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 think she did. She said they were wearing weapons.<<
In a state that it’s legal to open carry there was no reason the police should have even responded unless additional information about illegal activity was included.
Their investigation was limited to observation only unless and until they had probable cause. Five guys drinking coffee and talking among themselves means they were doing nothing different from anybody else in the coffee shop. There was no probable cause and no impetus for “reasonable suspicion” to ask for ID.
Exercising your Rights is not a crime. Sorry.
Exactly.
The Right to Bear Arms is not the "Right to Bear Arms and Refuse to show ID."
Just like the Right to Vote is not the "Right to Vote and Refuse to show ID." .....that is..well.........except for in Chicago, LA, Philadelphia, and...er....Madison, Wisconsin!).
Dec 31st is coming: .....Stop Obama's Midnight Jack-Up!
Received.
They are prevented from asking a couple of quick questions to ascertain the situation?
More proof of why the "reasonable man standard" no longer works. There are so few of us "reasonable men" left...
If anybody was “disturbing the peace”, it was the old lib that called the cops on the peacefully eating patrons.
troll often ???
Walk in, look, observe, and walk out is EXACTLY what they should have done. Just because someone calls doesn’t mean the cops have to do everything the caller wants them to do. Sometimes the caller has to be told, “Everything looks fine. They’re within the law and just drinking their coffee. There’s nothing further I can legally do. As you can see, they’re not threatening anyone. They’re not behaving any differently than you are, ma’am. It’s not against the law in WI to carry a firearem in the open. Sorry, ma’am, that’s all I can do.” The cops can only do what they’re authorized under the constitution to do. If what you’re saying was the case, everybody would be calling the cops all the time just to get somebody they don’t like hassled and jacked up.
I wasn’t aware of a Right to vote.......
No, the cops don’t get to go around demanding ID from coffee drinkers because some nervous-nellie old lady wants them to.
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.Such laws have being upheld by the Supreme Court seems to always hinge on the reasonable suspicion of a crime past, present or future, according to Terry. So they have to show that a bunch of guys sitting around openly carrying constituted a reasonable suspicion -- for an officer educated about the law of course, not an ignorant old lady.
Not so sure I buy this attitude. It seems to me that they were simply responding to a phoned-in complaint and reacted to a request for ID when it wasn't showed. I am, however, unhappy that they changed the charges after the fact. That should not be allowed.
Sadly reasonable suspicion was not the issue. (I agree with you BTW)
I forget which posts it was/were, but there were two citations in this thread — one concerning WISCONSIN law, and the other a court decision — which pointed out that the CURRENT LAW permits and empowers the officers to ask for ID, just because.
Sad but seemingly true.
Jesus wept.
You still don’t get it, do you? My response was to post #2 regarding the one man’s refusal to provide ID. By doing that, he was knowingly provoking an incident. IOW, he was looking for a fight and wanted to stir up the excrement pot, knowing it would get everybody all wound up. If he had provided ID, we wouldn’t be having this discussion, would we? But then, that wouldn’t serve the purpose, would it?
Did he have to provide ID? No. And it seems to me that the unhappiest people in the world are those who go around insisting on their “rights” and just itching for somebody to test them. Get a life already. I don’t care if they open carry, concealed carry or Carry Nation. If that’s what it takes to feel safe as a man, go for it. But don’t try to tell me that they weren’t spoiling for a fight because you know damn well they were.
That’s why they’re now trying to hide behind this old lady’s upsetness as a reason for now charging them with disturbing the peace. It’s absurd, but it’s all they’ve got to charge them with - and they want to charge them because it wards off getting sued successfully by this same group....again......for the same thing.....again.
This is an absolute OUTRAGE. If anything, it should be a crime for the LEO to restrict the recording of his actions in the line of duty.
Dangerous criminal situations are very obvious. Simple common sense should have told these jackbooted idiots that there was nothing dangerous about five guys eating a meal, no matter WHAT harware they are carrying, or not carrying. Drawn weapon, intentse arguments, loud voices/shouting..NONE of those things were happening.
"If no one ever investigated it, why wouldn’t criminals open carry?"
Because criminals want the extra element of surprise. If you see a guy with a gun, your alert level will go up, as it should, until he displays either hostile or peaceful intentions. This is legit, and is the correct response. The situation here was obviously "peaceful", so the cops should have withdrawn.
Sheep politics.
You seem to think that just because a citizen complains about something that alone somehow gives the cops the right to violate age=old principles necessary to an investigation, such as reasonable suspicion and probable cause. These things are not just a matter of opinion or judgment. There are certain criteria that have to be met in order for the authority to go further kicks in.
You nailed it. The problem isn't so much that they questioned the guys, although there would have been nothing wrong with them simply observing the situation and leaving. The problem was that they arrested them.
A more prudent course of action, if the officer was inclined to look into it further, would have been to say something like "look, there is no legal requirement for you to give me your ID, but we've been called out here by some ninny so we sure would appreciate it if you'd just let us know who you are."
Not that I'd want to make a habit out of answering LEO questions when I'm doing nothing wrong, but I'd be more inclined to respond to the request of a helpful officer than the demand of one acting outside his legal authority.
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.