Now That's A Lawyer!
Pretty forward looking as Terry hadn't even been born at that time.
Pretty forward looking as Terry hadn't even been born at that time.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
stop and identify
- Thread starter weston502
- Start date
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
Pretty forward looking as Terry hadn't even been born at that time.
Hey, Jonas! Haven't seen ya for a while! Glad to see you're still around.
LOERetired
New member
Probable Cause or Reasonable Suspicion
Unlike open carry where the possession of a firearm while open carrying is not probable cause or reasonable suspicion to stop a person, carrying concealed does give rise to probable cause or reasonable suspicion according to the Madison police department.
Response to open carry situations in these contexts may create reasonable suspicion justifying an investigative stopand further investigation. However, in other contexts, open carry is less likely to create reasonable suspicion justifying a stop. The amendment tothe disorderly conduct statute included in Act 35 limits the applicability of 947.01 to open carry situations; only if“other facts and circumstances indicate a criminal or malicious intent on the part of the person” might open carrybe considered a violation (even if others are disturbed). As with any citizen encounter, it is important to debrief thesubject at the end of the incident and explain the reasons for your actions.
Act 35 is new, and leaves a number of questions unanswered. It isn’t possible to predict how Wisconsin courts will rule oncases related to Act 35, or whether the Legislature will enact any modifications to the law. Other IssuesAs indicated, Act 35 does not require CCW license holders who are armed to notify law enforcement of that fact duringan encounter. They do, however, need to produce their license and photo ID if requested. DOJ has put forth someinitial recommendations for CCW license holders to follow if contacted by law enforcement while carrying a concealed weapon:
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.
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 weaponduring interaction with the individual to ensure the safety of the officer and others or to secure the weapon as evidence. The officerwill 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 weaponto be seized.
These are only recommendations, and it is unclear if DOJ will incorporate them further into the licensing or training.Process.
Unlike open carry where the possession of a firearm while open carrying is not probable cause or reasonable suspicion to stop a person, carrying concealed does give rise to probable cause or reasonable suspicion according to the Madison police department.
http://www.cityofmadison.com/police/documents/LUfall2011.pdf
Madison Police Department Citizen Encounters
The objectives of the Madison Police Department when responding to reports of an armed person(s) are to ensure thesafety of the community and officers while respecting citizens’ constitutional and statutory rights. MPD fallin-service has included a section on concealed carry and how to engage in citizen encounters (contacts, stops, arrests) inlight of this change to Wisconsin Law. An overview of some relevant issues: Consensual Contacts Officers are always free to engage in consensual contacts with citizens. No level of reasonable suspicion or probablecause is required to do so. No force, real or implied, may be used during a consensual contact…the citizen must feel “freeto decline the officers’ requests or otherwise terminate the encounter.” Any inherently coercive behavior on the part ofthe police, that would "communicate to a reasonable person that he is not at liberty to ignore the police presence and go about his business," will transform the contact into a stop, requiring suspicion of criminal activity.
Consensual contacts with potentially armed subjects can arise in two primary ways: open carry situations where noreasonable suspicion exists; or other consensual contacts done for investigative purposes. During a consensualencounter, officers may ask for identification and may ask if the subject is armed or carrying a concealed weapon. Thesubject is under no obligation to answer questions, provide identification or even remain with the officer. If the subjectis lawfully armed (an open carry situation, for example) the officer may ask to separate the weapon from the subject, butthe subject is generally under no obligation to comply.
An encounter that begins as a consensual encounter may transition into a stop or arrest if reasonable suspicion orprobable cause is developed. Stops A stop is a brief, investigative detention requiring reasonable suspicion—based on specific and articulable facts—that anindividual is committing, has committed or is about to commit a crime. While Act 35 might seem to significantlyimpact officers’ actions during investigative stops, the impact actually appears quite minor. When dealing with the traditional investigative stop (traffic or otherwise), Act 35 does not change much. If an officer possesses reasonable suspicion that a subject they have lawfully stopped is armed, a frisk is permissible. If aweapon is discovered during a frisk, the officer may secure it. Once the weapon has been secured, then the officer caninvestigate whether the subject is a CCW license holder. If the subject does possess a CCW license and no arrest ismade for the original offense, then the weapon should be returned to them at the completion of the stop.
Weaponsshould be returned in a manner that does not expose officers to any risk of attack. CCW license holders who are carrying a concealed weapon are not required to inform law enforcement that they arearmed during police encounters. However, if asked by a law enforcement officer whether they are armed a CCW licensemust display his/her license and a photo ID. So, in many circumstances it may be wise for officers to ask suspects whohave been detained if they are armed. If a detained suspect indicates that they are a CCW license holder who is carrying a concealed weapon (either byvolunteering the information or in response to an officer’s question), generally the officer should temporarily separatethe weapon from the suspect while the validity of the CCW license is verified. The officer should remove the weaponhim/herself (do not direct the subject to handle the weapon) and secure it during the stop while the license is verified. Insome situations, it might be safer to allow the subject to retain the weapon, and provide verbal directions to controltheir hands, movement, etc.
