Posted on 07/22/2015 5:29:06 AM PDT by rellimpank
A federal appeals court has reversed a Milwaukee man's gun conviction and three year sentence, ruling that police unlawfully boxed him into an alley with their bicycles.
The ruling -- the same day that law enforcement officials declared a new war on gun violence in Milwaukee”-- illustrates the kind of legal obstacles such an effort must overcome.
The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals opinion was written by Judge Anne Williams, and joined by Judge Richard Posner and U.S. District Judge Andrea Wood.
In June 2013, Milwaukee officers Michael Michalski and Michael Flannery were bicycle patrol on the city’s north side when they heard gunshots around 10 p.m. They rode toward the shots and asked a person who said he heard the shots the west.
The officers rode on and saw Dontray A. Smith, 30, walking across N. 16th St. from one alley to another, near Center St. According to the opinion, Smith lived in the neighborhood, wasn’t running or acting otherwise suspicious or coming from the direction of the shots.
(Excerpt) Read more at jsonline.com ...
In my opinion, bad ruling.
The perp was asked if he had a gun and he answered. He should have declined to answer.
Just read the ruling. Interesting and wonder if this interpretation will readily apply elsewhere in the country. I hope so. While I have not found myself in a ‘seized’ situation, I can well imagine easily being in that situation. Even a simple traffic stop poses this challenge when a cop wants to go fishing. Border patrol harassing obvious US citizens at a highway checkpoint is case in point. Anyway, interesting.
Read the story he wasn’t the perp.
I did read the story and yes he was the perp. His crime was felon in possession of a gun.
And how do the two bicycle cops suspect he was a felon, and how did they suspect he was in possession of a firearm?
How is this a bad decision. Ignoring the guy involved (who apparently was not involved in the shooting, who while having a gun illegally did not have explanation for doing so, who was otherwise not involved in illegal activity, and who may or may not have had it for personal protection in an unsafe neighborhood or city). Anyway, ignoring that, the ruling itself says the police cannot trap you and violate your 4th amendment. I think of this as one of those traffic stops where the police want to look around in your car. You know, if you have nothing to hide, whats the problem? You can’t leave, you are harassed into answering because you are stopped, held, as in this case, at gun point since the officer put his hand on his gun. That is threatening—in fact I had a cop do that once when I was on a motorcycle. Came up to me, gun loosened, still holstered,, but hand on gun threatening. You really do not have choice but to answer questions. No is an escalating course of action. (I was a couple years out of the military with curly long hair and beard, definitely not suite and tie attired.) Anyway, is this really a bad decision or just the guy involved is troublesome?
They didn’t, they asked a question that he answered. He was not touched, he was not threatened, he was simply asked a question.
He was asked a question and he answered that question. If the police can no longer ask questions or respond in an appropriate manner to the answers given, then they no longer have the ability to do their job. The Constitution protect the right of the individual to not answer. It does not protect the individual from being questioned.
His response should have been:
I do not wish to be encountered
I do not answer questions from Law Enforcement or agents of the state without the presence of my attorney
Am I being detained or am I free to go
I do not consent to a search of my person or my property
I think this decision is about social justice. The cops were investigating, what? They closed in on the location of the offense with overwhelming force.
They found a “special treatment offender” and they railroaded this poor man to jail.
All Obama voters must be considered entitled. Cops can’t be expected to show overwhelming presence. It might confuse the perp into a confession or keep him from trying to shoot it out.
Soon there will be nobody willing to respond except to take the report and notify the next of kin.
I don't see anything in the second amendment barring freed felons from keeping and bearing arms. Anyone who can't be trusted to be armed should not be running around loose anyway.
I don’t see anything in the second amendment barring freed felons from keeping and bearing arms. Anyone who can’t be trusted to be armed should not be running around loose anyway.
************************************************************************
Agreed 100%.
Amen.
Federal appeals court overturns Milwaukee gun conviction.
FReep Mail me if you want on, or off, this Wisconsin interest ping list.
Yea and you know what the cop fuck ed up by violating his constitutional rights the there Robicop.
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.