• 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.

I Had My First Encounter With A LEO Today…Long, Very Long Story…

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,276
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
RAS of criminal activity is a condition precedent to a Terry Stop. A search is NOT authorized solely because there is a Terry Stop. There must be additional RAS to justify the search (RAS of a dangerous weapon, etc.) Even then the search must be limited to the degree justified by the RAS. If you disagree, point me to a Supreme Court case that says otherwise.

Ummm. You've got that exactly backwards. Its up to you to supply the cite for your own position. Quotes and links help.

Cites, please.
 

Snake161

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2011
Messages
78
Location
Wisconsin
Well, its replaceable. Our rights are not. You guys need to get that mindset if you are serious about carrying and owning firearms. It has nothing to do with being violent, everything to do with understanding what this country was built around. I am more for freedom in general and patriotism than anything, but firearms happen to be to me for protection, collection, and hobby in that order.

All I care is the truth is heard.
 

1FASTC4

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2007
Messages
505
Location
Tomahawk
A search is NOT authorized solely because there is a Terry Stop. If you disagree, point me to a Supreme Court case that says otherwise.

Terry vs. Ohio 1968

"Terry Stop" is a stop of a person by law enforcement officers based upon "reasonable suspicion" that a person may have been engaged in criminal activity, whereas an arrest requires "probable cause" that a suspect committed a criminal offense. The name comes from the standards established in a 1968 case, Terry v. Ohio.

The issue in the case was whether police should be able to detain a person and subject him to a limited search for weapons without probable cause for arrest. The Court held that police may conduct a limited search of a person for weapons that could endanger the officer or those nearby, even in the absence of probable cause for arrest and any weapons seized may be introduced in evidence.

source: http://definitions.uslegal.com/t/terry-stop/



After Terry this type of police encounter became known as a "Terry stop" or an "investigatory detention." Police may stop and question suspicious persons, pat them down for weapons, and even subject them to nonintrusive search procedures such as the use of metal detectors and drug-sniffing dogs

source: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Stop+and+Frisk


Justice Marshall wrote

“most traffic stops resemble, in duration and atmosphere, the kind of brief detention authorized in Terry.”

Source: Berkemer v. McCarty,


, Justice Souter wrote,

When a police officer makes a traffic stop, the driver of the car is seized within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment

source: Brendlin v. California
 
Last edited:

apjonas

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2006
Messages
1,159
Location
, ,
What is Backwards?

Ummm. You've got that exactly backwards. Its up to you to supply the cite for your own position. Quotes and links help.

Cites, please.

I did not make the original claim (a valid Terry Stop AUTOMATICALLY authorizes a search). So I don't have the burden of production. The claim is false. Let's break it down.

A (valid) Terry Stop requires RAS. True or False? I say True.
A search (pat down/frisk for weapons) requires RAS of possessing a dangerous weapon. True or False? I say True.

A LEO who detains you with RAS of swiping an apple from a vendor cart (you fit the description, are eating an apple, etc.) does not from that RAS alone have the authority to frisk you for weapons.

The fact that some (or most) LEO's routinely pat down every detainee DOES NOT MAKE THE PRACTICE LEGAL!

The requirement for RAS for (1) a detention/investigatory stop and (2) further RAS for a pat down/frisk has been the rule since the original case. There have been no SCOTUS decisions to remove the RAS requirement from either (1) or (2). I can't prove a negative. Sometimes concepts get repeated so often they take root in people's minds. A few T/F examples:

1. In reference to a Soviet military weapon, RPG stands for rocket propelled grenade.
2. Sushi contains raw fish.
3. The U.S. Senate ratifies treaties.
4. The Emancipation Proclamation freed the slaves.
5. Interstate sales via the Internet are free from state tax.
6. In football a safety is worth two points.
7. FOPA protects you when you check a weapon before flying.

The answer in each case is false. If you really want a detailed explanation, I will provide one but the information is out there. Note that in some of these examples, the statement may sometimes be true. Without explicit indication to the contrary, I read "always" into such statement.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,276
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
SNIP I did not make the original claim (a valid Terry Stop AUTOMATICALLY authorizes a search). So I don't have the burden of production.

