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.
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...
In the history of our country concealed carry was generally frowned upon since a concealer, unless of known good character, likely had a nefarious reason to conceal. Honest, law-abiding people usually chose to carry openly. There was no question of intent to commit a crime since they obviously were not trying to hide the fact that they were armed.
Yes, and then started harassing the men.
They have to reasonably suspect, not prove...
It’s crystal clear. An officer can suspect a crime with no crime. It’s common sense.
There does not have to be an actual crime for an officer to reasonbly think there might be one and detain and question you.
Can’t understand why it’s so hard to grasp...
Here’s some more:
968.24 - ANNOT.
The potential availability of an innocent explanation does not prohibit an investigative stop. If any reasonable inference of wrongful conduct can be objectively discerned, notwithstanding the existence of other innocent inferences that could be drawn, the officers have the right to temporarily detain the individual for the purpose of inquiry. State v. Limon, 2008 WI App 77, 312 Wis. 2d 174, 751 N.W.2d 877, 07-1578.
Since it is a crime to have a weapon if you are a felon, how would the police know if these guys were not felons if he didn’t check? I think that is the reasonable suspiscion.
Just think how surprising it would be if a criminal did open carry, knowing that no one would check on them??
cops are hosed and trying to bully their way out...
I do not have a problem with them checking IDs. I do have a problem with what they did after. I think they all should have shown ID, then we probably wouldn’t have even heard of the incident.
They could have been felons, so the police have a responsibility to verify they weren’t.
A convicted sex offender cannot pal around with little kids, so shouldn't an officer stop someone out with their kids to check if they're his kids or whether he's a pedophile?
Unless the cop has reasonable suspicion to believe they were felons, he had no reasonable suspicion to question the legality of their actions.
As I said before, however, I think it would have been reasonable for him to request identification, while acknowledging that it was not required. Policing used to be a more cooperative endeavor rather than brute force.
that is what happened in 1930’s germany.
Papers please.
what next domestic travel permits?
They don’t need an actual crime. They need to reasonably be suspicious of what might have been going on.
The law in WI is pretty clear and has a wide leeway for the officers.
The 911 call clearly qualifies as a reason to detain and question them under WI law.
If you want to argue about the law, that’s fine, but it’s a completely different argument.
The officers were, under WI law, completely justified in detaining and questioning them as far as I can tell by reading the statutes and the annotations.
http://nxt.legis.state.wi.us/nxt/gateway.dll?f=templates&fn=default.htm&d=stats&jd=968.24
Been a Badge Lapper very long?
The Constitutional issues in this situation are hardly guarantees to be waived to keep statists, hoplophobic lil’ old ladies, or ill trained cops happy.
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’.
Did they say that before or after asking for ID?
http://nxt.legis.state.wi.us/nxt/gateway.dll?f=templates&fn=default.htm&d=stats&jd=968.24
Then change the law...
http://nxt.legis.state.wi.us/nxt/gateway.dll?f=templates&fn=default.htm&d=stats&jd=968.24
This is a joke right? ...wasn't the Ian Flemming character Auric Goldfinger?
.
when the officer reasonably suspects that such person is committing, is about to commit or has committed a crimeIf 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.
How many felons open carry? In a restaurant?
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.
This is from a poster at madison.com:
Ben Masel said on: September 22, 2010, 6:47 am
@bones1954:
while police may REQUEST ID at any time, they may DEMAND that one identify oneself only when they have “reasonable articulable suspicion” of a particular crime. See Hiibel v Nevada, Brown v Texas, and Kolender v Lawson, Supreme Court cases.
Even then, it’s not required to carry a physical ID except when driving, boarding a plane, etc
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.