[darkside321]

Have you ever heard of presumption of innocence? We don’t have to prove we’re obeying the law. They have to prove we’re not. There was no probable cause here.

---

of cause there was a probable cause there. (the police has been called and there for it´s their duty to investigate the situation). btw. this has nothing to do with the “presumption of innocence”. it´s legitimate in this situation to check the ID. or do you think for example its not legitimate to check your drivers license when you run into a police controll? most people are “innocent” too but how should the police know as long as they haven´t checked it if you are allowed to drive a car for example.

[Dead Corpse]

...of cause there was a probable cause there.

No. There wasn't. Or is people exercising their Rights now probable cause?

[Gilbo_3]

of cause there was a probable cause there

okay, so i dont like your use of the 1A here, i think I'll call the po-po and have you investigated...you MUST comply with their illegal demands because i required them to 'investigate'...

[Comstock1]

Pretty sure it doesn’t work that way, and the police ended up dropping the charges because they were in the wrong to arrest. Since open carry is legal, there is no probable cause or reasonable suspicion from that basis alone. This wasn’t a roadblock or traffic stop, so the rules that apply to those situations don’t apply here.

Officers can ask for ID, but the legal question is whether or not the men at the table were required to provide it to them, not whether the police could ask. I don’t know Wisconsin law, but the article seems to imply that there was no such requirement to provide ID— or the charges wouldn’t have been dropped.

And since there is an open carry law in Wisconsin, it is the same as carrying a cell phone as far as the law is concerned.

[StonyMan451]

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.