Posted: 4/17/2012 3:17:29 PM EDT
|
Let me begin by making one thing clear;
Wisconsin is not a "stop and identify" state. Even if detained, you are not under any obligation to identify yourself to law enforcement. You may not be arrested simply for refusing to provide identification, nor charged with obstructing an officer. This is firmly established in the Wisconsin Supreme Court case which ruled that the obstruction statute does not include a requirement to provide identification. "Mere silence is insufficient to constitute obstruction." Henes v. Morrissey, 194 Wis. 2d 339 (1995) The basis of this ruling was based on the wording of WI State Statute 968.24, which states: 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. Notice the "may demand" part, this is key. While the statute clearly states that the officer may demand lawfully that the detained individual identify themselves, it doesn't in itself require that the detained party present that identification upon demand. It grants police authority to ask questions, but does not explicitly impose an obligation to respond. However, presenting false or misleading identification information will get you charged with obstructing. This is one of those times when "pleading the 5th" works better than opening your mouth. Now that we have that out of the way, let's look at Wis. Stat. 175.60(2g)(c), which states: ".....A licensee or out-of-state licensee who is carrying a concealed weapon must display the license and photo identification to a law enforcement officer upon the request of the law enforcement officer while the law enforcement officer is acting in an official capacity and with lawful authority." Further more; A person who does not carry or display a CCW license and photo ID as required may be ordered to forfeit not more than $25 except that the a person is exempt from this penalty if he or she presents, within 48 hours of the request, his or her license document and photographic identification to the law enforcement agency who employs the officer who lawfully requested the documents. Wis. Stat. 175.60(17)(a). So from what I can gather, a LEO may, at any time, request to see your CCW permit, regardless of whether he's detaining you or not. Whether he has knowledge that you do or do not possess a CCW permit seems irrelevant. As a CCW permit holder, by law as it is written, you must present your permit to an LEO anytime it is asked for by one, regardless of the circumstances present at the time (detention). If you possess a permit, and refuse to present it (as this is effectively identification) and if you haven't already been detained, you will presumably at that time be detained until ID has been established, in order to cite you the $25 forfeiture. Unless someone can show me I'm smoking crack, it seems to me that 175.60(2g)(c) violates caselaw as it pertains to self-incrimination under the Wisconsin Constitution. Further more, 175.60(17)(a) can also be deemed unconstitutional search and seizure (of the individual), as the officer does not have the authority to arrest or cite based on refusal to ID in the first place. Flame suit on. ETA: Won't have comms for a few days, so if I don't respond, this wasn't a drive-by posting. 
|
|
Quoted:
Let me begin by making one thing clear; Wisconsin is not a "stop and identify" state. Even if detained, you are not under any obligation to identify yourself to law enforcement. You may not be arrested simply for refusing to provide identification, nor charged with obstructing an officer. This is firmly established in the Wisconsin Supreme Court case which ruled that the obstruction statute does not include a requirement to provide identification. "Mere silence is insufficient to constitute obstruction." Henes v. Morrissey, 194 Wis. 2d 339 (1995) The basis of this ruling was based on the wording of WI State Statute 968.24, which states: 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. Notice the "may demand" part, this is key. While the statute clearly states that the officer may demand lawfully that the detained individual identify themselves, it doesn't in itself require that the detained party present that identification upon demand. It grants police authority to ask questions, but does not explicitly impose an obligation to respond. However, presenting false or misleading identification information will get you charged with obstructing. This is one of those times when "pleading the 5th" works better than opening your mouth. Now that we have that out of the way, let's look at Wis. Stat. 175.60(2g)(c), which states: ".....A licensee or out-of-state licensee who is carrying a concealed weapon must display the license and photo identification to a law enforcement officer upon the request of the law enforcement officer while the law enforcement officer is acting in an official capacity and with lawful authority." Further more; A person who does not carry or display a CCW license and photo ID as required may be ordered to forfeit not more than $25 except that the a person is exempt from this penalty if he or she presents, within 48 hours of the request, his or her license document and photographic identification to the law enforcement agency who employs the officer who lawfully requested the documents. Wis. Stat. 175.60(17)(a). So from what I can gather, a LEO may, at any time, request to see your CCW permit, regardless of whether he's detaining you or not. Whether he has knowledge that you do or do not possess a CCW permit seems irrelevant. As a CCW permit holder, by law as it is written, you must present your permit to an LEO anytime it is asked for by one, regardless of the circumstances present at the time (detention). If you possess a permit, and refuse to present it (as this is effectively identification) and if you haven't already been detained, you will presumably at that time be detained until ID has been established, in order to cite you the $25 forfeiture. Unless someone can show me I'm smoking crack, it seems to me that 175.60(2g)(c) violates caselaw as it pertains to self-incrimination