Necessity of Officers
Police officers protect life and property, enforce laws, prevent/investigate crimes, maintain peace, assist the public, patrol, make arrests, and respond to calls while building community relations.  To promote officer oversight and effectiveness within a jurisdiction, officers converse with locals to gain insight.  The act of law enforcement is a matter of teamwork between citizens and officers that involves public trust.

Wis Stat 19.45 Standards of conduct; state public officials.

(1) The legislature hereby reaffirms that a state public official holds his or her position as a public trust.

Officers put their lives on the line to complete position responsibilities according to state guidelines.  An event could take place at any moment to beckon the enforcer, who without hesitation, must face the issue regardless of danger involved.  Laws are upheld and public rights are maintained.

Source of Lawful Authority
Lawful authority stems from state constitutions, laws passed by legislatures, rules from executive agencies, case law and popular sovereignty.  Lawful action of officers must involve evidence produced by suspects that substantiates a law was broken or may be broken.  A mere hunch does not qualify as evidence. 

An on-duty police officer passively observes property and actions of people within jurisdiction until provided evidence required for lawful action.  Lawful commands cannot be made without an officer having justifying evidence.  

The concepts of “open view” and “passive investigation” apply since both rely on analyzing readily available, existing, or voluntarily provided information.  Officers cannot intercede upon another’s personal activity by stopping or arresting a person, or entering private property until after obtaining evidence granting the right to exude lawful authority.  

Law enforcers can begin conversations without lawful intent, to maintain relations with locals.  Be aware a friendly conversation may result in an officer obtaining evidence that justifies lawful action.  

Wisconsin Statute 968.24 explains a minimum type and amount of evidence an officer is required to obtain prior to making lawful commands toward a citizen.  A stop for questioning requires only reasonable suspicion; evidence that satisfies the lowest bar necessary for lawful action.

968.24 Temporary questioning without arrest.
After having identified himself or herself as a police 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.

Statute 968.07 Arrest by a law enforcement officer, requires a higher bar of evidence serving as probable cause for making an arrest.

Reasonable Suspicion & Probable Cause
An officer must obtain evidence supplied by a suspect that provides reasonable suspicion or probable cause prior to making lawful commands toward a citizen.  Prior to exerting lawful authority upon a citizen/suspect a police officer must be able to articulate specific, objective facts and circumstances that justify making a stop for questioning or an arrest.  After an event the officer must repeat provision of that evidence within a court to further justify the actions before a judge.  The suspect can also provide a defense.

Officers are forbidden from relying on gut feelings or vague conclusions like “officer safety” or “non-compliant,” to ensure constitutional rights aren’t violated.

More than a Mere Hunch
A legal standard for police stops and searches requires reasonable suspicion based on specific articulable facts.  A gut feeling does not justify detaining someone.  Officers need concrete reasons supported by evidence to make lawful commands toward a citizen/suspect under the Fourth Amendment.  Guessing should not be accepted by a judge as evidence for stopping a person for investigation.

Reasonable Suspicion
Officer must have specific, articulable facts, based on their training and experience, leading them to reasonably believe a person is committing, about to commit, or has committed a crime, justifying a brief stop or detention, even if it’s less than probable cause, requiring more than a hunch but less than proof beyond doubt, often determined by the “totality of the circumstances”.

Probable Cause
The officer has enough clear, reasonable facts and evidence (more than a hunch) to believe a crime has occurred or is occurring, justifying an arrest, search, or seizure.  It requires concrete information, not just suspicion, and is determined case-by-case.

Comparison: Reasonable Suspicion & Probable Cause (Wisconsin)
A core difference between the two is quantity and quality of evidence.  Reasonable suspicion requires more than a hunch but less than what qualifies as probable cause.  Probable cause needs facts to show a crime likely happened.

In Wisconsin, reasonable suspicion allows brief investigative stops, like Terry stops, based on specific articulated facts suggesting potential criminal activity.  Probable cause is a higher standard requiring a reasonable belief a crime has occurred, justifying arrests, warrants, and more intrusive actions.  Reasonable suspicion sometimes develops into probable cause during an encounter.

An officer can interpret denials and fleeing a scene as admission of guilt prompting further investigation.

State Impositions upon Conduct of Law Enforcers

Rule of Law
The term “rule of law” implies all persons, institutions, and government employees are accountable to laws that are put into effect by official proclamation.

State Certification
Wisconsin Law Enforcers are required to become certified through the State.

Ongoing Training of Law Enforcers
Wisconsin Administrative Code Chapter LES 3 – Training standards of police.

Oath of Office
An oath of office is taken as an agreement to maintain standards imposed by constitutions of state and federal government.  Violating an oath of office in Wisconsin is covered in Wis Leg Chapter 946.

Standards of Conduct
The Ethics Commission administers and enforces Wisconsin’s Code of Ethics for Public Officials. 

Code of Ethics
The International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) provides a Code of Ethics applying to officers nationwide.

Serves as standards of conduct officers are sworn to uphold, and violations can lead to disciplinary action.