You don't have the burden of providing cites to show a claim-maker is wrong. But, you do have the burden of citing your own declarations of the law when you argue with him. (Forum Rule #5)

If someone makes a declaration about the law that is wrong, the thing to do is request a cite. And, let it go at that. Or, maybe add a comment to the effect you understand him to be wrong as part of the cite request. But, as soon as you start making your own statements about the law, you need to cite. Quotes and links even better.

You made three declarations in the post for which I requested cites:

1. "RAS of criminal activity is a condition precedent to a Terry Stop."

2. "A search is NOT authorized solely because there is a Terry Stop. There must be additional RAS to justify the search (RAS of a dangerous weapon, etc.)"

3. "Even then the search must be limited to the degree justified by the RAS."


Cites, please. One for each. Quotes would be helpful for new readers and links if you have them.


(5) CITE TO AUTHORITY: If you state a rule of law, it is incumbent upon you to try to cite, as best you can, to authority. Citing to authority, using links when available,is what makes OCDO so successful. An authority is a published source of law that can back your claim up - statute, ordinance, court case, newspaper article covering a legal issue, etc.

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/misc.php?do=showrules
 
Last edited:

qball54208

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2010
Messages
288
Location
GREEN BAY, Wisconsin, USA
Here is a format i was given for orr

SUBJECT: Open Records Request re "911 dispatch transcripts, logs, audio, and police reports"
Date:

Chief of Police:
Police/Sheriff Department
INSERT ADDRESS
INSERT CITY, STATE & ZIP


Dear Sir:

This is an Open Records Request for all records pertaining to any calls or contact the INSERT PROPER DEPT HERE had with the public or any individual on the date of INSERT DATE HERE regarding carrying, and/or displaying, of firearms within the INSERT MUNICIPALITY HERE

I am requesting any record, including but not limited to emails, faxes, letters, applications, permits, licenses, memoranda, logs, transcripts, reports, policies, police reports, incident reports, or any other correspondence pertaining to any interaction between the INSERT MUNICIPALITY HERE and the public regarding carrying or display of firearms within city limits.

Such documentation might include or pertain to such things as police reports, 911 logs, 911 transcripts, dispatch logs, department policies, incident reports, internal memos, or any other documentation regarding the carrying or display of firearms with the city limits.

As you know, the law requires you to respond to this request "as soon as possible and without delay."

Please also be aware that the Open Records law "shall be construed in every instance with the presumption of complete public access consistent with the conduct of governmental business. The denial of access generally is contrary to the public interest and only in exceptional cases can access be denied." Should you deny my request, the law requires you to do so in writing and state what part of the law you believe entitles you to deny my request. Wis. Stat 19.35(4)(a).

The Open Records Act states that you may charge for "the actual, necessary and direct cost" of locating records, if this exceeds $50, and for photocopies. The Wisconsin Department of Justice advises that copying fees under the Open Records law should be "around 15 cents per page and that anything in excess of 25 cents maybe be subject." Please advise me before processing this request if the total cost will exceed $75.00.

Thank you in advance for responding to this request at your earliest convenience and I will also mail you a hard copy of this request to: INSERT MUNICIPALITY HERE

Electronic delivery of records at my email address would be most appreciated. Alternatively, please mail these records to my home address listed below.
INSERT CONTACT INFO HERE

Thank you for your service and kind attention in this matter.

Sincerely,
 

protias

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
7,310
Location
SE, WI
RAS of criminal activity is a condition precedent to a Terry Stop. A search is NOT authorized solely because there is a Terry Stop. There must be additional RAS to justify the search (RAS of a dangerous weapon, etc.) Even then the search must be limited to the degree justified by the RAS. If you disagree, point me to a Supreme Court case that says otherwise. I am not talking about search incident to arrest, consensual search or anything else.

By the way, WI does have a "stop and id" statute (Wis. Stat. 968.24). Again there must be RAS of criminal activity. Note that I am not saying that the detainee is generally required to provide answers or documentary identification or that there is a penalty for not doing so. This is the essential difference between WI and other states, e.g. Nevada (remember Mr. Hiibel?) - NV had a statute that imposed a penalty for not providing certain information. Of course, the police can extend the length of the detention (and will) if you clam up. I am certainly not saying that police can, absent RAS, detain a citizen.