under the Wisconsin Constitution. Further more, 175.60(17)(a) can also be deemed unconstitutional search and seizure (of the individual), as the officer does not have the authority to arrest or cite based on refusal to ID in the first place. Flame suit on. ETA: Won't have comms for a few days, so if I don't respond, this wasn't a drive-by posting. The answer is in the wording just like in the wording of the identification statute. A person who is carrying must present the permit. It is still illegal to conceal a weapon in this state without a permit. If the officer has determined that you are carrying, he or she can reasonably assume you ARE breaking a law, until you provide proof that you, in fact are NOT breaking the law. You still have the right to refuse to show your permit, but you will be charged for illegally carrying a concealed weapon , most likely have your weapon confiscated, and upon showing you permit, I'd think it'd be reasonable to charge you with obstructing. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Let me begin by making one thing clear; Wisconsin is not a "stop and identify" state. Even if detained, you are not under any obligation to identify yourself to law enforcement. You may not be arrested simply for refusing to provide identification, nor charged with obstructing an officer. This is firmly established in the Wisconsin Supreme Court case which ruled that the obstruction statute does not include a requirement to provide identification. "Mere silence is insufficient to constitute obstruction." Henes v. Morrissey, 194 Wis. 2d 339 (1995) The basis of this ruling was based on the wording of WI State Statute 968.24, which states: 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. Notice the "may demand" part, this is key. While the statute clearly states that the officer may demand lawfully that the detained individual identify themselves, it doesn't in itself require that the detained party present that identification upon demand. It grants police authority to ask questions, but does not explicitly impose an obligation to respond. However, presenting false or misleading identification information will get you charged with obstructing. This is one of those times when "pleading the 5th" works better than opening your mouth. Now that we have that out of the way, let's look at Wis. Stat. 175.60(2g)(c), which states: ".....A licensee or out-of-state licensee who is carrying a concealed weapon must display the license and photo identification to a law enforcement officer upon the request of the law enforcement officer while the law enforcement officer is acting in an official capacity and with lawful authority." Further more; A person who does not carry or display a CCW license and photo ID as required may be ordered to forfeit not more than $25 except that the a person is exempt from this penalty if he or she presents, within 48 hours of the request, his or her license document and photographic identification to the law enforcement agency who employs the officer who lawfully requested the documents. Wis. Stat. 175.60(17)(a). So from what I can gather, a LEO may, at any time, request to see your CCW permit, regardless of whether he's detaining you or not. Whether he has knowledge that you do or do not possess a CCW permit seems irrelevant. As a CCW permit holder, by law as it is written, you must present your permit to an LEO anytime it is asked for by one, regardless of the circumstances present at the time (detention). If you possess a permit, and refuse to present it (as this is effectively identification) and if you haven't already been detained, you will presumably at that time be detained until ID has been established, in order to cite you the $25 forfeiture. Unless someone can show me I'm smoking crack, it seems to me that 175.60(2g)(c) violates caselaw as it pertains to self-incrimination under the Wisconsin Constitution. Further more, 175.60(17)(a) can also be deemed unconstitutional search and seizure (of the individual), as the officer does not have the authority to arrest or cite based on refusal to ID in the first place. Flame suit on. ETA: Won't have comms for a few days, so if I don't respond, this wasn't a drive-by posting. The answer is in the wording just like in the wording of the identification statute. A person who is carrying must present the permit. It is still illegal to conceal a weapon in this state without a permit. If the officer has determined that you are carrying, he or she can reasonably assume you ARE breaking a law, until you provide proof that you, in fact are NOT breaking the law. You still have the right to refuse to show your permit, but you will be charged for illegally carrying a concealed weapon , most likely have your weapon confiscated, and upon showing you permit, I'd think it'd be reasonable to charge you with obstructing. If you are carrying a concealed weapon in a public place in WI, you are performing an act that requires licensing. Just like operating a motor vehicle. You must only show that license if you are performing the act requiring licensure. If you do not have the required license, you are performing that act illegally. If you are not performing the act, you don't need the license. There is a fundamental differance between the two above license-required acts..... bearing arms is constitutionally protected but driving a vehicle on public roads is not. However, the WI Supreme Court has held that banning (now licensing) CC, does not violate that constitutional right, it only regulates manner of carry, requiring it to be open. THAT, IMO, is the part that violates the constitution. |
|
Quoted:
