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.
Sorry you’re unable to see when you’re being “messed” with and tweaked.
I really don’t think the Racine case is the same, though.
At any rate, I think the police will win this one, even though they shouldn’t.
I think we have just about exhausted the topic unless new info comes up.
For the last and final time, I will make one more attempt to clarify my position. NEVER did I say that they were wrong (or stupid) for open carrying. My quibble was with the one who refused to provide his ID. Please, please, please go to my original post in the thread which was in response to post #2. It was NOT about open carry or with out-of-control doofus cops or with the ninny (good word, grady!) who called the cops in the first place. Read all my posts in this thread and tell me where I showed any opposition to carrying a weapon. Some of you want to make me into your enemy/opponent/adversary and if you keep it up, you might just succeed.
Why do you think the Racine case is different? Did you read the entire article?
Why do you think the police will win this one? From what information have you deduced this? Or is that strictly your opinion based on your stellar comprehension of the law?
1. What basis was there to reasonably suspect that these gentlemen were felons, or
2. What basis was there to reasonably suspect that these gentlemen were acting disorderly
I'll take this as your concession that you have no actual facts or sound reasoning to back your opinion that the officers in this case were acting within the scope of their authority under the ID statute.
You mean I missed it AGAIN????
;-)
Here’s what you said in post #195: “ 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.”
What did any of the men do that was “uncivilized”?
Why is openly carrying in a coffee shop “in your face with it”?
“Since you’re bowing out without having told us, or even attempted to tell us:
1. What basis was there to reasonably suspect that these gentlemen were felons, or
2. What basis was there to reasonably suspect that these gentlemen were acting disorderly
I’ll take this as your concession that you have no actual facts or sound reasoning to back your opinion that the officers in this case were acting within the scope of their authority under the ID statute.”
For the record, I believe I have answered both of those more than once. I think the police were using the DC law and the Stop and ID law to ask for ID, and that the use was bogus.
Also, I never said a word about anyone being felons. I’m fairly certian that this post is my first use of the word on the topic.
The leeway requires resonable suspicion of a crime. There is none here. To understand the criteria, eliminate the legal open carrying of weapons first since exercising a legal right cannot in itself constitute reasonable suspicion of a crime (and neither can the reporting of the exercise of that right). Now does an officer, approaching a group of men who are simply drinking coffee, have any reasonable suspicion that they have committed or are about to commit a crime? If not, then the officer has no cause to demand ID.
Are you now saying that they were not acting within the scope of the statute?
What BS! Everybody who calls 911 is worried. Why else would you call?
Would we be having this discussion if the one fellow had simply provided his ID when it was asked of him? I think not. It was a reasonable request, whether lawful or not, and apparently the other 4 men complied but this one did not. Was he looking for a confrontation or not?
Scope vs spirit.
Now that I agree with.
It appears that rooting for your favorite team in your own home is disorderly conduct.
The part that you're not getting is that the complaint was about the perfectly legal activity of open carry that the complaintant didn't know was legal. There was no allegation of anything that was actually a crime. It would be different if the woman had said "They're waving their guns around, terrorizing people" which is an illegal activity. But no such allegation was made.
The officer stated he asked for ID to ensure the carriers weren't felons, but the Stop and ID law doesn't allow them to do that. They need actual suspicion of a crime under the law. Thus the officer made an illegal demand of a citizen and subsequently made an illegal arrest.
Are you now saying that the officers had no legal basis to demand identification from these gentlemen pursuant to the statute because they had no reasonable suspicion that these gentlemen were committing or about to commit a crime?
Hey, I’ve been called anti-Semitic, anti-Catholic, a closet liberal, “someone to be watched” and (oh, the horror!) a TROLL on this board. It is fun to have a urination trajectory competition from time to time. I hope the DU and Daily Kos morons beat each other up worse than we do because if you aren’t pure enough here on FR, you better have fire retardent clothing on!
“;^o
“Open carry really isn’t anything like carrying a carrot or a cell phone” - Stuartcr
You are absolutely right - carrying a cellphone or a carrot are not explicitly protected constitutional rights - while carrying a firearm is.
Nice point.
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.