Which option is selected should depend on the circumstances (nature of the offense leading to the stop, cooperativeness of suspect, environment, etc.), but either is generally reasonable. If the CCW license is verified and the stop does not result in an arrest, then the weapon should be safely returned to thesubject at the completion of the stop. An interesting question raised by Act 35 is a situation whereofficers reasonably suspect that a person is carrying a concealed weapon (based on observations, citizen reports,etc.) but do not have indication that the person is involved in other criminal activity. Court decisions from otherjurisdictions (with concealed carry license/permit processes) have held fairly consistently that officers do have theauthority to detain subjects under these circumstances to verify whether they have a valid CCW permit and arelawfully carrying the weapon.
Consider what our response to a report of someone carrying a concealed weapon prior toAct 35 would have been; while the person could have been lawfully authorized to carry a concealed weapon (off-duty orretired law enforcement), officers would still respond to investigate and determine whether they were carrying aweapon (and, if so, whether they were lawfully authorized to do so). Act 35 doesn’t change this. Officers responding to investigate subjects carrying concealed weapons should respond and verify that the personis lawfully carrying the weapon (law enforcement, valid CCW license holder, someone in their dwelling or business,etc.). Officers should also determine if the property where the subject is located is posted (to prohibit weapons).
Absentany additional suspicious behavior, it is generally appropriate to do this in a low-key manner (while taking appropriatesteps to maintain officer and public safety). In some instances a more intrusive tactical approach—controlling and frisking the suspect—may be appropriate. If the person is determined to be a valid CCW license holder, then the weapon should be safely returned at the completion of thestop. If a subject carrying a concealed weapon does not have their license with them, but officers verify their identity and that they do have a valid CCW license, they should generally be cited (for failing to carry the license) and the weapon should be returned (if there is a lawful way for the subject to transport it). If the subject presents their license and photoID within 48 hours of the incident then the citation must be withdrawn.
If a subject carrying a concealed weapon claims to have a CCW license, but either their identity or licensee statuscannot be confirmed, then an arrest/charge for carrying a concealed weapon is generally appropriate. The weaponshould be seized as evidence. Also remember that Act 35 impacts response to open carrysituations. The Act outlines a number of places where open carry is expressly not permitted (courthouses, police
facilities, etc.), and also allows property owners to prohibit weapons on their property through direct notice or signage.Madison Police Department Citizen Encounters
The objectives of the Madison Police Department when responding to reports of an armed person(s) are to ensure thesafety of the community and officers while respecting citizens’ constitutional and statutory rights. MPD fallin-service has included a section on concealed carry and how to engage in citizen encounters (contacts, stops, arrests) inlight of this change to Wisconsin Law. An overview of some relevant issues: Consensual Contacts Officers are always free to engage in consensual contacts with citizens. No level of reasonable suspicion or probablecause is required to do so. No force, real or implied, may be used during a consensual contact…the citizen must feel “freeto decline the officers’ requests or otherwise terminate the encounter.” Any inherently coercive behavior on the part ofthe police, that would "communicate to a reasonable person that he is not at liberty to ignore the police presence and go about his business," will transform the contact into a stop, requiring suspicion of criminal activity.
Consensual contacts with potentially armed subjects can arise in two primary ways: open carry situations where noreasonable suspicion exists; or other consensual contacts done for investigative purposes. During a consensualencounter, officers may ask for identification and may ask if the subject is armed or carrying a concealed weapon. Thesubject is under no obligation to answer questions, provide identification or even remain with the officer. If the subjectis lawfully armed (an open carry situation, for example) the officer may ask to separate the weapon from the subject, butthe subject is generally under no obligation to comply.
An encounter that begins as a consensual encounter may transition into a stop or arrest if reasonable suspicion orprobable cause is developed. Stops A stop is a brief, investigative detention requiring reasonable suspicion—based on specific and articulable facts—that anindividual is committing, has committed or is about to commit a crime. While Act 35 might seem to significantlyimpact officers’ actions during investigative stops, the impact actually appears quite minor. When dealing with the traditional investigative stop (traffic or otherwise), Act 35 does not change much. If an officer possesses reasonable suspicion that a subject they have lawfully stopped is armed, a frisk is permissible. If aweapon is discovered during a frisk, the officer may secure it. Once the weapon has been secured, then the officer caninvestigate whether the subject is a CCW license holder. If the subject does possess a CCW license and no arrest ismade for the original offense, then the weapon should be returned to them at the completion of the stop.
