Wisconsin Carry, Inc fast-tracking lawsuit against Madison Police Department

Status
Not open for further replies.
She didn't even say she was upset. She said she'd be upset if something happened and she hadn't called in. Her call was a notification to the police of an unusual situation.

There is no indication in either the Wisconsin Carry release or the Madison release that the restaurant pressed any charges of any sort. The customer made the call and the police arrived on the scene and approached the 5 after they had finished eating and exited the business without making a scene. No other customers or the business are reported to have called police with any concerns. The Madison release, an official release from the city, says the Chief made the decision to bring the charges of Disorderly Conduct. "Based upon the further investigation, Chief Noble Wray has concluded the appropriate charge for all 5 armed individuals is Disorderly Conduct (DC).".

We should all try to stick to the facts as presented in the two pieces of information we have, the WC and Madison City releases.
 
Reasonable Suspicion

Reasonable suspicion may have been that the presence of armed men in the reataurant caused a disturbance witness the 911 call reporting the incident. That was for the officers to assess. If they were wrong the brass or the Court will make that determination. I don't believe any of us want the police to be hancuffed in the performance of their duties. I would rather they erred on the side of caution.
 
Reasonable suspicion may have been that the presence of armed men in the reataurant caused a disturbance witness the 911 call reporting the incident. That was for the officers to assess. If they were wrong the brass or the Court will make that determination. I don't believe any of us want the police to be hancuffed in the performance of their duties. I would rather they erred on the side of caution.
Click to expand...

Yes we do want them to be restrained - this is what a limited government is based on.

Based upon the further investigation, Chief Noble Wray has concluded the appropriate charge for all 5 armed individuals is Disorderly Conduct (DC).
Click to expand...

Based upon this comment, I suggest that we start an email/letter writing campaign to the chief and the state's AG noting how abusive his use of the disorderly conduct charge is. Can anyone get contact information?
 
Derailment

If I have derailed anything so have everyone else. I think the problem is you or others don't like to hear opposing positions.
 
Disorderly conduct, a catch-all charge that the police use when they have nothing else on you.
Reasonable suspicion is not when some guys carrying in public while take the time to order (and pay for) food then sit down to eat it and leave with no incident. Particularly when they were legally carrying open in public. Sorry, but this smacks of "It's ok if we infringe on your rights just a little to make the world a safer place". No. That isn't OK.
 
For anyone else that questions the open carriers while defending the Police;

The kidnapping analogy is 100% solid. In this country we do not yet have to prove to the police that we are innocent.

If they have probable cause to believe a crime is/was being commited it's different, but in this particular case there was no probable cause for them to ask for ID. Not to be harsh, but a scared and ignorant senior is not probable cause.

It is different than a traffic stop. In a traffic stop, the reason you were pulled over is the probable cause, such as speeding, running a redlight, etc. That is why they ask for ID. I speculate that the majority of interaction between police and other people is often in the course of a traffic stop, and they are so used to being able to ask for ID that they do so on "auto-pilot." Just my thoughts.

WI's Atty general recently made a press release stating the Open Carry in and of itself is not grounds for Disorderly Conduct.
 
Last edited:
Probable Cause.

Probable cause is a higher standard than reasonable suspicion. As I read the WI requirements only reasonable suspicion is required to "stop and Identify". What ever turns out of this "law suit" the only ones to benefit will be the lawyers. No one has identified what the plaintifs want as a remedy. It seems they are suing before any court hearings or proceedings. If at trial they are found guilty where is your law suit?? If they are found not guilty can you afford the costs involved. Can WI Carry, Inc. afford to involve itself in every issue its members may get into. They should choose their battle grounds where the most benefit will be realized.
 
snubbies, with all due respect you should read and understand Terry v. Ohio before you add anything else or mention reasonable suspicion again.
 
WI Law

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

What crime could be suspected reasonably with the evidence that we have?
 
Snubs,
What is your point? The officer cannot demand to see identification (he can certainly ask, but the person is not obliged to provide it) A verbal reply from the one being questioned is sufficient to satisfy the law.

I also don't think the officers' willful ignorance of the law is enough to reach the threshold of "reasonable" suspicion, but I don't know if that's been tested in court (yet.)
 