Let me begin by making one thing clear; Wisconsin is not a "stop and identify" state. Even if detained, you are not under any obligation to identify yourself to law enforcement. You may not be arrested simply for refusing to provide identification, nor charged with obstructing an officer. This is firmly established in the Wisconsin Supreme Court case which ruled that the obstruction statute does not include a requirement to provide identification. "Mere silence is insufficient to constitute obstruction." Henes v. Morrissey, 194 Wis. 2d 339 (1995) The basis of this ruling was based on the wording of WI State Statute 968.24, which states: 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. Notice the "may demand" part, this is key. While the statute clearly states that the officer may demand lawfully that the detained individual identify themselves, it doesn't in itself require that the detained party present that identification upon demand. It grants police authority to ask questions, but does not explicitly impose an obligation to respond. However, presenting false or misleading identification information will get you charged with obstructing. This is one of those times when "pleading the 5th" works better than opening your mouth. Now that we have that out of the way, let's look at Wis. Stat. 175.60(2g)(c), which states: ".....A licensee or out-of-state licensee who is carrying a concealed weapon must display the license and photo identification to a law enforcement officer upon the request of the law enforcement officer while the law enforcement officer is acting in an official capacity and with lawful authority." Further more; A person who does not carry or display a CCW license and photo ID as required may be ordered to forfeit not more than $25 except that the a person is exempt from this penalty if he or she presents, within 48 hours of the request, his or her license document and photographic identification to the law enforcement agency who employs the officer who lawfully requested the documents. Wis. Stat. 175.60(17)(a). So from what I can gather, a LEO may, at any time, request to see your CCW permit, regardless of whether he's detaining you or not. Whether he has knowledge that you do or do not possess a CCW permit seems irrelevant. As a CCW permit holder, by law as it is written, you must present your permit to an LEO anytime it is asked for by one, regardless of the circumstances present at the time (detention). If you possess a permit, and refuse to present it (as this is effectively identification) and if you haven't already been detained, you will presumably at that time be detained until ID has been established, in order to cite you the $25 forfeiture. Unless someone can show me I'm smoking crack, it seems to me that 175.60(2g)(c) violates caselaw as it pertains to self-incrimination under the Wisconsin Constitution. Further more, 175.60(17)(a) can also be deemed unconstitutional search and seizure (of the individual), as the officer does not have the authority to arrest or cite based on refusal to ID in the first place. Flame suit on. ETA: Won't have comms for a few days, so if I don't respond, this wasn't a drive-by posting. Is this a major cause of concern for the people in Hawaii? |
|
Quoted:
The basis of this ruling was based on the wording of WI State Statute 968.24, which states: 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. I believe you are mistaken. if you examine the list, as a list, it is a list of things an OFFICER may do. "a law enforcement officer MAY stop a person in a public place...may demand the name and address of the person..." Look up noscitur a sociis. Simple statutory interpretation. Im no lawyer, but your argument is incorrect. |
|
The key here is Reasonable Articulate Suspicion or Probable Cause.
Lets say you have a license, and are concealed carrying in a school zone (walking your dog, say). Then a nearby police officer >thinks< you are carrying, but you aren't printing or giving tells, he's just being an ass, or he's seen you open carry before, or whatever. Based on these, he has NO probable cause or RAS to stop you and ask for ID, simply because there is no basis for the stop, even if he's seen you carry before. If he stops you because he knows you've carried before, and even if the stop is in a school zone, that's not good enough. He might justify it by "fishing", asking if you are carrying a gun, etc, but he still has no reason for the original stop. Now if you ARE open carrying (or CC can be seen) in a school zone, he has RAS to stop you and ask for ID and CCL, since you are potentially breaking the law by open carrying if you don't have a CCL. If you are stopped while driving a vehicle, you are required to show ID when the LEO requests it. That is law. You are under no obligation to show him your CCL just because you are stopped. He also needs a RAS for the stop, such as speeding, burned out bulb, the normal vehicle violations. You know the LEO is going to ask if you have anything in the car that is illegal, that he should know about, or any way they phrase that. Keep it short and sweet. If he asks "do you have anything illegal" or "do you have anything in the car I should know about", the answer is no. Really. You are being truthful, he didn't stop you for carrying a gun in a car. If, OTOH, he asks if you have any weapons, then you have to answer yes, and show him your CCL on request. He may also request to hold the gun for his safety. Here, you can comply, or you can get in a pissing match. up to you! Anyways, he can't turn the vehicle stop into a "gun stop", cause that's not why he stopped you in the first place. This starts getting into a gray area because of the Terry Stop ruling, etc, and I'm not going to get into that now. |
|
Quoted:
If, OTOH, he asks if you have any weapons, then you have to answer yes, and show him your CCL on request. Cite? Do we no longer have the right to remain silent? (honest question...as this is the first time I've seen anyone state that you HAVE TO answer). |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
If, OTOH, he asks if you have any weapons, then you have to answer yes, and show him your CCL on request. Cite? Do we no longer have the right to remain silent? (honest question...as this is the first time I've seen anyone state that you HAVE TO answer). I read it as if you are carrying and they ask you have to show. But if you don't show the license you can be fined $25, unless you show it within 48 hrs. 
