[ltc8k6]

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.

[Blueflag]

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.

[Niteranger68]

Using your (lack of) logic, the police could have demanded ID from everyone in the restaurant with a fork or knife. Just get over yourself....the 911 caller was a moron. No different from the dumbass woman who called 911 here back because Burger King wouldn't make her a Western Whopper. The five men were breaking no laws and the caller had not one trace of evidence that they intended to.

[Dead Corpse]

reasonably suspects that such person is committing, is about to commit or has committed a crime

Exercising your Rights is not a crime. Sorry.

[Wonder Warthog]

"....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."

As I understand the incident, it did NOT rise to the level of the above. Five guys sitting around a table peacefully eating a meal is NOT such a situation, whether 911 was called or not. There appears to be a need for more training on the part of the cops.

[Gilbo_3]

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

so what did they telepathically determine to be the crime ???

remember too, that *if* one of those guys was a 'prohibited' person, he has 5A protection from being required to state it...

[antiRepublicrat]

The operative part:

when the officer reasonably suspects that such person is committing, is about to commit or has committed a crime

If they're just sitting there calmly eating lunch, then there is no reasonable suspicion of a crime, thus no reason for identification. BTW, every state is technically a "stop and identify" state according to the Terry precedent. The laws just clarify things and set statutory limits for police.