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.
That’s because I believe they need very little to be “reasonably suspicious” under the law.
That is, I believe under the law that the officers need far less to justify asking for ID than the men need to justify refusing to comply.
Wrong. If the situation is that an actual crime has been reported, the cop has to first verify that a crime was committed. He can’t just think a crime was committed. What he does after that depends on whether it appears to be a felony or a misdemeanor or an infraction. A misdemenaor has to be committed in his presence, as does an infraction. A felony does not.
You have become silly and are playing stupid or you really are hopelessly stupid.
Or, if you want to go with the disorderly conduct you mentioned in another post, please identify the actions they took that would give reasonable suspicion that they were being disorderly. Lawful possession of a firearm with nothing further does not meet that definition. You can confirm that with the Racine, WI police department that just paid $10k to find that out.
SCOTUS has ruled that asking a felon if he is a felon, with regard to gun possession, is a violation of his 5th Amendment rights.
Any charge resulting from such an egregious fishing expedition would rightfully be dismissed.
Perhaps you should quit corresponding with people who are as wrong and stupid as I am?
I know I don’t want to bother you.
Have a nice day.
The possible disorderly conduct charge is in relation to refusing to give ID. I need a crime they were reasonably suspected of BEFORE the officer demanded ID. Suspicion of illegal conduct must be the reason for demanding ID in the first place.
The two complainants felt uncomfortable with the conduct of the men
No, the complaintants felt uncomfortable that they were openly carrying firearms. There is no indication of anything but normal conduct by the open carriers. Openly carrying in itself does not constitute suspicious or disorderly conduct. The Wisconsin governor himself has said "If you want to carry a gun in Wisconsin, wear it on your hip" so carrying alone is obviously a legal practice accepted by the government.
I can understand playing Devil’s Advocate, but that is just plain silly.
Weren't they good tippers?
I have to base my opinions on more than what I believe?
Well, okay.
Let me try to figure that out.
Actions they took that were disorderly? Do you think the police have to actually witness this, or can they go by what a complainant says?
you seem to be doing contortions to give the cops a pass...if you simply believe what youre writing, fine, but the events, in the cops own words, on tape, indicate that they assumed the guys were 'legal'...
allowing things to escalate, simply on the twisted panties of anothers citizens words, is tyranny...the cops went further and enforced that tyranny...
Again, there has to be a reasonable suspicion of criminal conduct, according to the case you cite. It’s a repetitive theme. Maybe you’ll catch onto it some day.
Lotsa luck getting a clue.
Do the police have to witness what makes them suspicious, or can they base it on a complaint?
Can they suspect me of disorderly conduct based on a complaint, without actually witnessing me being disorderly?
I’ve already made it clear that I disagree strongly with the charges.
I even stated that the police may have set up the men for an open carrty dispute.
Why can’t I argue about the law without agreeing with the charges?
I didn’t say anybody was wrong. What I seem to be unable to get across to you and others (I won’t dignify certain others with a direct response to their snot) is that they are not advancing their cause by their actions. If a certain group wants people to realize that carrying a weapon is normal and ordinary, which I agree that it is, they should act civilized all the time and not be “in your face” with it.
Since we are using Biblical references, “All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient...” 1Cor 6:12
I don’t say those people were wrong but I do think they were stupid. Not the way I would handle it.
What was the probable cause? Someone said there were several men with guns in holsters. Carrying a gun in a holster is legal in that state. The men were having a quiet conversation while eating a meal. Probable cause means that the police have reason to be suspicious that a crime is being committed or about to be committed. What reason did the police officer have? What suspicious behavior were the men engaged in?
If I’m driving a car and the police have a drunk driving checkpoint, the Supreme Court says they have the right to stop me and ask if I’ve been drinking (although I disagree). I’m not sure they have the right to ask for my ID without more probable cause, such as the smell of alcohol.
What I do know is that if I’m sitting in a restaurant having a quiet meal with 4 of my buddies, they don’t have the right to ask for my ID.
If I’m walking down the street minding my own business, they don’t have the right to ask for my ID. And I don’t have the obligation to carry ID.
If the law in Wisconsin says that I must carry ID and my permit with me while I’m carrying a gun in a holster, then fine, they can ask for the ID.
But there was no obstruction of justice. There was no disturbing the peace.
The police clearly overstepped their authority.
If you think the police should have the right to ask for ID just because someone else feels threatened by my presence, then work to change the constitution and the law. And I’ll work against you.
The police do not have to witness something to have reasonable suspicion if they receive credible information that the elements of a crime may be present. The complainant in this case said she saw men with guns on their hips. This is lawful conduct. Thus, the credible information they received did not provide them with information that the elements of a crime were present.
If you can’t stand the truth, shut up and go away. It’s simple.
It’s a misdemeanor. It has to be committed in their presence.
thanks, I’m recalling several very public picnics and such headed up by this group...while some may have issues with the tactics, I see nothing wrong with doing what theyre ‘allowed’ to do in an effort to awaken the debate...
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.