Wisconsin Open Carry - Federal Lawsuit

Status
Not open for further replies.

P.O.2010

Member
Joined
May 4, 2008
Messages
133
http://www.jpfo.org/pdf02/complaint.pdf


IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
MILWAUKEE DIVISION
JESUS GONZALEZ )
)
Plaintiff, ) CIVIL ACTION FILE NO.
)
v. ) ______________________
)
VILLAGE OF WEST )
MILWAUKEE, WISCONSIN, )
)
CHARLES DONOVAN, )
)
PATRICK KRAFCHECK, )
)
CITY OF CHILTON, )
WISCONSIN, )
)
and )
)
MICHAEL YOUNG, )
)
Defendants. )
COMPLAINT
I. INTRODUCTION
1. This action, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, seeks a declaratory judgment that the
detention, search, and arrest by Defendants West Milwaukee, Donovan, and
−2−
Krafchek (the “West Milwaukee Defendants”) of Plaintiff for openly carrying
a firearm within a retail store violates the Fourteenth Amendment to the
Constitution of the United States. Plaintiff also seeks damages against the
West Milwaukee Defendants for his illegal detention and arrest and for the
illegal seizure and retention of his property. He also seeks a declaration that
the West Milwaukee Defendants violated the federal Privacy Act by
demanding that Plaintiff disclose his social security account number (“SSN”)
as a condition of being released from jail and without notifying Plaintiff what
uses would be made of his SSN and by what statutory or other authority it was
requested. Finally, Plaintiff seeks an order for the West Milwaukee
Defendants to expunge his SSN from their records. Regarding Defendants
Chilton and Young (the “Chilton Defendants”), this is an action under 42
U.S.C. § 1983 for the illegal detention, search, and arrest of Plaintiff, and for
the illegal seizure and retention of Plaintiff’s property.
II. JURISDICTION & VENUE
2. This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 28 U.S.C. 1343.
−3−
3. Venue is proper because Defendants all are located in this District and some
are located in this Division, and Plaintiff resides in this District and in this
Division.
III. PARTIES
4. Plaintiff Jesus Gonzalez is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the
State of Wisconsin.
5. Defendant Village of West Milwaukee is a municipal corporation organized
under the laws of the State of Wisconsin.
6. Defendant Charles Donovan is an officer with the West Milwaukee Police
Department.
7. Defendant Patrick Krafcheck is an officer with the West Milwaukee Police
Department.
8. Defendant City of Chilton is a municipal corporation organized under the laws
of the state of Wisconsin.
9. Defendant Michael Young is an officer with the Chilton Police Department.
IV. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
10. On May 14, 2008, Plaintiff was shopping in a Menards store in the Village of
West Milwaukee. Plaintiff was openly carrying a firearm in a thigh holster.
−4−
11. Defendants Donovan and Krafcheck were on duty at the time as officers of the
West Milwaukee Police Department and were dispatched to Menards on a
report of a man openly carrying a handgun.
12. Upon arrival at Menards, the Menards manager who called 911 directed
Defendants Donovan and Krafcheck to Plaintiff, who was in the parking lot
loading his purchases into his truck.
13. Defendant Donovan approached Plaintiff and arrested Plaintiff for disorderly
conduct for openly carrying a firearm in Menards.
14. At the time of the arrest, Defendant Donovan had no reason to believe that
Plaintiff had engaged in violent, abusive, indecent, profane, boisterous,
unreasonably loud or otherwise disorderly conduct under circumstances in
which the conduct tends to cause or provoke a disturbance.
15. Defendant Krafcheck seized Plaintiff’s firearm, case, and ammunition from
Plaintiff’s vehicle.
16. Defendant Krafcheck transported Plaintiff to jail. During Plaintiff’s
processing, Defendant Donovan requested Plaintiff’s SSN.
17. When Plaintiff did not respond, Defendant Krafcheck told Plaintiff that if
Plaintiff did not cooperate, he would be held in custody over the weekend,
−5−
whereupon Plaintiff informed Defendants that his social security card was in
his wallet.
18. Defendants Krafcheck and Donovan retrieved Plaintiff’s social security card
and obtained his SSN.
19. Defendant Village of West Milwaukee retains Plaintiff’s SSN in its records,
and retained Plaintiff’s property for 10 months before returning it upon order
of the Milwaukee County Circuit Court and without formal charges ever being