By the way, Madison Quartet, I saw video of the recent political upheaval in Madison. I find it ironic that having a bite to eat while legally armed is deemed (eventually) to be disorderly conduct yet yelling obscenities at people trying to enter a business did not attract the interest of at least two LEO's observing the activity. I used to think that MPD was merely incompetent. Now it appears that they are actually corrupt. Disconcerting at a minimum. Perhaps you should form a union. How about WI-COPS (Wisconsin Inhabitants Carrying Openly for Protection and Security)?
A defendant's flight from a police officer may, using the totality of circumstances test, justify a warrantless investigatory stop. State v. Jackson,

There's that phrase again. :rolleyes:
 

1FASTC4

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2007
Messages
505
Location
Tomahawk
I did not make the original claim (a valid Terry Stop AUTOMATICALLY authorizes a search).

A LEO who detains you with RAS of swiping an apple from a vendor cart (you fit the description, are eating an apple, etc.) does not from that RAS alone have the authority to frisk you for weapons.

If you bothered to read you'd see that I have provided SCOTUS references that indeed show that a LEO can pat down a person for weapons with no further RAS than that which initiated the Terry Stop in the first place. You asked for SCOTUS cases, I provided them.

In Terry Vs Ohio, the Leo, Mcfadden, saw 3 BG's actiing suspiciously so he detained them and patted them down. The resultant pat down of the first guy resulted in the LEO feeling a revolver. The SCOTUS upheld that this was a legal search, that the initial RAS (acting suspiciously,) was sufficient to pat down the BG's. Note that the LEO never saw any bulges or flash of weapon.

From Terry vs. Ohio:

Suspecting the two men of "casing a job, a stick-up," the officer followed them and saw them rejoin the third man a couple of blocks away in front of a store. The officer approached the three, identified himself as a policeman, and asked their names. The men "mumbled something," whereupon McFadden spun petitioner around, patted down his outside clothing, and found in his overcoat pocket, but was unable to remove, a pistol.

Who knows, maybe we are arguing semantics.. I don't know your position because you haven't supported it with anything, so I don't know where you are coming from.
 
Last edited:

1FASTC4

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2007
Messages
505
Location
Tomahawk
Hmmm I just found this, which relates directly to the OP. Interesting.

However, the Court(SCOTUS) retreated from this holding in Florida v. J. L., 529 U.S. 266, 120 S.Ct. 1375, 146 L.Ed.2d 254 (U.S. 2000), in which it ruled that an anonymous tip identifying a person who is carrying a gun is not, without more reason, sufficient to justify a police officer's stop and frisk of that person.
 

Lurchiron

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
1,011
Location
Shawano,WI.
Lurchiron... I let your crack about me bring the LEO doughnuts and coffee slide as to not be confintational on this website as well as I felt it was not worthy of a responce but... WTF...????

ALL I AM SAYING... Is that the LEO did not think the contact serious enough to even file a official police report... no case number, no arrest, no ticket in the mail...NOTHING but what was described in my original post...

" Originally Posted by paul@paul-fisher.com
I do not believe he is saying that. It is his 1st ORR and I believe I might not of told him all that needs to be asked for. Blame me. I need to dig up the proper wording unless someone else has it handy. I guess I'm getting rusty."

Thanks Paul but I am good... NO need to take any blame here... Not even sure if "Blame" even applies...

I made sure that I asked for ALL information and documents regarding my encounter and repeatedly asked for the "Police Report" and that I would file an "Open Record Request" to obtain the actual report. The office lady behind the window (who has absolutley no interest whatsoever in this, told me there was no case number and no report. All she had in her computer (after searching for about 5 minutes with me watching her) regarding the incendent was the "Call for Service" paper. I paid the 50 CENTS and got a single sheet that was more a document that the LEO radioed the desk (dispatch?) to report "Check for loaded weapon - All Ok"

For Christ sake... Why can't some here just accept that it is what it is...for what it is... a LEO encounter WITHOUT a bad ending....as foregin as that concept seems to be around here...

If you do not agree with how I handled this encounter thats fine but do not put words into my mouth trying to make it into something its not...as in...

"So you're saying that he pulled you over on his own accord, and not under the color of law???"

OK...rant button off....

I think I am about done here...

Outdoorsman1

Golly gee sorry there Beav, nothing personal; we all learn not to fry bacon naked...a little aloe vera goes a long way:cry:.
 

