he was handcuffed, disarmed, searched and held until police determined he was not a felon, Winrich said.
Winrich and Frank R. Hannan-Rock, 53, of Racine, were then given municipal citations for obstructing an officer, Madison police spokesman Joel DeSpain said.
But Auric Gold, secretary of Wisconsin Carry, and Mike Stollenwerk, cofounder of OpenCarry.org, said police do not have the right to demand that people identify themselves without probable cause to believe they've committed or are about to commit a crime.
That was not the case with the five Wisconsin Carry members who had simply gotten together to meet and have a meal, Winrich said.
Winrich said he began carrying a gun about four months ago for personal safety and routinely takes it anywhere it is lawfully permitted without incident.
"People know it is legal and it's not something to be concerned about," he said. "Most people really don't have much of a problem with it. They're just kind of curious."
But Winrich, who made an audio recording of the encounter with Madison police, said he carries a recorder in case a problem arises. He said he chose not to give his ID to Madison police because of "the attitude and the overstepping of authority that they had."
Wisconsin Carry won a $10,000 judgement against the city of Racine and its police department after Hannan-Rock was involved in a similar incident there, Gold said.
Openly carrying a firearm is "just like anybody else carrying a carrot down the street, or a cell phone," Stollenwerk said, adding that police in the 43 states that allow some form of open carry have become accustomed to people's right to have a firearm. "This stuff doesn't happen in the rest of the country anymore."
Madison Police North District Capt. Cameron McLay said he believes officers acted appropriately in responding to a report of armed men in a public place in an urban setting, and the caller's concern that something might happen.
McLay said police were going into "a highly ambiguous situation" and had to determine if a crime had been or was about to be committed and preserve public safety, while assuring the rights of all involved. "This is what the officers did in this case to the best of their ability."
But McLay questioned whether obstruction was the correct citation given the circumstances. On Monday, detectives were sent to Culver's for further investigation to determine if another criminal charge, such as disorderly conduct, is warranted, McLay said.
Based on initial police reports, he acknowledged, "There is no indication that a disturbance had taken place."
McLay declined to comment on the legality of searching and detaining Winrich and Hannan-Rock until the police investigation is completed.
I don’t have discussions with folks who cannot keep it civil.
Have a nice day.
why do cops have dashcams ??? just in case right ???
ifn they didnt get targeted, by a lil old lady, who could very well have made the call for nefarious reasons, they indeed would have simply had lunch...
whats yer REAL point ???
You still need to identify a crime and the and articulate the basis for reasonably suspecting that the elements of that crime are present.
In the alternative, in the absence of those elements, they can simply ask for the helpful cooperation of the gentlemen at the table.
My real point???
Are you suspicious of me?
Want to see my ID?
Why the assumptions?
Why can’t I think the law is bad, but that the officers followed it, with being questioned about ulterior motives?
I read it. The situation, as described, does NOT rise to the above level. Simply because someone calls 911 does NOT give law enforcement carte blanche to go in and violate citizens civil rights.
“A frightened woman called 911 about some guys with guns.
Case closed. That is well and truly enough to investigate and ask for ID in WI.”
Doesn’t sound like it. Carrying a gun is not a crime, so they cops need to have reason to believe you have or are about to commit a crime - according to the quote posted earlier on this thread.
If someone calls and reports you are eating pancakes, does that justify the cop in questioning you?
The point is that there is likely more to the story.
Which side the additional info will help is not known yet.
We have traffic checks often. Checking for licenses, registration and insurance. I think the probable cause, is thay someone may not be legally driving, just like checking to see if someone is legally carrying.
They probably would check the pedophile, if someone called them about it.
I think maybe the suspicion was the original call.
I imagine he did say something like...’may I see some ID?’
You forgot the obligatory "imo" which litters most of your other posts.
The law is very clear - it's your comprehension and logic that's completely muddled. You are of course entitled to your own opinions, however you aren't entitled to your own facts. The law says what it says - it just doesn't mean what you think it means, and the facts of this incident don't fall within the definitional strictures of the language of the law.
Please state the crime these five men were reasonably suspected of by the police officer as they were peacefully eating their meals. Suspicion of the crime must have happened BEFORE the officer demanded ID.
For reference, the Terry standard comes from a beat cop who knew his neighborhood and watched three men obviously casing a store over time. The Hiibel standard comes from a man who was reported to be assaulting a woman by the road side. This case involves men reported to be doing something perfectly legal -- open carry.
Stop and ID laws that didn't require specific facts leading to a reasonable suspicion of a crime have been struck down. The unrestrained power of the police to stop and question people has been ruled to be unconstitutional. Precedent and law are quite clear on this.
I didn’t see you quote any of the annotations or examples...
I doubt it...at least not for a number of generations from now.
In order to ask the question, the cops have to have a "reasonable suspicion" that a crime has occurred. Five guys drinking coffee does NOT fulfill that requirement, 911 call or no 911 call. There have already been plenty of cases in the category of "driving while black" where the limits of seeking evidence for secondary offenses lie.
I don’t know. A very ballsy, crazy, clever one?
Irrelevant.
It’s not enough to ask for ID. Somebody posted the law already. It’s perfectly clear to all bu the most obtuse or those twoo small to admit they’re wrong.
This is exactly the same reason this gun group sued and won - exactly the same issue.
The old lady doesn’t dictate the law. The cops don’t get to violate people’s rights because an old lady is scared. Actually, the story doesn’t say she was scared, I don’t think. Her focus was to call the cops because she saw men with guns and would have felt badly if anything bad had resulted from it. She didn’t even report that they were doing anything in particular that frightened her except have guns in open carry which is perfectly legal.
The cops CANNOT go ID people because they got a call from somebody who was worried about something that’s legal to do. They have to have a reasonable suspicion that a crime has been or is being committed, and there are certain elements required that comprise “reasonable suspicion” to asl for ID.
Anyway, this has been explained to you several times now and you’ve been directed to or told about the exact language in the law. You’re either dumber than a bag of hammers, a gun-grabber, or somebody who just likes to get negative attention.
Buh-bye.
Taking only the information that we have, however, it does not appear there was any basis to suspect that the elements of a crime were present.
I’m not an officer, so I guess it’s a judgement call. Maybe some freepers that are, could tell us how they would have responded?
Disorderly conduct. That actually seems pretty clear as the stated reason for asking for ID in the various accounts.
The two complainants felt uncomfortable with the conduct of the men, which is apparently enough to suspect that they might have been disorderly under the law.
Whether they actually were or not.
Keep in mind that I disagree with what was done to the men and have never stated otherwise.
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.