Due Process
Guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 8 of the Wisconsin Constitution, law enforcers are required constitutionally to consider due process while interacting with citizens.  Suspects are granted due process throughout criminal events.

Unreasonable Searches & Seizures
Protection against unreasonable searches and seizures is granted to the public in the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Wisconsin Constitution Articles 1 & 11.  Showing an officer had no evidence that disqualified fourth amendment protection serves as a credible element for defense or prosecution.  Note, privacy rights differ when the concept of protecting the public becomes part of the equation.

While state governments can vary from one another and from the federal government within limitations, that government must still be continually approved by federal courts to be acknowledged as valid and self-governing.  Simultaneously, federal overreach is prevented while federal preemption exists, including:

The system likely does want to hold itself accountable.  Its best to keep officials informed of expectations and given the sense of being monitored by the public to support that officials produce what they were elected for.

Compliance
It’s often beneficial that actions of officers are not contested during a lawful or unlawful interaction.  Instead oblige the officer and prepare to contest the issue in a court of law afterward.  Do not respond by breaking a law.  A judge may forgo an officer acting unlawfully if there’s evidence the suspect broke a law during the encounter.  Fleeing an officer counts as possibly criminal evidence.

Officers often see circumstances through a filter of training.  When an officer shows commitment to perform lawful action, it’s beneficial to let the event take place without resistance.  Expect no words will alter the officer’s behavior.  Let the event conclude as peacefully as possible.  Do not give physical resistance or show verbal aggression.  Comply with officer orders lawful or unlawful.  If not guilty of officer claims, contest the matter in court on a later day with collected evidence.

Investigated by Officer
Investigation is a systematic process of gathering facts, evidence, and information to determine if a crime occurred, identify the perpetrator, and build a case for prosecution, involving activities like interviewing witnesses, collecting physical evidence, conducting surveillance, and documenting findings to establish a factual record and bring offenders to justice.

The open view doctrine enables officers to investigate a person through observation.  A lawful stop/investigation requires an officer possessing evidence granting a right to make lawful commands toward a suspect.  An officer can also act lawfully upon receiving a complaint about an individual.  The evidence must qualify as a minimum of reasonable suspicion and is explained to the suspect prior to the act.  On a later date a judge will also review the evidence for a following qualification for lawful action.

Articulable Facts
Specific concrete details and observations an officer must be able to clearly explain (articulate) to a suspect for justifying a suspicion of criminal activity, that goes beyond a mere hunch or gut feeling, to legally stop, detain or search someone.  These facts must be objective enough that a reasonable person could understand them and connect them to potential illegal behavior.

Comparison: Lawful & Unlawful
Things lawful are actions permitted or established by law that are considered law-abiding or legitimate and follow established rules or codes.  It implies legitimacy, order, and a commitment to societal structures.

Things unlawful are against a specific written law.  Illegal acts are unlawful, civil wrongs or violations of public policy.

Not all unlawful acts are illegal such as violating a contract against public policy which is unlawful but not a crime.

Deviation from Officer Standards/Misconduct
Just as the people they serve, officers must enforce the law without committing crimes or performing misactions.  To identify missteps, compare officer actions to department protocols, the code of ethics, standards of conduct, legal requirements of state statutes, the bill of rights and constitutions they’ve sworn to uphold by oath of office.

Wis Stat § 19.01  Oaths and bonds.
Actions of on duty officers follow the preexisting protocols defining how an officer must act in circumstances created by evidence that became available to them while on duty.  Compare officer actions to protocols for determining if actions were sufficient or gave evidence to submit a complaint to superiors.  Officers are required to remain within bounds of laws and ethics while performing as a law enforcer.

Grievance System Described/Internal Accountability
Wisconsin departments incorporate a grievance system enabling citizens to confront law enforcers for wrongdoing.  Contestable actions of officers include acting unreasonably, deliberate misuse of power, violating specific statutes or constitutional rights, abuse of discretion, lack of evidence, being overbearing and many others.

To submit a grievance complaint within a department contact department staff for information or search the department website for forms.  Complaints should be submitted quickly after an event or prior to an upcoming initial court hearing.  Keep in mind the function of complaints and court hearings serve different purposes and complaints do not dismiss hearings.

Department protocol documents such as “policy and procedures” or “general orders and directives” will contain a grievance system for citizens to file complaints of officer misconduct.  Procedures for on-duty officers are also within protocols for comparing officer actions.  Such complaints are reviewed by department superiors or a board within a city.   

Wis. Stat. § 66.0509  Civil service system; veterans preference.  
Requires local governmental units without existing civil service systems to establish a grievance system, including provisions for addressing employee terminations, discipline, and workplace safety.

Wis. Stat. § 62.13 Police and fire departments.
Some municipalities utilize this statute to establish police discipline committees to review matters that could lead to officer suspension, reduction in rank, or removal. (board of police and fire commissioners)

File an informal or formal complaint at the department. To strengthen a complaint make clear and direct statements supported by evidence you collected that reveals what you experienced compared to officer responsibilities shared by department protocols and legislation. Request the incident report and body-cam footage from the officers’ department to refer to in the complaint or to present in a court of law.