AaronS

Regular Member
Joined
May 2, 2009
Messages
1,497
Location
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
To be honest, I will not consent to searches no matter what. The worst that can happen is they will arrest you, in which case you ask them what you are being arrested for and make sure the recorder picks it up.

As far as being detained, if I am approached by an officer in the future, I will ask them if I can help them in any way. They inform me of the issue, I will tell them I am legally open carrying

If they ask for my ID, I will tell them no. I MIGHT give them my name verbally and then shutup.

Otherwise;

I will then ask if I am being detained and if so for what.

If they say no, we/I am not, I will tell them I am leaving.

Anything else is no. They will not touch my property. They will not search my vehicle. Only until they arrest me and force their bureaucracy upon me will they be able to search my vehicle and take my firearm.

And I think somebody mentioned DC as a reason to arrest you and/or detain you and issue a citation.

Not the case. You would have to actually be making a disturbance such as disturbing the peace, or threatening people, etc.

Hasn't anybody seen this memorandum sent out by JBVH from the DOJ? This was sent out to all district attorneys declaring that open carry is legal and not grounds for a DC. I carry a copy with me as well as other laws. It's a very nice informational piece.
http://www.doj.state.wi.us/news/files/FinalOpenCarryMemo.pdf

Anyway, yes, I think the situation ended good. But I think cops need to understand they are not above us. And I do not enjoy my privacy or possessions being fondled or touched, especially my firearms. It is my right to refuse them if I have not committed a crime.

And as previously stated, allowing them to touch your firearm could cause an accidental discharge. Use this to deter them from trying to do so and make sure the recorder picks it up. Either way, I don't allow anybody to touch my possessions without my permission.

I have learned that if you are stopped in your vehicle, present ID, stay in the car but don't open the window much. If they ask you do you have any weapons, drugs, etc. in the car, tell them you have nothing illegal in the vehicle. No searches. Let em' bring the dogs. If they ask you to get out, roll up the windows, lock the doors and pocket the keys.


I don't know....I guess I feel differently about cops. Ever since I was a teenager they would try ANYTHING to incriminate me for whatever they could even though I was always EXCEPTIONALLY cordial to them. Whether it be my project cars, motorcycles, whatever. I am older, wiser, and educated now. And I believe in the rights of this country and plan to exercise them, especially my right to property and privacy.

You don't need to be rude, but FIRM. THAT is all. :banana:

I think youll like this card.
card.jpg
 

apjonas

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2006
Messages
1,159
Location
, ,
I Did Read Your Sources

If you bothered to read you'd see that I have provided SCOTUS references that indeed show that a LEO can pat down a person for weapons with no further RAS than that which initiated the Terry Stop in the first place. You asked for SCOTUS cases, I provided them.

In Terry Vs Ohio, the Leo, Mcfadden, saw 3 BG's actiing suspiciously so he detained them and patted them down. The resultant pat down of the first guy resulted in the LEO feeling a revolver. The SCOTUS upheld that this was a legal search, that the initial RAS (acting suspiciously,) was sufficient to pat down the BG's. Note that the LEO never saw any bulges or flash of weapon.

From Terry vs. Ohio:



Who knows, maybe we are arguing semantics.. I don't know your position because you haven't supported it with anything, so I don't know where you are coming from.

Let's start with Terry. It is very clear that the court said McFadden had RAS of criminal activity. They ALSO said that McFadden had RAS of Terry being armed (essentially because people planning a "stick-up" usually are). Why point that out if it is irrelevant? Granted, McFadden concatenated the two issues by the way he responded but it doesn't change the point that a separate RAS is required and even that only warrants a search that is limited in scope. If you don't see this in Terry, then there is no point in discussing the issue further.
 

MKEgal

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
4,385
Location
in front of my computer, WI
For a first encounter, not ending up 'cuffed & stuffed' is a victory. You did better than I did.
You're learning things to maybe think about & do differently if it happens again.

Outdoorsman1 said:
"Can I check your gun to see if it's loaded... NO... Probable cause???... GET WARRANT
He HAD probable cause based on the complaint I had a LOADED weapon in my car...
But he could have satisfied himself that you didn't without even talking with you.
He could have sat in his car (as he did anyway), watched as you loaded & holstered (as he did anyway), then gone on his way.
No ID, no license plate, no serial # search.
Or I suppose, yes, he could have asked if there were any other guns in the car.