filed against Plaintiff.
20. Defendants Krafcheck and Donovan released Plaintiff on his own
recognizance.
21. On April 10, 2009, Plaintiff was shopping in a Wal-mart store in the City of
Chilton, Wisconsin while openly carrying a firearm.
22. As Plaintiff completed his purchases, Defendant Young approached Plaintiff
with his firearm pointed at Plaintiff and asked Plaintiff if Plaintiff were a law
enforcement officer.
23. When Plaintiff responded that he was not, Defendant Young waited for backup
and then disarmed Plaintiff, handcuffed him, searched him, and transported
−6−
him to the Chilton Police Department, all against Plaintiff’s will and without a
warrant.
24. At the time of the seizure of Plaintiff’s person, Defendant Young erroneously
told Plaintiff that it is illegal to carry a firearm in Wisconsin.
25. At no time did Defendant Young have reasonable articulable suspicion or
probable cause that Plaintiff had committed or was about to commit a crime, or
that Plaintiff was presently dangerous.
26. After a total detention of approximately two hours, Defendant Young release
Plaintiff without charges being recommended. Defendant Young did,
however, retain Plaintiff’s firearm, including magazine and ammunition,
against Plaintiff’s will and without a warrant and without probable cause to
believe such property was contraband or evidence of a crime.
27. Upon information and belief, Defendant City of Chilton retains possession of
Plaintiff’s property.
Count 1 – Violations of Fourteenth Amendment
28. By detaining Plaintiff, seizing his property, and arresting him for disorderly
conduct solely on account of Plaintiff’s openly wearing a firearm, the West
Milwaukee Defendants lacked probable cause or even reasonable articulable
−7−
suspicion to believe that Plaintiff had committed or was about to commit a
crime, and therefore violated Plaintiff’s 14th Amendment rights to be free from
unreasonable searches and seizures.
29. By detaining Plaintiff, seizing his property, and arresting him solely on account
of Plaintiff’s openly wearing a firearm, and by retaining such property, the
Chilton Defendants lacked probable cause or even reasonable articulable
suspicion to believe that Plaintiff had committed or was about to commit a
crime, and therefore violated Plaintiff’s 14th Amendment rights to be free from
unreasonable searches and seizures.
Count 2 – Violations of the Privacy Act
30. By demanding Plaintiff’s SSN on pain of weekend-long incarceration, the
West Milwaukee Defendants denied Plaintiff a right, benefit, or privilege on
account of Plaintiff’s refusal to disclose his SSN, in violation of Section 7(a) of
the Privacy Act.
31. By requesting Plaintiff’s SSN without disclosing to Plaintiff what uses would
be made of his SSN nor by what statutory or other authority it was requested,
the West Milwaukee Defendants violated Section 7(b) of the Privacy Act.
Prayer for Relief
−8−
Plaintiff demands the following relief:
32. A declaration that openly carrying a firearm in Wisconsin, without more, does
not constitute the crime of disorderly conduct nor any other crime, and that
Defendants violated Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment rights by searching and
seizing his person and property without a warrant and without probable cause
the Plaintiff had committed or was about to commit a crime.
33. A declaration that the West Milwaukee Defendants violated Sections 7(a) and
7(b) of the Privacy Act.
34. An Order requiring the West Milwaukee Defendants to expunge Plaintiff’s
SSN from their records.
35. An Order requiring the Chilton Defendants to return Plaintiff’s seized property.
36. Damages in an amount to be determined at trial.
37. Attorney’s fees and costs for bringing and maintaining this action.
38. A jury to try to this case.
39. Any other relief the Court deems proper.
JOHN R. MONROE,
−9−
___/s/ John R. Monroe_____________
John R. Monroe
Attorney at Law
9640 Coleman Road
Roswell, GA 30075
Telephone: (678) 362-7650
Facsimile: (770) 552-9318
[email protected]
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF
 
i'm from wi and i've never seen open carry here before besides some gun shops and when i'm at a farm. other than that try carrying a gun out side and two seconds later the cops will be around the corner. i wish we have conceal carry. we need to get rid or doyle.
 
