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.
Again, please read. The ID discussion is now far superceded by further developments. Please try to follow the thread.
Other than the fact you are dead wrong, agreed. Responding to a 911 call doesn't meet the litmus test. If they show up and no crime is in evidence, then it should have been closed as a false call. Same as responding to a fire call where there is no fire.
They could, and should, have done exactly that. Five guys sitting at a table, peacefully eating a meal, is NOT disorderly conduct, nor suspicious activity simply because the guys in question are openly carrying firearms. CRIMINALS don't "open carry".
um, I wasn’t trying to bust your case, honest.
You are right that they (the PoPo) had a reason; I think the debate here is whether or not their reason rises to the level of ‘legally justified’.
I REALLY don’t know. I know I really don’t like the idea that the ‘state’ can move us to a “papers please” life.
I agree the police have to respond. I just would really like to know what is ‘right’ AND ‘legal.’
and ... I followed your link and didn’t see how the discussion is moot. (was it because the only remaining charges were DTP, meaning the police acknowledged they were in error about demanding ID?)
Lastly, I wish you a nice day as well.
>> You cannot refuse to ID yourself to a uniformed LEO as far as I know.<<
It’s illegal for the police to even ask for ID according to the DOJ. Arizona knows that all too well.
Oh really? And what are those?
BTW... It's "superseded".
No. There wasn’t. Or is people exercising their Rights now probable cause?
Are you kidding?
What kind of a call response would that be? I believe they were initially called to investigate the wearing of weapons, not disorderly conduct.
If no one ever investigated it, why wouldn’t criminals open carry?
>>Not everyone gets a call to be investigated. What should the police have done?<<
Perhaps ask the lady who called them what the guys were doing that caused her to call them? Your assumption indicates that I could call the police to come investigate you and it would be you who gets harassed. Shouldn’t I be asked to give a reason I am asking them to come out?
I think the lady should be cited for a false report. The guys were doing nothing illegal or even suspicious.
Yes. "Are the men threatening anyone? Or are they just eating? Just eating? They are within their Rights. HAve a nice day."
Easy-peasey. So easy even a liberal can do it. Can you?
I haven’t changed my mind at all. All they need is the 911 call about people carrying guns and something horrible. Wisconsin is a “Stop and Identify” state.
http://nxt.legis.state.wi.us/nxt/gateway.dll?f=templates&fn=default.htm&d=stats&jd=968.24
968.24 Temporary questioning without arrest. After having identified himself or herself as a law enforcement officer, a law enforcement officer may stop a person in a public place for a reasonable period of time when the officer reasonably suspects that such person is committing, is about to commit or has committed a crime, and may demand the name and address of the person and an explanation of the person’s conduct. Such detention and temporary questioning shall be conducted in the vicinity where the person was stopped.
Oh No! A typo! Oh my!
Thank you for that post.
That would seem to be prima facie evidence that the officers were justified in asking for ID.
Always good to find a citation.
Thank you sir.
They were responding to a call to investigate.
No, the 911 operator, after ascertaining the details, should have informed the lady of the law and thus cure her of her ignorance. This concept is not unknown and situations like this have happened before.
Read the article again.
BTW, Webster’s says supercede is an allowable variant.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/supercede
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.