From page 25-26: http://www.doj.state.wi.us/dles/cib/ConcealedCarry/ccw-faq-20111020.pdf Do I have to show anyone my CCW license? A licensee or out-of-state licensee who is carrying a concealed weapon must display the license and photo identification to a law enforcement officer upon the request of the law enforcement officer while the law enforcement officer is acting in an official capacity and with lawful authority. Wis. Stat. § 175.60(2g)(c). Failure to display the license to a law enforcement officer is a $25 forfeiture. Wis. Stat. § 175.60(17)(a). What is the penalty for not carrying or displaying a CCW license and photo ID? A person who does not carry or display a CCW license and photo ID as required may be ordered to forfeit not more than $25 except that the a person is exempt from this penalty if he or she presents, within 48 hours of the request, his or her license document and photographic identification to the law enforcement agency who employs the officer who lawfully requested the documents. Wis. Stat. § 175.60(17)(a). What should I do if I have a CCW license and I have contact with a law enforcement officer while in possession of a concealed weapon? While the law does not impose any specific requirements other than displaying a photo ID and CCW license upon request of a law enforcement officer, there are some recommended actions you should take when you have contact with a law enforcement officer. Contact can include a traffic or other stop and situations where you contact an officer or when an officer approaches you for information or otherwise. If you have a CCW license and you have contact with a law enforcement officer while carrying a concealed weapon, you should do the following: 1. Immediately tell the officer that you're carrying a concealed weapon and where it's located. 2. Keep your hands where the officer can see them. 3. Cooperate fully with the officer. 4. Don't make any quick movements, especially toward the weapon. 5. If you're in a vehicle: Roll down your window and place your hands in plain view on the steering wheel If it is at night, turn on the vehicle's dome light. Calmly tell the officer you have a CCW license and that you have a weapon with you. Ask the officer if they have particular instructions concerning the weapon. Do not touch or attempt to touch the weapon unless specifically told to do so by the officer. Do not leave your vehicle unless specifically told to do so by the officer. In certain circumstances, a law enforcement officer may ask to take temporary possession of the weapon or may seize the weapon during interaction with the individual to ensure the safety of the officer and others or to secure the weapon as evidence. The officer will return the weapon at the end of the stop unless the individual is placed under arrest for a violation of the law that allows the weapon to be seized. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
If, OTOH, he asks if you have any weapons, then you have to answer yes, and show him your CCL on request. Cite? Do we no longer have the right to remain silent? (honest question...as this is the first time I've seen anyone state that you HAVE TO answer). And from here: http://www.doj.state.wi.us/dles/cib/ConcealedCarry/concealed-carry-application-11-11.pdf The top of page 5. Possession and Display of License: At all times during which a person is carrying a concealed weapon, the licensee shall have with them their concealed weapon license AND their photographic identification card (driver license or identification card). Both the license and identification shall be displayed to a law enforcement officer upon request. |
|
Quoted:
Possession and Display of License: At all times during which a person is carrying a concealed weapon, the licensee shall have with them their concealed weapon license AND their photographic identification card (driver license or identification card). Both the license and identification shall be displayed to a law enforcement officer upon request. You're reading me wrong. I'm not arguing that you MUST provide your CCW and ID to an LEO upon their request. My understanding of rcav8r's statement is that if asked if you have any weapons, that you MUST answer that question. It is my understanding that this question legally need not be answered (but if you do answer, answer truthfully). |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Possession and Display of License: At all times during which a person is carrying a concealed weapon, the licensee shall have with them their concealed weapon license AND their photographic identification card (driver license or identification card). Both the license and identification shall be displayed to a law enforcement officer upon request. You're reading me wrong. I'm not arguing that you MUST provide your CCW and ID to an LEO upon their request. My understanding of rcav8r's statement is that if asked if you have any weapons, that you MUST answer that question. It is my understanding that this question legally need not be answered (but if you do answer, answer truthfully). Ah. I read it as thinking you could stand there with a gun and remain silent when confronted by a LEO. 
And that would be opening the door and inviting the man into your life. |
|
Quoted:
Ah. I read it as thinking you could stand there with a gun and remain silent when confronted by a LEO.
And that would be opening the door and inviting the man into your life. lol...agreed. To recap: LEO asks for your CCW and ID: MUST COMPLY LEO asks you if you have any weapons: Do not have to answer, but if you do, must do so truthfully. |
|
"Do you have any weapons or drugs?"
"I do not have anything illegal in my vehicle officer". That would be an honest answer. That would work if you wanted to get technical about it. Also, if an officer asks for your CCW license, yet is not aware that you are carrying concealed, you do not have to provide it to them. Remember the officer must be: "acting in an official capacity and with lawful authority." Asking for your CCW license without having any suspicion or knowledge that you are carrying a concealed weapon would be considered not acting with lawful authority, since they did not first ascertain whether you are an individual who is armed and therefore should have a CCW license. This actually happened in west bend when an officer asked an openly carrying city council member if they had their CCW license. The situation was later corrected by the chief of police. It would be like an officer asking for your driver's license when you're walking down the street. You can give them an ID card, but they have no reason/need to see your driver's license since you were not driving. |
|
Madison PD put out a memo last fall that dealt with Act 35 and CCW. Starting on page 3 there is a section titled "Citizen Encounters" which deals with this very topic. I found it to be informative.