I wish Mr. Gonzalez well and I hope his lawsuit is successful.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with the Police responding to a 911 call or request for service regarding a person with a gun but once you as the officer arrive and determine that no crime is being committed or is in imminent danger of being committed it's game over. By all means, show up, make contact and inquire as to whether or not everything is alright but if all the guy is doing is putting groceries in his car or some such while wearing a thigh rig that's it.

If wearing a firearm openly in a state where such conduct is legal amounts to disorderly conduct because someone might become alarmed or feel uncomfortable then wearing a Muslim star and crescent openly is disorderly conduct because someone also might take offense or believe you're a dangerous religious extremist.

Common sense must be used and these Police Departments must be brought into line. A guy loading groceries he paid for into a vehicle while armed = have a nice day. A guy sitting in his running automobile across the street from a bank while armed with an empty dufflebag and a face mask on the floor next to him = step out of the vehicle with your hands in plain sight.

People who open carry should have the rights respected and not be subject to harrassment.
 
I go to WI in August to attend an auto rally. Illinois doesn't allow carry...WI doesn't allow carry...IA doesn't recognize any other state CCW. Makes me wish the rally was somewhere else.
 
Finally, a common-sense ruling in the land of liberals and ultra-high taxation that effectively shoves Doyle's CCW vetoes up his back side. I hope the crow he tastes from his sneering, patronizing comment following his last veto is laced with bile - "If you want to carry a gun in Wisconsin, carry it on your hip." I'm quite sure that at the time he made that comment he never dreamed the AG would make an eventual ruling that essentially upholds the state's Constitution and allows open carry without fear of undue police interference. This may yet force the idiot politicians in this state to finally pass a CCW bill.

I find it particularly interesting in paragraph 6 this quote is bolded - "The Department believes that mere open carry of a firearm, absent additional facts and circumstances, should not result in a disorderly conduct charge."

This isn't perfect and will likely face a few more tests, but it's light-years ahead of where we thought we would be after the defeat of the last CCW bill. I would like to see this extended to open carry in vehicles as one of the looming problems with open-carry is the transition from secured carry in the car to open carry on the hip and vice-versa. That transfer will likely draw more attention and concern than if one could just exit/enter their car with the gun securely holstered.
 
I kinda wish I was back in Madison. I'd be carrying openly down State Street backed up by a handful of copies of the AG's ruling.

BTW, Illinois law comes dang close to not even allowing one to have a firearm in the trunk of the car... even if you're just driving through the state.
 
Actually in WI it is illegal to have a firearm accessible in a vehicle (even if unloaded).

By your statement carrying, even unloaded, on an atv, or motorcycle, would be illegal.

I have searched the Wisconsin statutes and can find no verification of this. It must be unloaded and encased, but I see nothing about in-accessible.
 
Wisconsin State Statutes -

Transportation of firearms. In general, possessing or transporting a firearm in a motor vehicle, motorboat, all-terrain vehicle, or aircraft is prohibited unless the gun is unloaded and in a carrying case. [ss. 167.31 (2) and (3),
23.33 (3) (e)] An unlawfully transported firearm is a public nuisance. [s. 29.927 (6g)]


The firearm does not have to be inaccessible, but cased and unloaded.
 
