1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

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

Discussion in 'Activism Discussion and Planning' started by bnhcomputing, Sep 24, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Cosmoline

    Cosmoline Well-Known Member

    Snubbie, you seem to be confusing the concepts of "reasonable suspicion" with "no reasonable suspicion." In this case the responding officers identified a number of men who were apparently breaking no law. There was by definition NO REASONABLE SUSPICION. You cannot claim reasonable suspicion unless there is in fact some reasonable suspicion.

    Reasonable suspicion is not an open invitation for the officers to dig around and try to find something that might be illegal. For example I might be a criminal on a wanted list. Or there might be a bench warrant on me. But that does not give any LEO in this country a right to demand ID apropos of nothing. And since carrying a firearm in the manner described here was not illegal, the officers had NOTHING. So they dug to see if they could find something.

    If you were correct, the any officer could stop any citizen at any time and demand their ID on the "suspicion" that they MIGHT be doing something illegal. That may be a suspicion, but it is not a reasonable one.
  2. snubbies

    snubbies Well-Known Member


    They had a report of men with guns. They came to investigate. They followed policy, right or wrong. My question about "anyone strap on a gun" was rhetorical. NAVYLT The 4th amendmant rights issue has been resolved in Hibel cited above

    Please read the cite below. I posted this previously and nobody seems to read anymore.


    Petitioner Hiibel was arrested and convicted in a Nevada court for refusing to identify himself to a police officer during an investigative stop involving a reported assault. Nevada’s “stop and identify” statute requires a person detained by an officer under suspicious circumstances to identify himself. The state intermediate appellate court affirmed, rejecting Hiibel’s argument that the state law’s application to his case violated the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed.
    Last edited: Sep 26, 2010
  3. hso

    hso Moderator Staff Member

    Last edited: Sep 26, 2010
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page