www.cityofmadison.com/police/documents/LUfall2011.pdf |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
If, OTOH, he asks if you have any weapons, then you have to answer yes, and show him your CCL on request. Cite? Do we no longer have the right to remain silent? (honest question...as this is the first time I've seen anyone state that you HAVE TO answer). Well, technically, you COULD take the 5th, but you are asking for a long day (or night). But as someone said, if you DO answer, then it should be the truth. As a side note, remember the LEO does not have to tell you the truth on anything. |
| Gents the 5th amendment protection against self incrimination does not apply until you've been formally charged as in the DA has issued a criminal complaint and formal prosecution has begun. The only other area it applies to is if you are called to testify in a government legal proceeding. It has no bearing during an initial stop by an LEO. Terry v. Ohio and protections under Miranda are applicable when LEOs are conducting investigations or "stops" of citizens. The 5th Amendment does not. |
|
Quoted:
Gents the 5th amendment protection against self incrimination does not apply until you've been formally charged as in the DA has issued a criminal complaint and formal prosecution has begun. The only other area it applies to is if you are called to testify in a government legal proceeding. It has no bearing during an initial stop by an LEO. Terry v. Ohio and protections under Miranda are applicable when LEOs are conducting investigations or "stops" of citizens. The 5th Amendment does not. So you're saying I can be detained, but not have the right to remain silent?
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If, OTOH, he asks if you have any weapons, then you have to answer yes, and show him your CCL on request. Cite? Do we no longer have the right to remain silent? (honest question...as this is the first time I've seen anyone state that you HAVE TO answer). Well, technically, you COULD take the 5th, but you are asking for a long day (or night). But as someone said, if you DO answer, then it should be the truth. As a side note, remember the LEO does not have to tell you the truth on anything. "I have nothing illegal on me" is answering and doing so without lying. |
|
Quoted:
Gents the 5th amendment protection against self incrimination does not apply until you've been formally charged as in the DA has issued a criminal complaint and formal prosecution has begun. The only other area it applies to is if you are called to testify in a government legal proceeding. It has no bearing during an initial stop by an LEO. Terry v. Ohio and protections under Miranda are applicable when LEOs are conducting investigations or "stops" of citizens. The 5th Amendment does not. You could not be further from the truth. If the 5th amendment applied only after formal charges, why would anyone get an attorney while under investigation? or why would one have to "sign away their rights" while being interrogated? The 5th amendment protection against self incrimination applies at basically anytime past your giving the officer identification. Im sure there is a grey area as to when exactly 5th amendment protection begins (based on the type of questioning by the officer). An officer asking for your information is not a 5th amendment issue. The officer is merely discovering if you are who you say you are, not accusing you of any wrongdoing. The government has the burden to prove you have done what they say you have done, and at no time do you have to admit to what they say you have done. The differences between a 'stop and ask', 'detention', 'arrest', and 'being charged' all have differing levels of constitutional protection, and cause for the officer to take the actions they take. That is why you get an attorney. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If, OTOH, he asks if you have any weapons, then you have to answer yes, and show him your CCL on request. Cite? Do we no longer have the right to remain silent? (honest question...as this is the first time I've seen anyone state that you HAVE TO answer). Well, technically, you COULD take the 5th, but you are asking for a long day (or night). But as someone said, if you DO answer, then it should be the truth. As a side note, remember the LEO does not have to tell you the truth on anything. "I have nothing illegal on me" is answering and doing so without lying. And it also tends to spike the officers "Interested-o-meter". |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Gents the 5th amendment protection against self incrimination does not apply until you've been formally charged as in the DA has issued a criminal complaint and formal prosecution has begun. The only other area it applies to is if you are called to testify in a government legal proceeding. It has no bearing during an initial stop by an LEO. Terry v. Ohio and protections under Miranda are applicable when LEOs are conducting investigations or "stops" of citizens. The 5th Amendment does not. You could not be further from the truth. If the 5th amendment applied only after formal charges, why would anyone get an attorney while under investigation? or why would one have to "sign away their rights" while being interrogated? The 5th amendment protection against self incrimination applies at basically anytime past your giving the officer identification. Im sure there is a grey area as to when exactly 5th amendment protection begins (based on the type of questioning by the officer). An officer asking for your information is not a 5th amendment issue. The officer is merely discovering if you are who you say you are, not accusing you of any wrongdoing. The government has the burden to prove you have done what they say you have done, and at no time do you have to admit to what they say you have done. The differences between a 'stop and ask', 'detention', 'arrest', and 'being charged' all have differing levels of constitutional protection, and cause for the officer to take the actions they take. That is why you get an attorney. When you "sign away your rights " as you say during a police investigation you are signing a Miranda waiver. What I'm trying to convey is that you have certain rights during questioning by police but those rights are derived from other means, not the 5th Amendment. For instance say John Doe is questioned by police. For whatever reason he gives information that is used against him later in court. John Doe is then arrested based either solely or in part due to his statements made to police. He files a motion to suppress that information (now evidence). That motion will be based on a number of possible violations of procedure or authority such as 1) he was never given a Miranda warning 2) police continued questioning after John Doe envoked his right to an attorney 3) the police did not have a right to detain John in the first place. There are many possibilities but not one of them will be "my 5th amendment protection against self incrimination was violated." Once again that's because that specific protection does not apply when being questioned by police. