• 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.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • 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.

Vandalia LEO Encounter

MyWifeSaidYes

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2009
Messages
1,028
Location
Logan, OH
...glaringly absent (and seemingly consciously so) is mention of LE favorite tool - using the "concerned citizen" angle as a justification for a non-consensual stop...

In one of the cases mentioned above, United States v. Ubiles, an anonymous citizen walked up to a LEO and told him he saw a man with a gun in a crowd.

3rd Circuit Court of Appeals said that since Ubiles was in a location where gun possession was legal, there was no RAS to stop him. They also stated that the fact that there was a crowd had no bearing one way or the other.
 

BB62

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Okay, so now I'm forced to read cases, eh? ;-)

The Butcher v Cuyahoga Falls case is VERY disturbing. Within it reference is made to a Wisconsin case where the court says (essentially) "people disturbed at the sight of a gun = grounds for a Terry stop". The Butcher court threw out Butcher's claims of violations of various federal rights because it found that the stop was justified as a disorderly conduct matter (because he scared people).

This is NOT GOOD.

Granted, I don't know the totality of the circumstances in the Butcher case, but the fact that it has been mentioned gives reason for concern.

Bottom line, depending on what the attorney for Vandalia had to say, he could be giving with one hand, and taking back with the other.

Here is the Butcher case for your reading pleasure:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14530671227363361029&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr



RCall - how about posting the documents you received? I think they need a more in-depth review.
 

Interceptor_Knight

Regular Member
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
2,851
Location
Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
Here is the current WI Statute. Sub (2) was added with Act 35 and our Shall Issue Concealed Cary License. Sub (2) explicitly states that Open or Concealed Carry is not DC in the absence of other conduct which is of a disorderly nature.

947.01  Disorderly conduct.
(1) Whoever, in a public or private place, engages 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 is guilty of a Class B misdemeanor.

(2) Unless other facts and circumstances that indicate a criminal or malicious intent on the part of the person apply, a person is not in violation of, and may not be charged with a violation of, this section for loading, carrying, or going armed with a firearm, without regard to whether the firearm is loaded or is concealed or openly carried.
History: 1977 c. 173; 1979 c. 131; 2011 a. 35.

The defendant was properly convicted of disorderly conduct when he appeared on a stage wearing a minimum of clothing intending to and succeeding in causing a loud reaction in the audience. State v. Maker, 48 Wis. 2d 612, 180 N.W.2d 707 (1970).
An attorney was properly convicted under this section for refusing to leave a ward in a mental hospital until he had seen a client after having made statements in the presence of patients that caused some to become agitated. State v. Elson, 60 Wis. 2d 54, 208 N.W.2d 363 (1973).
It was not disorderly conduct for 4 people to enter an office with other members of the public for the purpose of protesting the draft and to refuse to leave on orders of the police when their conduct was not otherwise disturbing. State v. Werstein, 60 Wis. 2d 668, 211 N.W.2d 437 (1973).

This statute does not require a victim, but when the disorderly conduct is directed at a person, that person is the victim for the purpose of prosecuting the perpetrator for intimidating a victim under s. 940.44. State v. Vinje, 201 Wis. 2d 98, 548 N.W.2d 118 (Ct. App. 1996), 95-1484.

A "true threat" is a statement that a speaker would reasonably foresee that a listener would reasonably interpret as a serious expression of a purpose to inflict harm, as distinguished from hyperbole, jest, innocuous talk, expressions of political views, or other similarly protected speech. It is not necessary that the speaker have the ability to carry out the threat. State v. Perkins, 2001 WI 46, 243 Wis. 2d 141, 626 N.W.2d 762, 99-1924.

Purely written speech, even written speech that fails to cause an actual disturbance, can constitute disorderly conduct, but the state has the burden to prove that the speech is constitutionally unprotected "abusive" conduct. "Abusive" conduct is conduct that is injurious, improper, hurtful, offensive, or reproachful. "True threats" clearly fall within the scope of this definition. State v. Douglas D. 2001 WI 47, 243 Wis. 2d 204, 626 N.W.2d 725, 99-1767.

Application of the disorderly conduct statute to speech alone is permissible under appropriate circumstances. When speech is not an essential part of any exposition of ideas, when it is utterly devoid of social value, and when it can cause or provoke a disturbance, the disorderly conduct statute can be applicable. State v. A.S. 2001 WI 48, 243 Wis. 2d 173, 626 N.W.2d 712, 99-2317.

