Mastantuono Law Office secured dismissals in two separate carrying concealed weapon criminal cases by arguing to the prosecutors that the specific facts, and our client’s character and background, warranted such results. Both cases resolved before Wisconsin’s new CCW law was passed. Once that law goes into effect later this Fall, we expect that there will be many more arrests and cases arising from questions about what the law authorizes and prohibits. Given our vast experience in gun law cases, Mastantuono Law Office will be at the forefront of these cases, and will blog about them here. Stay tuned.
Archive for the ‘Waukesha County’ Category
Case Results: MLO secures dismissals of carrying concealed weapon criminal charges.
Tuesday, August 2nd, 2011IN THE NEWS: Waukesha Police Dept. Responds in the Schroeder Case
Thursday, July 28th, 2011Following recent media attention in the Waukesha Freeman to the case result achieved by Mastantuono Law office, and described in an earlier post, the Waukesha Police Chief defends his Department’s actions in losing crucial evidence. The Chief asserts that his Department did not act in bad faith, and denies any cover up. We anticipate and are hopeful that a truthful answer to this question will emerge. Mastantuono Law Office remains involved in this case, and work continues.
Will Missing Video Leave Justice Blind by Darryl Enriquez, The Freeman (5/25/11)
Police Chief Releases Report on Deleted Video by Sarah Pryor, The Freeman (7/22/11)
Police Chief Responds to Column in Freeman by (Chief) Russell P. Jack, Opinion (7/22/11)
Letter to the Editor: Witness to Incident Says Police Never Talked to Her by Christine McLaughlin, Opinion (7/23/11)
Chief’s Response Leaves Once Feeling Blue by Darryl Enriquez, The Freeman (7/27/11)
Mark Belling Opinion, The Freeman (7/27/11)
Case Results: UPDATE MLO successfully challenges the constitutionality of law that automatically bars individuals from possessing a firearm following a civil court proceeding.
Tuesday, July 19th, 2011In a decision today, a Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge dismissed the State’s case against our client, in a case further described below. This is a victory for our client, and for our Constitutional right to possess a firearm, particularly in one’s home and for protection. The law authorizes the government to place reasonable restrictions on firearms. However, Attorney Rebecca Coffee successfully argued today that a one-size-fits all prohibition on gun possession, under any and all circumstances, for individuals following a civil court proceeding was unconstitutional as applied to our client.
In Wisconsin, individuals who are subject to a domestic abuse civil injunction automatically lose their constitutional right to possess a firearm, under any circumstances, for any reason. A domestic abuse injunction is granted if a Court finds “reasonable grounds to believe” that the respondent has engaged in, or may engage in, domestic abuse of the petitioner. If a court grants the injunction, the statute automatically requires a respondent to surrender any firearms. This automatic ban does not contain any exceptions, other than for law enforcement officials, including no exceptions allowing an individual to possess a firearm for protection or self-defense in his or her home. The statute also does not make available any argument by a respondent, or finding by a court official, that the particular individual should not be subject to the automatic prohibition. Mastantuono Law Office has argued that this automatic ban of a fundamental constitutional right following a civil proceeding, violates our client’s right under the U.S. and Wisconsin Constitutions to keep and bear arms for self-defense and protection, a right recently re-affirmed by the United States Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008).
The case is currently pending before the trial court in Milwaukee. This blog will be updated with the result of the case.
CASE RESULTS: Resisting an Officer Case Dismissed Due to Bad Faith Police Destruction of Evidence
Friday, June 3rd, 2011Mastantuono Law Office was able to get a criminal charge against one of its clients thrown out of court this month in Waukesha County, due to police missteps in its handling of the investigation. Attorney Craig Mastantuono successfully argued that members of the Waukesha Police Department acted in bad faith by causing video evidence of the incident, which apparently recorded everything, to be destroyed. Our client denied resisting, and was injured in the arrest, which we believe was unlawful, and which we believe the crucial video would have demonstrated. Justice served on this one.
