I am an Ultra-Conservative, Alpha-Male, True Authentic Leader, Type "C" Personality, who is very active in my community; whether it is donating time, clothes or money for Project Concern or going to Common Council meetings and voicing my opinions. As a blogger, I intend to provide a different viewpoint "The way I see it!" on various world, national and local issues with a few helpful tips & tidbits sprinkled in.
This week we did vehicle contacts and OWI enforcement.
Vehicle contacts (Traffic Stops) ultimately are about protecting all of us.
We were informed on the following Wisconsin Statutes:
(1) It is the duty of the police, sheriff's and traffic departments of every unit of government and each authorized department of the state to enforce chs. 346 to 348 and 350. Police officers, sheriffs, deputy sheriffs and traffic officers are authorized to direct all traffic within their respective jurisdictions either in person or by means of visual or audible signal in accordance with chs. 346 to 348 and 350. In the event of fire or other emergency, police officers, sheriffs, deputy sheriffs and traffic officers and officers of the fire department may direct traffic as conditions may require notwithstanding the provisions of chs. 346 to 348 and 350.
(1) A law enforcement officer may arrest a person when:
(a) The law enforcement officer has a warrant commanding that such person be arrested; or
(b) The law enforcement officer believes, on reasonable grounds, that a warrant for the person’s arrest has been issued in this state; or
(c) The law enforcement officer believes, on reasonable grounds, that a felony warrant for the person’s arrest has been issued in another state; or
(d) There are reasonable grounds to believe that the person is committing or has committed a crime.
After having identified himself or herself as a law enforcement officer, a law enforcement officer may stop a person in a public place for a reasonable period of time when the officer reasonably suspects that such person is committing, is about to commit or has committed a crime, and may demand the name and address of the person and an explanation of the person’s conduct. Such detention and temporary questioning shall be conducted in the vicinity where the person was stopped.
History: 1993 a. 486.
Suspicious behavior of a driver and passenger justified detention. State v. Goebel,
A "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.
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.
When a police officer observes unusual conduct which leads him or her to reasonably suspect criminal activity may be occurring and that the persons with whom he is dealing may be armed and presently dangerous, the officer might approach and briefly detain the subjects for the purpose of conducting a limited investigation. The officer must identify himself or herself as a police officer and may make reasonable inquiries. If after initial investigation the officer still has a reasonable fear for the safety of himself and others, the officer may conduct a carefully limited search of the outer clothing in an attempt to discover weapons that might be used to assault him or her.
Next, we got to witness the controlled effects of drinking in doing the “SFST” Standardized Field Sobriety Test.
First, we put on Impairment Goggles “Beer Goggles” to show us what it is like to see .08 BAC (Blood Alcohol Content) and perform the Standardized Field Sobriety Test like walking a line, touching your nose and holding up your foot up. It was much harder than you think to do.
Now we watched our controlled drunk subjects perform the “SFST” and do a breathalyzer. They didn’t do well at the tests even though they recorded a .04 and .06 both below the .08 legal limit. Makes you pause and think twice about what you think you know about drinking and the impairments that go along with it.