WI Law

ZXCVBOB

Wisconsin law cited above give the officer the right to "demand" an individuals name and address
 
Wisconsin law cited above give the officer the right to "demand" an individuals name and address
Click to expand...
...but not the right to demand to see an ID card. I was going to look up the SC case of that guy in Nevada but you found it already.
 
This has turned into a page and a half debate on the legal issues around the stop and citation of the WC group and not the action proposed in response to it.

Open a thread in Legal if you want to discuss this aspect of the event and refocus on the action proposed (send money) in the WC release. I think we've established that there are two opinions on the legal issue, either the police were justified or not.
 
Donations

The members have the right to know the chances of success in the law suit before they contribute to the WC fund. To blindly ask for funds is unconscienable. I have presented my opinion with some documentation and others have an opposite opinion. With this information in hand the members can make an informed opinion and be guided accordingly. I have no dog in this fight since Illinois is what it is.
 
Snubbies: Terry v. Ohio IS pertinent, as there was no CRIME or suspicion thereof, so the Terry Stop was illegal. It's a good lawsuit for WC and for us to contribute to if you can.

Attorney General Van Hollen has openly supported "open carry" as being legal in WI. Get your legal papers straight before getting undies in a bundle: I believe it is perfectly legal to OPEN CARRY in ILLINOIS just as easily and legally. It is just as legal to eat in that restaurant as it is to open carry in that establishment, without alcohol being served or Culvers posting signage per " No Firearms". Simply eating there, even w/o open carry, does NOT mean anyone can demand to see your ID to verify IF you are a felon or not.

Word needs to get out as I live just 35 miles south of there and this is first I've heard of it! GO WC!!
 
To Each His Own

I prefer Hibel and WI State Law. You do as you please. Try not to get so upset bad for your heart. I invite you and your carry to Chicago to test your theory.
 
Last edited:
No, it is not to each his own, as I am a certified LEO in WI and I know these laws inside and out. I understand why the Madison PD is using the DC as their charge-as stated earlier it is the "last resort" charge; you can't tie up 8 cops for an hour and come away empty handed, with nothing but their false pride. However, it is the wrong charge and has become a political statement for the PD Chief to make to A.G. JB Van Hollen right there in Madison. These 5 people will NOT get tied up in a stand-off between the Police Chief and the State's Attorney General, with me standing by doing nothing. That's darn near the definition of tyranny.

Turning this into a personal affront in telling me to not get upset is the wrong direction to go for a reasonable person. We still live in these great United States under the protective cover of the Constitution where healthy debate makes the precedant for setting standards of the REST of the World.

Here I shall make a clear point about your references, Snubbies, I am not making an affront to you personally: The wikipedia/Hibel which you prefer to stand on for your decision is not allowed to be used in basic College courses as a reference. Anyone can log into the area and make manipulations/annotations/misdirections without consequences for the actual laws and/or truth. Also, WI law on this matter is based on Terry vs. Ohio, as it is all across the land per what is commonly called a "Terry Stop". It is a Landmark case from Ohio, about 1964 IIRC, and it does not apply here for this particular case as there was no reasonable suspicion for a past/present/future crime. The Police Dept. presence actually CAUSED the situation which came forth on a peaceful and legal assembly.

Join and donate as this MAY become another landmark case. You have an opportunity to be a part of history in the making for our rights as legal gun owners. Exciting!!
 
No offense jackpinesavages but that sounds like a 'contempt of cop' charge.

OCing and not playing LEO games works well in many other states, like my beloved Virginia. It took a little while and a few payouts but eventually the LEOs 'got it' and problems now are rare.

Regarding the 'what if they are felons' argument, then the LEO would be basing reasonable suspicion on the belief that anyone carrying a gun is a felon. That will not hold up in any court.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

A
  • Locked
Wisconsin Passes Landmark Crime Bill
Replies
3
Views
403
Standing Wolf
S
M
  • Locked
Wi - Area Police Rip Plan For Hidden Weapons
Replies
20
Views
1K
artjs
A
C
  • Locked
Wisconsin: "Assembly passed concealed weapons bill"
Replies
0
Views
444
cuchulainn
C
X
  • Locked
Wisconsin: PPA Override: The ANTI's will be out in full force
Replies
12
Views
756
litman252
L
B
  • Locked
Please help me to compose a response to the anti-campus-carry resolution
Replies
11
Views
1K
bztian
B
Back
Top