If needed escalate the matter upward through department superiors, the mayor, and city council members who influence departments through discipline, hiring and replacement.  Local review boards, civilian oversight boards, local or county judiciary and boards such as a Police & Fire Commission or Internal Affairs are able to address officer actions as well.  Some government positions, boards and councils can exert pressure on a police department, especially if they receive enough constituent complaints.

Informal Complaint
Write a complaint that refers to collected evidence.  Seek help at the department or an outside source.  Often a non-notarized, complaint regarding minor misconduct, policy dissatisfaction, or service issues that is resolved quickly by a supervisor without a full internal affairs investigation.  Search online for samples.

Formal Complaint
A structured, written allegation submitted by a citizen regarding officer misconduct, policy violations, or improper behavior, initiating an internal investigation.

Concerns exist about the inconsistent tracking of police officer reliability
There are documented issues with the “Brady list” system in Wisconsin, which is meant to track officers with histories of dishonesty or other conduct that could impact their credibility in court.  Prosecutors and defense attorneys are hence challenged to identify and address potentially unreliable testimony from officers.

Law Enforcement Standards Board (LESB) tracks officers who are fired, resign, or resign before an investigation into alleged misconduct. However, flagged officers can still be hired.

State Certification & Decertification
Refer to Wis. Stat. § 165.85(3)(cm) Law enforcement standards board, which lists requirements and consequences imposed on officers by the State of Wisconsin.  The Wisconsin Legislature passed a law requiring law enforcement agencies to maintain these employment files and mandated that officers moving to new departments must allow the new department to review the previous department’s employment file.  However, this law does not compel the new agency to take action based on the information or even require them to review it.

Immunities of Officers
Wisconsin law enforcement is protected by both state-level Governmental Immunity, for discretionary acts, and federal Qualified Immunity for constitutional violations.  Immunity can shield law enforcers from prosecution.  Specific procedures for overcoming immunity are available.  Presenting case law of related dismissals may improve the possibility of success.

Qualified Immunity
When officials perform discretionary duties qualified immunity provides an affirmative defense.  They are shielded unless conduct violates “clearly established” law.  Accountability is balanced allowing officials to act without fear of constant lawsuits.

Qualified immunity isn’t from a specific statute.  It’s a judicial doctrine created by the Supreme Court that protects government officials from liability in lawsuits.  It stems from the interpretation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, part of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, which allows citizens to sue officials for violating their constitutional rights. 

Governmental Immunity (Sovereign)
Wisconsin governmental immunity protects government entities, officers, and employees from liability for certain actions, primarily discretionary and intentional acts, rooted in common law but limited by statute and court decisions, with exceptions for negligent performance of ministerial duties and malicious conduct.

Sovereign Immunity
No suit without consent. Protects sovereign states and their state officers and agencies.

Not located in Constitution.  In Federal Common Law

State Sovereign Immunity
Protected by the 11th Amendment but waivable.  Covered in Article 3.

Absolute Immunity
Means that a government agent or actor cannot be sued for the illegal act, even if said agent or actor performed the action in bad faith or even maliciously.

Disqualify Governmental Immunity
In Wisconsin identify specific exceptions where immunity is waived by statute or in a past case where a court deemed the act unconstitutional.  Prove the government employee was performing a ministerial duty rather than a discretionary one. 

Demonstrate either that the official’s conduct violated a constitutional or statutory right and that the right was “clearly established” at the time of the conduct, or that their actions fall into a specific exception to immunity under state law. 

Waiving governmental immunity generally involves identifying specific statutory exceptions, suing individual employees rather than the entity itself, or demonstrating that the government expressly waived its immunity.

Conduct can be so egregious or outrageous that a reasonable officer would know it was unconstitutional, even without a specific, nearly identical prior case.

Qualified immunity generally applies to discretionary functions involving judgment or policy choices.  It does not protect officials when they fail to perform a “ministerial duty,” which is a mandatory, specific task required by law or established protocol.

Immunity may not apply if the official’s actions were malicious, willful, or intentionally harmful, rather than a reasonable (even if mistaken) judgment made in good faith.

Qualified immunity protects individual government employees from personal liability, but does not shield the government entity (like a city or county) itself from all lawsuits. You may be able to pursue a claim against the municipality, though different rules and damage caps apply. 

While qualified immunity is a federal doctrine, Wisconsin has its own governmental immunity statutes (Wis. Stat. § 893.80) and case law that interact with federal law.

Ministerial Duty
Public employees and the government entity can be held liable if the action or inaction was a violation of a ministerial duty. A ministerial duty is a clear, prescribed duty that must be performed in a specific manner, with “nothing remaining for the exercise of judgment or discretion”.

Malicious, Willful, and Intentional Conduct
Immunity does not shield government employees from liability for conduct that is malicious, willful, and intentional.