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Gents the 5th amendment protection against self incrimination does not apply until you've been formally charged as in the DA has issued a criminal complaint and formal prosecution has begun. The only other area it applies to is if you are called to testify in a government legal proceeding. It has no bearing during an initial stop by an LEO. Terry v. Ohio and protections under Miranda are applicable when LEOs are conducting investigations or "stops" of citizens. The 5th Amendment does not. You could not be further from the truth. If the 5th amendment applied only after formal charges, why would anyone get an attorney while under investigation? or why would one have to "sign away their rights" while being interrogated? The 5th amendment protection against self incrimination applies at basically anytime past your giving the officer identification. Im sure there is a grey area as to when exactly 5th amendment protection begins (based on the type of questioning by the officer). An officer asking for your information is not a 5th amendment issue. The officer is merely discovering if you are who you say you are, not accusing you of any wrongdoing. The government has the burden to prove you have done what they say you have done, and at no time do you have to admit to what they say you have done. The differences between a 'stop and ask', 'detention', 'arrest', and 'being charged' all have differing levels of constitutional protection, and cause for the officer to take the actions they take. That is why you get an attorney. When you "sign away your rights " as you say during a police investigation you are signing a Miranda waiver. What I'm trying to convey is that you have certain rights during questioning by police but those rights are derived from other means, not the 5th Amendment. For instance say John Doe is questioned by police. For whatever reason he gives information that is used against him later in court. John Doe is then arrested based either solely or in part due to his statements made to police. He files a motion to suppress that information (now evidence). That motion will be based on a number of possible violations of procedure or authority such as 1) he was never given a Miranda warning 2) police continued questioning after John Doe envoked his right to an attorney 3) the police did not have a right to detain John in the first place. There are many possibilities but not one of them will be "my 5th amendment protection against self incrimination was violated." Once again that's because that specific protection does not apply when being questioned by police. Miranda stems directly from the 5th amendment. look specifically at 1(b) and (d). The only question is, at what point is someone "in custody" |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Gents the 5th amendment protection against self incrimination does not apply until you've been formally charged as in the DA has issued a criminal complaint and formal prosecution has begun. The only other area it applies to is if you are called to testify in a government legal proceeding. It has no bearing during an initial stop by an LEO. Terry v. Ohio and protections under Miranda are applicable when LEOs are conducting investigations or "stops" of citizens. The 5th Amendment does not. You could not be further from the truth. If the 5th amendment applied only after formal charges, why would anyone get an attorney while under investigation? or why would one have to "sign away their rights" while being interrogated? The 5th amendment protection against self incrimination applies at basically anytime past your giving the officer identification. Im sure there is a grey area as to when exactly 5th amendment protection begins (based on the type of questioning by the officer). An officer asking for your information is not a 5th amendment issue. The officer is merely discovering if you are who you say you are, not accusing you of any wrongdoing. The government has the burden to prove you have done what they say you have done, and at no time do you have to admit to what they say you have done. The differences between a 'stop and ask', 'detention', 'arrest', and 'being charged' all have differing levels of constitutional protection, and cause for the officer to take the actions they take. That is why you get an attorney. When you "sign away your rights " as you say during a police investigation you are signing a Miranda waiver. What I'm trying to convey is that you have certain rights during questioning by police but those rights are derived from other means, not the 5th Amendment. For instance say John Doe is questioned by police. For whatever reason he gives information that is used against him later in court. John Doe is then arrested based either solely or in part due to his statements made to police. He files a motion to suppress that information (now evidence). That motion will be based on a number of possible violations of procedure or authority such as 1) he was never given a Miranda warning 2) police continued questioning after John Doe envoked his right to an attorney 3) the police did not have a right to detain John in the first place. There are many possibilities but not one of them will be "my 5th amendment protection against self incrimination was violated." Once again that's because that specific protection does not apply when being questioned by police. Miranda stems directly from the 5th amendment. look specifically at 1(b) and (d). The only question is, at what point is someone "in custody" When you don't feel as if you are free to leave or a police officer tells you that you are under arrest. |
|
2 questions to ask: "Am I being detained?", and "Am I free to leave?". If the first one is yes, and the 2nd one is no, then stop talking, except to say "I will no longer speak except with my attorney present".