Cybernorris-

I have a current Illinois DNR Brochure in my hand which outlines legal carry of a gun in your vehicle (IISG08-1084). It says that you may transport a firearm "in your vehicle or ON YOUR PERSON" if three conditions are met:

1. Unloaded
2. Enclosed in a case, and
3. By persons who have a valid FOID card.

It also says that ammunition may be immediately accessible. There are people downstate who carry in fanny packs with unloaded guns and loaded magazines in the same case. Just FYI. If the gun is loaded and accessible--class 4 felony.

Lou
 
A Illinois non-resident cannot legally match those three conditions.

I have violated that several times while driving between TN and WI... and my gun was unloaded and encased.
 
We filed this lawsuit on January 8, 2010 and details are available on our web site WISCONSINCARRY.ORG. Wisconsin Carry was formed to take substantive action to protect and advance YOUR gun rights in Wisconsin. We chose to do more than talk about advancing gun rights but rather "do" something. Filing a federal lawsuit was not cheap, nor did it come without months of preparation and significant time and money investment from those involved. This investment was made, and the lawsuit filed before seeking funding or support from anyone. We took action first and are now asking for your support with a $15 donation to support what we have done, not what we promised we would do.

To that end, Wisconsin Carry, Inc. will be at the 2010 Northern Wisconsin Deer Classic & Outdoor Expo Booth #130 in Eau Claire, WI this weekend January (29,30,31) if you would like to meet in person.

Alternatively, if you would like to donate $15 or more to our cause, please visit our web site WISCONSINCARRY.ORG and fill out our online membership application. All donations are handled securely through PayPal.

For those who have already joined and/or donated we thank you for your generous support.

Hubert Hoffman, Vice President
Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
WISCONSINCARRY.ORG
Wisconsin - Stories From The States - OpenCarry.org - Discussion Forum
[email protected]
 
i'm from wi and i've never seen open carry here before besides some gun shops and when i'm at a farm. other than that try carrying a gun out side and two seconds later the cops will be around the corner. i wish we have conceal carry. we need to get rid or doyle.
I live in NW WI, open carry is legal in the state, unless I hear different from a state attorney, these special people violated this mans(and our's)constitutional rights, including his 2nd amendment rights!
 
A Victory for Gun rights in Wisconsin.

Wisconsin Carry, Inc. awarded judgment against City of Racine and 2 Racine Police Officers

For Immediate Release:

On September 9th, 2009 Wisconsin Carry, Inc. member Frank Hannan-Rock of Racine was unlawfully arrested while open-carrying on the front porch of his home in Racine.

http://www.journaltimes.com/news/lo...cle_60ad9e26-9f35-11de-8896-001cc4c002e0.html

On January 8th Wisconsin Carry, Inc. filed a federal lawsuit against the State of Wisconsin, City of Racine, 2 Racine Police officers, The City of Milwaukee and one Milwaukee Police Officer. In this lawsuit we challenge the constitutionality of Wisconsin's Gun-Free-School-Zone Act. In this lawsuit we also brought on 2 Wisconsin Carry, Inc. Members as co-plaintiffs. Frank Hannan-Rock of Racine was one of these co-plaintiffs.

A copy of the lawsuit can be viewed here:

http://www.wisconsincarry.org/pdf/GFSZ_Complaint.pdf

Frank was lawfully open-carrying on his own porch when Racine Police, who were summoned to his neighborhood on an unrelated call, observed and questioned Frank because he was open-carrying. After a few minutes of increasingly aggressive questioning Frank exercised his right to remain silent and was subsequently unlawfully arrested for obstruction of justice for refusing to give his name. In the state of Wisconsin no law allows officers to arrest for obstruction on a person's refusal to give his or her name. "Mere silence is insufficient to constitute obstruction. Henes v. Morrissey, 194 Wis. 2d 339, 533 N.W.2d 802 (1995)"

Details of Frank's encounter can be viewed by going to our website http://www.wisconsincarry.org and clicking on the October 16th blog entry.

Frank was unlawfully arrested and his firearm illegally seized. He was later released without being charged.

Wisconsin Carry, Inc. filed suit on Frank's behalf for his unlawful detainment, arrest, and seizure of his firearm.