Disorderly conduct does not necessarily require disruptions that implicate the public directly. This section encompasses conduct that tends to cause a disturbance or disruption that is personal or private in nature, as long as there exists the real possibility that the disturbance or disruption will spill over and disrupt the peace, order, or safety of the surrounding community as well. Sending repeated, unwelcome, and anonymous mailings was "otherwise disorderly conduct." State v. Schwebke, 2002 WI 55, 253 Wis. 2d 1, 644 N.W.2d 666, 99-3204.

Defiance of a police officer's order to move is itself disorderly conduct if the order is lawful. Braun v. Baldwin, 346 F.3d 761 (2003).
 
Last edited by a moderator:

rcawdor57

Campaign Veteran
Joined
May 18, 2009
Messages
1,643
Location
Wisconsin, USA
Thanks For Posting Your Encounter....

I just read through all four pages and watched the YouTube video. One thing I don't think anyone suggested was carrying a video/audio recorder with you at all times. Some of us in Wisconsin have had some difficult encounters with LEO's and many of us open carry people have some kind of recording device with us to protect ourselves. I suggest you find something comfortable to wear/carry and keep it with you at all times. I currently carry a VEHO Muvi-Pro which clips onto my shirt and has a neck lanyard. It's very small, works well (for the week I've had it) and seems to be fairly rugged for daily carry. It isn't waterproof but it's comfortable to wear. Having your own recording (assuming it doesn't get "confiscated" by the police) is very good insurance against a "He said...she said" scenario. Another reason to have a recorder with you is you may run into another person that just doesn't like someone exercising their right to keep and bear arms and make a big scene and follow you around and try to get you kicked out of wherever you are (it's happened here in Wisconsin a few times). Video/audio recordings of these "events" will go a long way in stopping them from occurring in the future.

Exercise your rights or you don't have any. Thanks for posting your encounter and everything you have done to train others that it is OK to open carry!
 

RCall

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2012
Messages
113
Location
Miami County Ohio
Last edited:

BB62

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
It seems that one can only access the files 1) if one has an account, and 2) sharing is turned on for the particular user.
 

BB62

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
It works now!

I'm working my way through the letter from the lawyer, and I am definitely NOT thrilled.

Besides some other things, the way he uses the mention of the Butcher v Cuyahoga Falls case is basically this: OCing individual causes concern/panic = disorderly conduct = grounds for a Terry stop. Baloney.

There's more, but I'm going to have to dig into it a little later and respond at length.

At first glance, the Chief's note seems okay, but I'll reserve judgement on it.

THANK YOU for posting the documents. It adds a new dimension.
 

Skunk

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2009
Messages
22
Location
Vandalia, Ohio
One other thing bothered me about this as I was thinking about it the other day.... The OP was on private property when stopped, and no one had called the police. Does anyone else think that added to the BS quotient of this stop? It's a little different than just walking down the street. Someone owns that parking lot, and it's not the public.

Chris
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,950
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
One other thing bothered me about this as I was thinking about it the other day.... The OP was on private property when stopped, and no one had called the police. Does anyone else think that added to the BS quotient of this stop? It's a little different than just walking down the street. Someone owns that parking lot, and it's not the public.

Chris

In that CC of a gun in a parking lot, as it relates to trespass, is a civil matter, the handcuffing/detainment of an open carrier in that same parking lot doesn't compute. That is a symptom of the bigger problem of the lack of training and education of our law enforcement officials.

2923.126(C)(3) (a) Except as provided in division (C)(3)(b) of this section, the owner or person in control of private land or premises, and a private person or entity leasing land or premises owned by the state, the United States, or a political subdivision of the state or the United States, may post a sign in a conspicuous location on that land or on those premises prohibiting persons from carrying firearms or concealed firearms on or onto that land or those premises. Except as otherwise provided in this division, a person who knowingly violates a posted prohibition of that nature is guilty of criminal trespass in violation of division (A)(4) of section 2911.21 of the Revised Code and is guilty of a misdemeanor of the fourth degree. If a person knowingly violates a posted prohibition of that nature and the posted land or premises primarily was a parking lot or other parking facility, the person is not guilty of criminal trespass in violation of division (A)(4) of section 2911.21 of the Revised Code and instead is subject only to a civil cause of action for trespass based on the violation.
 
Top