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.
Of course not. My name isn’t Barry.
I should have said Letter vs Spirit though.
Under the letter of the law, you can be ticketed for 5mph over the limit. In the spirit of the law, such tickets are not issued very often.
It can’t be reasonable unless it is lawful.
Since the request for the ID wasn’t lawful, then the man who declined to show his ID was not seeking a confrontation. He was seeking respect for the law and his rights. The person violating the law, the cop, was seeking the confrontation by his direct action of violating the law through abuse of his authority.
If the other four allowed their rights to be violated, their decision does not make it incumbent on the fifth man to agree to have his rights violated as well. eg.: Your four buddies decide to jump off the Golden Gate Bridge. Does their foolishness somehow confer a duty on you to also act foolishly and jump?
When answering the question, please keep in mind that the officer stated he was checking to see if they were felons. What specific information can you cite to support a reasonable suspicion that these gentlemen were felons?
If you believe that the officers' suspicion under the statute may have arisen from actions constituting disorderly conduct, please identify the conduct that would give an officer reasonable suspicion that these gentlemen were acting disorderly. Please keep in mind that lawful conduct, such as carrying a firearm, with nothing further cannot be the basis for a disorderly conduct charge. See Racine.
Not quite. They can ask. You just aren't legally required to hand it over. (in those circumstances)
You win. My prostate won’t get out of the way.
Nope. Read it again.
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.
Don't see anything here about producing identification. You do have to identify yourself if they ask, but said identification can be verbal.
Not quite. They can ask. You just aren’t legally required to hand it over.
And that is an important point. WHAT level of ID must be produced in order to satisfy the law?
Bart Snerdley, 123 Main St. Mytown USA *should* be sufficient!
cops overstepped...they shoulda been talkin to granny and educating her, if not citing her...
now the tyrants need to pay for their criminal behavior...
Your refusal certainly shouldn't result in a DC charge being filed against you.
but the moment you agree to show your ID or you agree that the police steps into your house you lose all rights to complain afterward. because this counts as “voluntary invitation”
Which is another reason to not volunteer. “Never invite ‘The Man’ into your life.”
“Why were they wearing wires if they were just out to have a nice quiet dinner at Culver’s?
I don’t wear a concealed recording device to dinner.”
A chceck list for the modern urban denizen:
1. Drivers license.
2. Financial instruments (cash, cards).
3. Cell phone.
4. Firearm
Oh don’t forget to make sure the tail gunner is on board.
;-)
The reasoned and prudent carry a recording device (can be a ‘smart phone’) so that when the cops “testalie” they can be shown to be committing perjury.
at least this works the other way around too ;-) (at least here where i live) this reminds me about a funny story which made the “news” yesterday. the high court ruled that a man who was charged a fine because he offended a police officer on duty got back his money because the court ruled that he has said nothing wrong. he told an officer “if you want you can also kiss my a$$” in a relative “friendly” voice. the curt ruled that this is not an offence :-) it´s an invitation the officer can follow or if he don´t want *lol* just refuse.
Bart Snerdley, 123 Main St. Mytown USA *should* be sufficient!
Yes, if you really are Bart Snerdly. :-)
Your refusal certainly shouldn't result in a DC charge being filed against you.
Yup. As usual, we're on the same page.
Calm down, man. This is just an informal discussion board. It’s not that important.
The minute third degree questioning to show that I may be wrong is way overboard.
I’ve been wrong before. It’s no big deal if I am wrong again.
The world won’t end or anyhting if I am wrong, and you won’t be rewarded for proving it.
Yes. But only the vehicle driver needs to carry his license. No one else is going to be showing any ID, right? :-)
Heck, I have to pay $5 to the Sheriff to get permission to exercise my right to own a handgun...
Which I am about to do to the tune of FNP-45.
Now you are in deeper, you provided false info to a LEO.
Use info that at least sounds real.
:-)
I’m calm. You stridently defended a position, I asked that you back it up. Debate can be fun. :-)
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.