Weaponsshould be returned in a manner that does not expose officers to any risk of attack. CCW license holders who are carrying a concealed weapon are not required to inform law enforcement that they arearmed during police encounters. However, if asked by a law enforcement officer whether they are armed a CCW licensemust display his/her license and a photo ID. So, in many circumstances it may be wise for officers to ask suspects whohave been detained if they are armed. If a detained suspect indicates that they are a CCW license holder who is carrying a concealed weapon (either byvolunteering the information or in response to an officer’s question), generally the officer should temporarily separatethe weapon from the suspect while the validity of the CCW license is verified. The officer should remove the weaponhim/herself (do not direct the subject to handle the weapon) and secure it during the stop while the license is verified. Insome situations, it might be safer to allow the subject to retain the weapon, and provide verbal directions to controltheir hands, movement, etc.
Which option is selected should depend on the circumstances (nature of the offense leading to the stop, cooperativeness of suspect, environment, etc.), but either is generally reasonable. If the CCW license is verified and the stop does not result in an arrest, then the weapon should be safely returned to thesubject at the completion of the stop. An interesting question raised by Act 35 is a situation whereofficers reasonably suspect that a person is carrying a concealed weapon (based on observations, citizen reports,etc.) but do not have indication that the person is involved in other criminal activity. Court decisions from otherjurisdictions (with concealed carry license/permit processes) have held fairly consistently that officers do have theauthority to detain subjects under these circumstances to verify whether they have a valid CCW permit and arelawfully carrying the weapon.
Consider what our response to a report of someone carrying a concealed weapon prior toAct 35 would have been; while the person could have been lawfully authorized to carry a concealed weapon (off-duty orretired law enforcement), officers would still respond to investigate and determine whether they were carrying aweapon (and, if so, whether they were lawfully authorized to do so). Act 35 doesn’t change this. Officers responding to investigate subjects carrying concealed weapons should respond and verify that the personis lawfully carrying the weapon (law enforcement, valid CCW license holder, someone in their dwelling or business,etc.). Officers should also determine if the property where the subject is located is posted (to prohibit weapons).
Absentany additional suspicious behavior, it is generally appropriate to do this in a low-key manner (while taking appropriatesteps to maintain officer and public safety). In some instances a more intrusive tactical approach—controlling and frisking the suspect—may be appropriate. If the person is determined to be a valid CCW license holder, then the weapon should be safely returned at the completion of thestop. If a subject carrying a concealed weapon does not have their license with them, but officers verify their identity and that they do have a valid CCW license, they should generally be cited (for failing to carry the license) and the weapon should be returned (if there is a lawful way for the subject to transport it). If the subject presents their license and photoID within 48 hours of the incident then the citation must be withdrawn.
If a subject carrying a concealed weapon claims to have a CCW license, but either their identity or licensee statuscannot be confirmed, then an arrest/charge for carrying a concealed weapon is generally appropriate. The weaponshould be seized as evidence. Also remember that Act 35 impacts response to open carrysituations. The Act outlines a number of places where open carry is expressly not permitted (courthouses, police
Response to open carry situations in these contexts may create reasonable suspicion justifying an investigative stopand further investigation. However, in other contexts, open carry is less likely to create reasonable suspicion justifying a stop. The amendment tothe disorderly conduct statute included in Act 35 limits the applicability of 947.01 to open carry situations; only if“other facts and circumstances indicate a criminal or malicious intent on the part of the person” might open carrybe considered a violation (even if others are disturbed). As with any citizen encounter, it is important to debrief thesubject at the end of the incident and explain the reasons for your actions.
Act 35 is new, and leaves a number of questions unanswered. It isn’t possible to predict how Wisconsin courts will rule oncases related to Act 35, or whether the Legislature will enact any modifications to the law. Other IssuesAs indicated, Act 35 does not require CCW license holders who are armed to notify law enforcement of that fact duringan encounter. They do, however, need to produce their license and photo ID if requested. DOJ has put forth someinitial recommendations for CCW license holders to follow if contacted by law enforcement while carrying a concealed weapon:
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.
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 weaponduring interaction with the individual to ensure the safety of the officer and others or to secure the weapon as evidence. The officerwill 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 weaponto be seized.
These are only recommendations, and it is unclear if DOJ will incorporate them further into the licensing or training.
Last edited:
LOERetired
New member
Woooops
sorry about that, it's fixed
sorry about that, it's fixedWell, thanks a lot! /sarcasm
First, its customary to let people know if its a pdf that will automatically start downloading by clicking on the link.
Second, your date is one hundred years off. Thanks a lot for the scare, pal. I saw that date and thought, "Oh, jeezus! Don't tell me these stops have been legal for 84 years longer than Terry v Ohio! That's gonna upset a whole bunch of rationale and argument against Terry Stops."
Watch what you're typing there, will ya.