On behalf of myself, the board of Wisconsin Carry, Inc. and all of our members, we are pleased to announce that The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin has entered a judgment in the amount of $10,000 in favor of Wisconsin Carry, Inc. and Frank Hannon-Rock and against the City of Racine and two Racine police officers.

We look forward to the precedent that this case will set for other municipalities who's police officers operate outside of their legal authority and unlawfully detain, arrest, and seize property of law-abiding open-carriers.

A copy of this judgment can be viewed here:

http://www.wisconsincarry.org/pdf/JudgmentAgainstRacine.pdf

Hubert Hoffman, Vice President
Wisconsin Carry, Inc.
P.O. Box 270403
Milwaukee, WI. 53227
[email protected]
http://www.wisconsincarry.org
 
Legal question

While I celebrate this win for all of us, I question the strength of the outcome. Specifically, If I understood correctly, the sum total of the judgment was $10 thousand. Chump change even in today's financial climate. And one the officers are not likely to have to pay themselves. So, my question, could the individual officers be sued seperately and jointly with their employers? That way the leos could be made to pay a portion of judgment. I can't think of a better way to get our point across.
 
While I celebrate this win for all of us, I question the strength of the outcome. Specifically, If I understood correctly, the sum total of the judgment was $10 thousand. Chump change even in today's financial climate. And one the officers are not likely to have to pay themselves. So, my question, could the individual officers be sued seperately and jointly with their employers? That way the leos could be made to pay a portion of judgment. I can't think of a better way to get our point across.
In Ohio and Chicago, LEOs are personally on the hook for punitive damages.
 
A police officer can not "make contact" with anyone based merely on the presence of an openly carried sidearm. This is only evidence of legal activity (such as carrying a purse) and is not probable cause for interaction with the carrier.

Detaining someone for OC is an automatic civil rights violation.
 
A police officer can not "make contact" with anyone based merely on the presence of an openly carried sidearm.
He can "make contact". Other than in certain prescribed circumstances, you can DECLINE that contact. If he DETAINS you, he needs reasonable articulable suspicion that a crime has been committed, is being committed, or is about to be committed. If he lacks that, he has committed both a crime and a civil tort against you. If you're detained, you have a duty ONLY to VERBALLY identify yourself, absent certain state specific requirements. In Ohio, you must notify an LEO that you have a concealed handgun license, IF (and ONLY if) you are carrying. Likewise, when driving, you must provide license, registration and proof of insurance if asked for it. Other than that, you are well advised to say NOTHING without the benefit of legal counsel and to explicitly decline to speak without counsel.
 
Assuming there weren't, any chance of appealing the judgment you just won? Anyway my original question was, is it possible to sue the officers joint and severally, so as to ensure the officer gets to fork over some cash. That should get their attention!
 
The Wisconsin Carry press release leaves out a lot of details that would clear up some of the questions being asked here. First, the "judgment" was for all practical purposes a settlement agreement with Racine and the two Racine police officers.

Racine submitted an offer of judgment to the plaintiffs, in which it agreed to accept judgment against it in the amount of $10,000. The plaintiffs then accepted that offer. If the plaintiffs had not accepted the offer, and then proceeded to trial and failed to obtain a judgment against Racine greater than $10,000, the plaintiffs would have been on the hook for all of the costs incurred from the date of Racine's offer of judgment.

So, in sum, there was no finding of liability against Racine or the Racine police officers by a judge or jury. In fact, the case was just filed in January and is still in the initial pleadings stage. It was no different than if the plaintiffs had simply settled out of court with Racine and the Racine police officers.
 
This was never about the money. The city of Racine agreed to a judgment, very different from a settlement.

A judgment is the equivalent of finding the officers acted inappropriately (like an admission). Usually a settlement would be without admission.

This sets a precedent placing all law enforcement in Wisconsin on notice.

The rest of the suit to overturn the GFSZA will continue to be litigated.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top