Outdoorsman1 said:
I am sorry I do not understand... Please define "dirty gun"
Your gun (& mine) can now be included in the numbers quoted by the anti's when they mention how many serial # traces are run by police.

1FASTC4 said:
Here's why you should get out of your vehicle if you are stopped: During a Terry Stop, a LEO may search your person and your vehicle for weapons if you are in it... the LEO can legally search your person and vehicle for weapons.
Only if they think the vehicle contains "evidence of the offense of arrest":
Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. ___ (2009)
The Supreme Court held that police may search the passenger compartment of a vehicle incident to a recent occupant’s arrest only if it is reasonable to believe that the arrestee might access the vehicle at the time of the search or that the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest.
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files...rizona-v-gant/
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-542.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona_v._Gant
This was referenced in WI v. Dearborn in 2010 (see notes on pg. 7 under 968.11 "scope of search incident to lawful arrest" http://legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/Stat0968.pdf 968.10 about "searches & seizures, when authorized" is useful, too.)
So if you've been pulled over for speeding, they can't search the car. If they think you've kidnapped someone, they can.

Nutczak said:
The easiest and best way to make sure this does not happen is to exit your vehicle, lock the doors, and place the keys in your pocket.
As the duck pointed out, that doesn't work in Brookfield.
If it happens to me again, I'll try to have my AAA card handy & lock the keys in the car.
Or maybe find some place to put a spare key.

Nutczak said:
Asked if there are guns in the car? I would reply with "Why do you ask?"
Don't reply at all. Don't try to play their game, just don't reply.
The WI Supremes have ruled that remaining silent is not a crime, & cannot be considered as evidence of a crime.
"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).

apjonas said:
By the way, WI does have a "stop and id" statute (Wis. Stat. 968.24). Again there must be RAS of criminal activity.
It says they can demand a person's name, address, & explanation of conduct.
(Yes, of course, with RAS.)
It doesn't say the person must provide it, & noone can be prosecuted for remaining silent.

apjonas said:
Perhaps you should form a union. How about WI-COPS (Wisconsin Inhabitants Carrying Openly for Protection and Security)?
:clap: I like that!
The acronym is every bit as misleading as WAVE's name.
 
Last edited:

paul@paul-fisher.com

Regular Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
4,049
Location
Chandler, AZ
Your gun (& mine) can now be included in the numbers quoted by the anti's when they mention how many serial # traces are run by police.

That is true. Unfortunately there definition of 'crime gun' is any gun they run the serial # of. Forgot about that.

I'm pretty sure they didn't run any of the Madison 5 guns, at least they didn't run the people that they didn't disarm. Springfield 1911 and Motofixxer would have to chime in on that.
 

davegran

Regular Member
Joined
May 1, 2009
Messages
1,563
Location
Cassville Area -Twelve Miles From Anything, Wiscon
"Take what you want and leave the rest...."

Just because your way is different than mine does not make it "better" I can not help but wonder if I did it your way i might be known in the future as "The Paddock Lake 1".. as it happened in the town of Paddock Lake....

NOW I am done here...

Outdoorsman
Hi Outdoorsman!
You and I had a nice little chat at Starbucks and you came across as a very mature, level-headed person.

I'm sorry that some of these guys got under your skin, but second-guessing is what they do best. The fact is that many of them have never been in your situation and while they can tell you how THEY would have handled it, you just never know until you are really there.... I have never been in your situation, but I think you did just fine. True, some cops are out to hassle us; but most are just investigating a concerned citizen's report, however inaccurate it may be.

I hope you'll stick around the forum. As some of us say, "Take what you want and leave the rest...."
 
Last edited:

1FASTC4

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2007
Messages
505
Location
Tomahawk
Only if they think the vehicle contains "evidence of the offense of arrest"

You are talking about a person who has been arrested... Gant had already been placed under arrest. If, during a Terry stop, you are in the car and the officer feels you might be armed, he can pat you down for weapons as well as search the area of the vehicle you are in control of. You need not be arrested for this to be legal, merely detained in a Terry Stop.