Actually, you probably shouldn't be talking to LEO in the first place. There are whole threads (and videos) on what you should do during police encounters. I'm not going to get into that. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If, OTOH, he asks if you have any weapons, then you have to answer yes, and show him your CCL on request. Cite? Do we no longer have the right to remain silent? (honest question...as this is the first time I've seen anyone state that you HAVE TO answer). Well, technically, you COULD take the 5th, but you are asking for a long day (or night). But as someone said, if you DO answer, then it should be the truth. As a side note, remember the LEO does not have to tell you the truth on anything. "I have nothing illegal on me" is answering and doing so without lying. And it also tends to spike the officers "Interested-o-meter". It can spike it all they want. Doesn't mean they have RAS for anything. |
|
Quoted:
It can spike it all they want. Doesn't mean they have RAS for anything. "You wouldn't say that if you had nothing to hide. Please step out of the car, sir. I beleive I have seen illegal items in your car, and will now search it. These cuffs are for the safety of both of us. " 
The only way to win, is to not play the game in the first place. Don't give them an excuse to pull you over. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
The basis of this ruling was based on the wording of WI State Statute 968.24, which states: 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. I believe you are mistaken. if you examine the list, as a list, it is a list of things an OFFICER may do. "a law enforcement officer MAY stop a person in a public place...may demand the name and address of the person..." Look up noscitur a sociis. Simple statutory interpretation. Im no lawyer, but your argument is incorrect. Not according to the WI supreme court. Please read through Henes v. Morrissy, I quoted the exact ruling that supports your claim that it is a "list" of things an officer may do, but it still doesn't require you to respond. I understand the arguement of similar licensing and all (car vs CCW), but everyone sees you driving a car. No one should see you carrying, if done properly. Sorry guys, I've got a lot of time on my hands and not a whole lot to do around here these days. 
|
|
Remember the Madison 5 culvers incident? One of the whole things it hinged on was their refusal to provide ID. They didn't have to, the cops were wrong, and the city (taxpayers) paid for it.
You can VERBALLY ID yourself, but there is no law that says you have to provide ID (in WI) if you aren't driving, nor if the LEO doesn't have RAS. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The basis of this ruling was based on the wording of WI State Statute 968.24, which states: 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. I believe you are mistaken. if you examine the list, as a list, it is a list of things an OFFICER may do. "a law enforcement officer MAY stop a person in a public place...may demand the name and address of the person..." Look up noscitur a sociis. Simple statutory interpretation. Im no lawyer, but your argument is incorrect. Not according to the WI supreme court. Please read through Henes v. Morrissy, I quoted the exact ruling that supports your claim that it is a "list" of things an officer may do, but it still doesn't require you to respond. I understand the arguement of similar licensing and all (car vs CCW), but everyone sees you driving a car. No one should see you carrying, if done properly. Sorry guys, I've got a lot of time on my hands and not a whole lot to do around here these days. Hypothetical situation: My young children are out playing in the front yard. There's a man that I don't recognize from the neighborhood walking up and down the street with a keen eye on my children. Not being one for confrontation, I call the police expressing my concerns. They arrive, walk up to him and ask for ID. Being a street smart criminal, he's well aware of Henes v. Morrissy and refuses to answer. Due to the officers brief contact, and not having personally seen the same behavior as I called about, the officer must let him go on his way. Fast forward a month. There is a story in the newspaper about this same piece of shit being arrested for the kidnapping, rape, torture, and murder of a child just like mine (or yours if you have any). How would you feel if it may have been prevented if the officer had been provided the man's identification, and in doing a warrant check, determined that he was on the sex offender registry. How do you feel about "stop and identify" now? How do you feel about a person not having an "obligation to respond" now? |
|
Quoted:
Hypothetical situation: My young children are out playing in the front yard. There's a man that I don't recognize from the neighborhood walking up and down the street with a keen eye on my children. Not being one for confrontation, I call the police expressing my concerns. They arrive, walk up to him and ask for ID. Being a street smart criminal, he's well aware of Henes v. Morrissy and refuses to answer. Due to the officers brief contact, and not having personally seen the same behavior as I called about, the officer must let him go on his way. Fast forward a month. There is a story in the newspaper about this same piece of shit being arrested for the kidnapping, rape, torture, and murder of a child just like mine (or yours if you have any). How would you feel if it may have been prevented if the officer had been provided the man's identification, and in doing a warrant check, determined that he was on the sex offender registry. How do you feel about "stop and identify" now? How do you feel about a person not having an "obligation to respond" now? I can't speak for Murooka, but I would have to side with liberty and freedom. "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. " Don't get me wrong....kidnapping, rape, and torture is horrible. However, at the first interaction, the person had not comitted any crime. "Ihre papiere, bitte" has no place in a free society. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The basis of this ruling was based on the wording of WI State Statute 968.24, which states: 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. I believe you are mistaken. if you examine the list, as a list, it is a list of things an OFFICER may do. "a law enforcement officer MAY stop a person in a public place...may demand the name and address of the person..." Look up noscitur a sociis. Simple statutory interpretation. Im no lawyer, but your argument is incorrect. Not according to the WI supreme court. Please read through Henes v. Morrissy, I quoted the exact ruling that supports your claim that it is a "list" of things an officer may do, but it still doesn't require you to respond. I understand the arguement of similar licensing and all (car vs CCW), but everyone sees you driving a car. No one should see you carrying, if done properly. Sorry guys, I've got a lot of time on my hands and not a whole lot to do around here these days. You got me there, if youre innocently walking down the road, you do not have to identify yourself. As the court said in Henes case, that is because the statute does not read that way. The CCW statute does create a statutory requirement of identification, if the officer is acting with lawful authority. If we took to the Henes case, acting with lawful authority, has a burden similar to a terry stop (look around page 350, *350). The officer must reasonably suspect you are about to commit a crime, are committing a crime, or have just committed a crime. At this point the officer may detain you. So now there is a statutory requirement to provide your information if requested. Lets not forget that you can still be considered 'detained' and not 'arrested' after you have been patted down and placed in handcuffs. So, lets assume an officer does see your gun while you are carrying (a rookie mistake). This gives rise to reasonable suspicion you may be unlawfully carrying. The Henes court, during their analysis, agreed that there is a balancing test between the public's interest and the persons right to privacy. I would imagine there is a greater public concern with someone illegally carrying, than someone being inconvenienced by having to providing their proof of a CCW license. So, a reasonable (we are assuming) officer would approach you and ask to see your CCW. You provide it to him and he merrily leaves knowing he has once again saved the world. Im sure this will at one point be argued in the court because of some overzealous cop overreacts and some overzealous prosecutor opposes CCW. But does it rise to the level of violating the 5th amendment? I imagine the language of the statute and public policy will outweigh any "minor inconvenience" someone with CCW will experience. But the cop still has to have reasonable suspicion that you are about to, are or have done something wrong |
|
I would think just because a cop sees you carrying (open or oopsie), he still does not have reason to stop you, unless in a GFSZ, since open carry is legal in WI.
Unless you are a known felon or otherwise known to be prohibited to carry firearms, Why should a cop stop you if your CC gun accidently gets exposed? Does the prohibition against law enforcement using weapons carry as a tool to harrass citizens come into play here? What is his RAS? (yes, I like poking the hornets nest with a stick) 
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Hypothetical situation: My young children are out playing in the front yard. There's a man that I don't recognize from the neighborhood walking up and down the street with a keen eye on my children. Not being one for confrontation, I call the police expressing my concerns. They arrive, walk up to him and ask for ID. Being a street smart criminal, he's well aware of Henes v. Morrissy and refuses to answer. Due to the officers brief contact, and not having personally seen the same behavior as I called about, the officer must let him go on his way. Fast forward a month. There is a story in the newspaper about this same piece of shit being arrested for the kidnapping, rape, torture, and murder of a child just like mine (or yours if you have any). How would you feel if it may have been prevented if the officer had been provided the man's identification, and in doing a warrant check, determined that he was on the sex offender registry. How do you feel about "stop and identify" now? How do you feel about a person not having an "obligation to respond" now? I can't speak for Murooka, but I would have to side with liberty and freedom. "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. " Don't get me wrong....kidnapping, rape, and torture is horrible. However, at the first interaction, the person had not comitted any crime. "Ihre papiere, bitte" has no place in a free society. Oh, I absolutely agree that there is no place for "your papers please." Something such as if an officer is driving down the street, and stopping next to someone walking on the sidewalk, whom has not been observed doing anything obviously suspicious, or been reported to have done anything suspicious. He calls him over and asks for ID. Now THAT is something you would expect in a police state. Going back to my example. Even though the officer hasn't observed enough to establish RAS to meet a threshold where displaying an ID would be required, if I were able to communicate enough details that, if personally observed by him, would that be sufficient for him to establish RAS? Should that be enough to trigger a requirement to identify yourself? Now I'm just takling about having to identify yourself, and nothing more. Nam & Murooka, these questions aren't specifically directed towards you, but to anyone who cares to offer their opinion. I'd really like to know others thoughts at where the line should be drawn at requiring or not requiring to show ID. I expect some very differing opinions here, so let's play nice. It's OK to agree to disagree. 
|
|
Quoted:
I dont get why people choose the laws they follow? Apparently you choose which laws you follow.
Quoted:
I personally ignore all signs. the reason behind concealed is that no one knows you are carrying. Reward > Risk in this situation for me. http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_8_21/483907_Wisconsin_CCW_law_question.html |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I dont get why people choose the laws they follow? Apparently you choose which laws you follow.
Quoted:
I personally ignore all signs. the reason behind concealed is that no one knows you are carrying. Reward > Risk in this situation for me. http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_8_21/483907_Wisconsin_CCW_law_question.html 
|