In the days leading up to the decision hearing on June 3rd, 2011, Darryl Enriquez of the Waukesha Freeman wrote an editorial piece describing the unique situation and fate of the video evidence, which is available here. Given columnist Enriquez’ headline question, our answer to his query would be: “No.”
CASE RESULTS: Mastantuono Law Office prevents charges for client exercising right to open carry firearm.
Wednesday, July 21st, 2010No Charges Against Woman Who Brought Gun to Church:
Open-Carry Activist Won’t Be Cited For Carrying Loaded Firearm in Vehicle
July 20, 2010
By Bruce Vielmetti, Journal SentinelWaukesha County prosecutors have decided not to cite a woman who wore a gun into a Brookfield church and had the loaded weapon inside her car when police stopped her a short time later.
Krysta Sutterfield, 41, of Milwaukee was arrested July 4 after she wore the gun to services at the Unitarian Universalist Church West in Brookfield that morning. She never took the gun from its holster or acted in any menacing way, but afterward some church staff called Brookfield police for clarification about Sutterfield’s right to openly carry a firearm.
Several squad cars quickly responded, but by then Sutterfield was leaving in her car. Police pulled her over and found that she had the gun, still loaded, inside a zippered case on the passenger seat. Wisconsin law requires all guns to be unloaded and encased during transport in a vehicle. Police handcuffed Sutterfield, processed her at the station, released her and referred the matter to prosecutors, suggesting that she be ticketed for having the loaded gun in her car.
In a letter to police released to the public Tuesday, Waukesha County District Attorney Brad Schimel explained that while Sutterfield did violate the letter of the firearm transport law, he was not going to issue the ticket, for several reasons.
For one, he said, Sutterfield had no bad intent. She had worn the gun to church services peacefully and was never asked to remove it or leave. She told investigators that a salesperson where she had purchased the 9mm handgun had explained to her that it only needed to be in a case when she was driving.
Further, Schimel wrote, the statute in question, which is a non-criminal infraction that carries a maximum forfeiture of $100, was passed before the Wisconsin Constitution was amended to clearly specify residents’ rights to keep guns for various purposes. He said he did not think the facts of Sutterfield’s case made it the right one to prosecute in an effort to set the limits of gun restrictions.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court has held that the state’s ban on concealed weapons did not apply to a shop owner in Milwaukee who had a gun to protect his business, which had been robbed at gunpoint many times. But it also upheld the concealed-carry conviction of a passenger who had two loaded guns in a car.
Schimel noted that the latter case, however, did not address whether the constitutional amendment might protect someone carrying a loaded gun in his or her own car for protection.
“Given all the circumstances in this case, I do not believe this is the case to test the outer reaches of the application of the CCW statute in light of the constitutional amendment,” Schimel wrote.
Lastly, Schimel noted, Sutterfield might well be able to challenge the legality of her stop by police because she had done nothing illegal at the church and police had no separate reason to suspect that she was transporting the gun while loaded in violation of the state statute. If the stop was not legal, the evidence of the loaded gun would not be admissible.
But Schimel did not fault Brookfield police for their aggressive reaction to the situation, given the limited information they had at the time, especially in light of the history of the 2005 shooting that killed eight people at a church service at a Brookfield hotel.
“The officer needed to freeze the situation to find out more information while preventing the suspect from leaving and while ensuring the safety of himself and other citizens,” Schimel wrote. “It is my opinion that the steps he took would be considered reasonable under all of the circumstances.”
Sutterfield’s attorney, Rebecca Coffee, said her client, who has no criminal history, was relieved.
“I appreciate that Mr. Schimel has given some very reasoned and thoughtful explanation of what he did, and I agree with him,” Coffee said.
She said she will next work on getting Sutterfield’s gun, which was seized at the time of her arrest, returned to her.
