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.
It’s a sad day in America when law enforcement has to be sued into compliance with the law.
I hope the gun group gets a lot more than $10k from these thug cops this time.
I think she did. She said they were wearing weapons.
No way do we want 911 operators making such determinations based on 911 calls.
That’s insane, imo.
I’d want that very limited. Like if someone called and said a squirrel was talking to them. They can dismiss those types of calls.
>>> Why else would you carry a tape recorder with you?
Gluteus Protectus.
I fail to see the insanity of a 911 operater getting the facts and saying “so, according to what you are telling me, these men are acting in a perfectly normal manner and are in full compliance with the law, but you are wigging out because of your own ignorance? an officer is NOT on his way”.
Much as I support the 2nd amendment, I agree. If they had a bottle of booze at the table, there would be some ID required.
Somebody's dad was a James Bond fan.
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?
The cop has to have a valid reason to ask for your identification. The fact that an old lady got her panties in a wad is not a valid reason.
Consider this: The cops now know they stepped in it. They now charge the men with disturbing the peace on the strength of the old lady who was nervous. The cops were sued by this group before, successfully. So, they’ve steppped in it again, same error as before and got sued successfully then, so this time they’re trying to hide behind an old lady in order to validate charges of disturbing the peace so that they ostensibly can provide/justify at least the appearance of probable cause for detaining them and forcing them to show their ID, which was the basis for the original suit. They’re back-pedaling, in other words, to try to make a case, any case, against these men to avoid a lawsuit. If the cops can make the charges stick, then that means they had probable cause, technically speaking, and therefore no grounds for another suit.
No they weren't. At best they were fishing, and it's more likely they were harassing.
These days, every smartphone is a "tape recorder".
You might want to reconsider the basis and assumptions behind your question.
That’s not how it works. John Q. Citizen doesn’t decide. The cops are required to assess the situation when they arrive on scene in response to a complaint call. Often they have to tell the caller/complaining witness that there is no violation and they have to walk away.
Just because someone is upset about something doesn’t mean they have a legitimate complaint that LE can act on.
Yeah, even the police admit you don't have a leg to stand on.
1. Fine the lady for calling 911 because she’s confused and stupid.
2. Fire the 911 operator for not enquiring what the purpose of the call was, exactly what was going on, why the lady is calling 911 and the ultimately why the operator dispatched a car to the scene.
3.) Fine the police for not asking who called 911 when they got to the scene and not ticketing her for abusing it’s function. Investigate why the police were harassing certain individuals for no reason.
No.
ID-ing an American without reasonable belief that a crime has occurred, or is about to occur, is not in hte cop’s job description.
America is not a police state. Yet.
But the statists are trying.
“It seems like Winrich is a lawsuit waiting to happen. Why else would you carry a tape recorder with you?”
The reasoned and prudent now carry a recorder because the police are now not your friend, indeed they are basically your hostile public servant who has been allowed to believe he is the master.
Ok...I'll bite...please let me know what part of going about their day engaged in lawful activity gave these officers reasonable suspicion that these gentlemen had committed or were about to commit a crime?
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.