GUWonder

WI Stat. § 968.24 applies to an individual who is not about to commit a crime, who is not committing a crime, and who has not committed a crime? I don't believe it does, but would be interested in being proven wrong. (And this doesn't have to do with driving and licenses for such, so that's not what I'm looking for.)

GUWonder

"Stop and identify" under WI Stat. § 968.24 applies only in relation to a Terry stop.

A Terry stop requires reasonable and articulable suspicion that the person stopped is armed and dangerous and was about to, is or had been engaged in a criminal act. A political opinion written on a plastic bag is worthy of a Terry stop? I hope not.

fester

Actually it refers to a Terry stop, so the crime may or may not have been committed. I didn't think it would be prudent to post the whole statute, I was only identifying WI as a stop and ID state.

Generally speaking, an LEO being summoned to an incident could be articulated as reasonable suspicion and the officer in the OP's post said he was being detained. My advice is that if you intend to challenge an LEO that you should know your legal standing before starting or have a good lawyer on retainer.

I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV.

ETA: You beat my response.

MKEbound

Tom, I realize that I have only posted to this thread a few times and a couple of posters are probably reaching a hundred posts or more so you might have missed a post by me a hundred posts or so ago:

I've protested many of the rules and regulations of the TSA and DHS in several forums. In addition to posting here and engaging people I've met in conversation both on planes and in and out of the airport, I've written both of my Senators, my Congressman, and the TSA. Each time I've written I've never received more than boilerplate responses.

I really find it odd that anyone would react so negatively to writing an opinion on a piece of my baggage. Is it any different if I wrote "President Bush is an Idiot?" How about "Former President Clinton is an Idiot" if that's more your style? What if it was on a button or printed on my T-shirt?

The fact is that there are many ways to protest when an American citizen feels the government is acting in a way that infringes on his rights. This was just one.

I travel a lot, and I for one am frustrated beyond words at the TSA and the idiotic leadership of Kip Hawley. The policies make no sense, some are clearly just for the sake of public relations so people can feel like the government is doing something to protect them (shoe removal and the current water ban). The idea that people can be patted down like common criminals for no reason other than wanting to board a plane is sickening to me. The notion that a person can be placed on a secret list simply because his name is similar to a suspected terrorist that will ensure he is hassled every time he flies seems to smack the idea of "innocent until proven guilty" right in the face.

GUWonder

I'd be careful about the "generally speaking" part above. Cases have been tossed on less.

fester

No argument there, just pointing out how things can evolve. I forgot to post my position on the whole "incident". I don't think it was the smartest thing for the OP to do, but if it went down as the OP says, I think the screeners overreacted. The LEO response seemed reasonable enough, but if it were me as the LEO at the checkpoint, I'd be a bit upset with the screener for calling me over, but I wouldn't air that out in front of a passenger. I'm sure the cop is just thrilled about having to write a report about a plastic bag.

Jakebeth

To those of you who have any doubt whatsoever as to whether this speech was protected, I can only tell you that it's a black and white matter of constitutional law.

I'm not a lawyer, but anyone (like me) who studied basic Constitutional Law in high school or college can recognize the obvious similarities to the landmark case mentioned earlier in this thread, Cohen v. California.

And as also noted earlier, the speech is not only protected, on its face, but it's painfully clear that no reasonable person would perceive the 'calling' of another person an idiot, in writing, on a plastic bag, to be a threat of any kind. Any arguments to the contrary are clearly disingenuous, and meant to provide justification for the TSA's actions. No reasonable judge would ever uphold such a finding.

The case could never, ever, hold up in court, and that alone signifies that the whole situation that followed was improper.

GUWonder

Specifically speaking about Wisconsin, Wis. Stat. §968.24 applies to the police and to individuals who "commit a crime, are committing a crime, or who have committed a crime". Since that crime part doesn't even come into play here -- and given that a refusal to identify does not equate with "resisting/obstructing" under Wis. Stat. §946.41 (according to the Wisconsin State Supreme Court ) -- an arrest of the OP for a failure to identify or for obstructing/resisting by way of refusing to identify would, if it went to trial, result in the current Wisconsin Supreme Court upholding the rights of the OP and embarassing the law enforcement personnel and prosecutor's office for picking a fight with a citizen.

Wisconsin law enforcement must be in compliance with both Wis. Stat. §968.24 and the US Supreme Court ruling in Terry. And so the OP would win if it would have come to that.

Just so there's no confusion, Wisconsin's so-called "stop and identify" applies to individuals who commit a crime, are committing a crime or who have committed a crime AND been subject to a Terry stop; besides criminals, it doesn't apply to anyone else other than the police. And given there was no crime committed by the OP, a failure to identify would not be a violation of state laws.

GUWonder

I'd hope the cop is annoyed at having been brought into the situation by "the boys" who cry wolf (aka DHS/TSA).

Sprocket

So if there was a blue light special on self expression that didn't have a cost you'd be for it then I assume.

Sprocket

Geez, I had a hearty laugh with this. Had a similar experience in a bank once.
Note to self: in Toronto (November) don't walk into a bank with a full face helmet and all associated cold weather gear.

At least I was able to tell the cops I thought it was bu**sh*t pure and simple. Too bad in the US it wouldn't go too well with me.

doober

No, no, no - the OP did nothing other than express his feelings in writing. It was the TSA goon who chose to take the action he took and thereby he became the provoker.

One provokes when one takes a course of action that cannot be ignored under most circumstances. The words written on the baggie could have been simply ignored.

studentff

This thread has been posted on slashdot.org here.

sinanju

The OP should not have been detained, but not for this reason. You make the situation sound like a child holding his finger 1/4 inch from his siblings face and saying "I'm not touching you". Ignoring or not ignoring the words have nothing to do with it.

The words, and any possible interpretation of the words, simply don't constitute a threat to the safety of a flight... plain and simple... and detecting threats to the safety of a flight is the only reason the TSA is supposed to be screening and possibly detaining passengers.

cme2c

I agree, I am hesitant to discuss my political beliefs with anyone, but he's the one that put them out there to begin with in order to "draw" them into discussion , so why "draw" them into discussion if you are going to avoid the discussion? Clear and simple to me, this is what he wanted.