Officials at the church, 13001 W. North Ave., have since posted signs at the entrances stating guns are prohibited. The congregation’s president said earlier that Sutterfield is welcome to return, just not with her gun.
CASE RESULTS: Mastantuono Law Office represents person exercising right to open carry firearm.
Friday, July 9th, 2010Woman Wears Gun in Holster to Church
July 8, 2010
By Bruce Vielmetti, Journal SentinelA Unitarian Universalist church might well be the last place you’d expect to find someone wearing a gun.
Maybe that’s why Krysta Sutterfield chose the Unitarian church in Brookfield for an open-carry demonstration on Sunday. If she wanted to bring attention to the gun rights debate, she surely succeeded, though she probably didn’t plan on getting arrested in the process.
Brookfield police said Thursday they were called to the church at 13001 W. North Ave. about 10:30 a.m. by a church staffer who said a woman was wearing a handgun in a hip holster. By the time three squad cars arrived, Sutterfield was driving away. She was stopped, and police found the loaded 9mm gun in a zipped case on the passenger seat.
She was handcuffed, taken to the police station, processed and ticketed for having the loaded gun in her car – a state forfeiture citation, not a criminal offense. Sutterfield was then released.
She was not ticketed for openly carrying the weapon into the church, which did not have signs prohibiting firearms.
“We’ve referred the case to the district attorney,” Police Capt. Phil Horter said.
Sutterfield, 41, of Milwaukee, referred questions Thursday to her attorney, Rebecca Coffee, who said she couldn’t comment on her client’s intentions or actions Sunday.
Caryl Sewel, president of the congregation at Unitarian Universalist Church West, said Sutterfield may have attended a service before but was not a registered member of the church. Because of the Fourth of July holiday, Sunday’s service was lightly attended, Sewel said, and a guest minister was speaking about civil rights.
Sewel said that Sutterfield’s gun was clearly visible on her hip, but that she didn’t ever remove it from its holster or do anything overtly threatening. Still, it concerned Sewell.
“I didn’t feel comfortable asking her why she was wearing the gun,” Sewel said. “Truthfully, we found it very intimidating,” especially in light of the 2005 shootings at a church service at a Brookfield hotel that left eight people dead, and a 2008 shooting at a Unitarian church in Tennessee that killed two people.
But Sewel said other members did ask Sutterfield, and she replied she was expressing her 2nd Amendment rights.
Sewel said other staff called the administrative line of the Brookfield Police Department for clarification about the legality, and the officers responded in force with at least three squad cars. She said she didn’t think that was an overreaction, again because of the memories of the 2005 shootings.
The church will probably now post a sign banning guns, Sewel said, but it has no grudge against Sutterfield.
“We’d be happy to have her come back,” Sewel said. “Just don’t bring a gun.”
Gun rights advocates are riding some momentum lately. Last year, state Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen advised law enforcement that open-carry was not, in itself, a basis for a charge of disorderly conduct. Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the 2nd Amendment right of most individuals to possess firearms applies to the states, and within a day, one Wisconsin district attorney said he would no longer prosecute cases of concealed carry or transporting uncased or loaded guns in vehicles. A challenge to Wisconsin law banning guns within 1,000 feet of a school is pending in federal court.
Nik Clark, president of Wisconsin Carry Inc., called the state “behind the times” for prohibiting transport of loaded guns, which most states allow.
“Wisconsin Carry advocates that people follow all Wisconsin firearm regulations, even those we find patently unconstitutional, until such time as we are able to change those laws through legal challenges and/or legislative changes,” Clark said.
Jeri Bonavia, executive director of the Wisconsin Anti-Violence Effort, disagrees with the basic open-carry tenet that armed law-abiding people deter criminals.
“When people make a decision to carry a gun or that a gun will keep them safer, they have the opportunity to analyze risks and benefits. They get to decide,” she Bonavia said. “But when they bring it into public, they’re forcing their analysis on all of us.”
Broad research shows, she said, that “guns, overall, do not promote public or personal safety.”