An officer may conduct a Terry type search of a vehicle's interior if there is reasonable suspicion that there is a weapon readily accessible in it.
Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032
 
Last edited:

1FASTC4

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2007
Messages
505
Location
Tomahawk
Let's start with Terry. It is very clear that the court said McFadden had RAS of criminal activity. They ALSO said that McFadden had RAS of Terry being armed (essentially because people planning a "stick-up" usually are). Why point that out if it is irrelevant? Granted, McFadden concatenated the two issues by the way he responded but it doesn't change the point that a separate RAS is required and even that only warrants a search that is limited in scope. If you don't see this in Terry, then there is no point in discussing the issue further.

Apjonas,

I'm starting to think we are arguing the same point.
 

paul@paul-fisher.com

Regular Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
4,049
Location
Chandler, AZ
I hope you'll stick around the forum. As some of us say, "Take what you want and leave the rest...."

Yep.

You should of heard the rash of **** I took for providing ID as part of the Madison incident. We all react differently. The key is to learn and not get shot.

Maybe next time I'll do it different and maybe you will as well. No biggy.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,276
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
SUBJECT: Open Records Request re "911 dispatch transcripts, logs, audio, and police reports"
Date:

Chief of Police:
Police/Sheriff Department
INSERT ADDRESS
INSERT CITY, STATE & ZIP


Dear Sir:

This is an Open Records Request for all records pertaining to any calls or contact the INSERT PROPER DEPT HERE had with the public or any individual on the date of INSERT DATE HERE regarding carrying, and/or displaying, of firearms within the INSERT MUNICIPALITY HERE

I am requesting any record, including but not limited to emails, faxes, letters, applications, permits, licenses, memoranda, logs, transcripts, reports, policies, police reports, incident reports, or any other correspondence pertaining to any interaction between the INSERT MUNICIPALITY HERE and the public regarding carrying or display of firearms within city limits.

Such documentation might include or pertain to such things as police reports, 911 logs, 911 transcripts, dispatch logs, department policies, incident reports, internal memos, or any other documentation regarding the carrying or display of firearms with the city limits.

As you know, the law requires you to respond to this request "as soon as possible and without delay."

Please also be aware that the Open Records law "shall be construed in every instance with the presumption of complete public access consistent with the conduct of governmental business. The denial of access generally is contrary to the public interest and only in exceptional cases can access be denied." Should you deny my request, the law requires you to do so in writing and state what part of the law you believe entitles you to deny my request. Wis. Stat 19.35(4)(a).

The Open Records Act states that you may charge for "the actual, necessary and direct cost" of locating records, if this exceeds $50, and for photocopies. The Wisconsin Department of Justice advises that copying fees under the Open Records law should be "around 15 cents per page and that anything in excess of 25 cents maybe be subject." Please advise me before processing this request if the total cost will exceed $75.00.

Thank you in advance for responding to this request at your earliest convenience and I will also mail you a hard copy of this request to: INSERT MUNICIPALITY HERE

Electronic delivery of records at my email address would be most appreciated. Alternatively, please mail these records to my home address listed below.
INSERT CONTACT INFO HERE

Thank you for your service and kind attention in this matter.

Sincerely,

Whoosh! That could be expensive.

I usually recommend against the "any record" phrasing. The statute says they get to charge you for time spent hunting for the requested records. Why waste money paying them to look for any record in a circumstance like a police encounter?

Transcripts can be pretty expensive, too, unless already made. Trust me. The last thing you want to do is pay for making a transcript. I would clarify I wanted copies of any already-existing transcripts, expressly excepting creating a new one.

I usually urge figuring out what records are likeliest to exist and requesting those. Unless you have plenty of budget. If your initial request turns up interesting stuff, you can always send another request.

I might start by looking at who would be communicating and chasing particular possible records those communication channels might have generated. For example, 911 call recording. Dispatch recordings to and from the cop. Dispatch logs. Police car computer text messaging. Field contact report, paper or electronic. Dash cam audio and video. Cop body mike audio.

With that $75 limit against an "any record" request, you have a decent chance, I think, of simply causing a delay while sorting out the costs between the custodian of the records and the requester.

There is nothing really wrong with using the "any record" approach. There may be some very interesting records containing info you never dreamed would be in the record. One just has to understand the potential costs and possible delay of wrangling over the cost if the response turns out to be more expensive than the requester thought. If you have the money for a shotgun approach, by all means go for it.
 
Top