Wisconsin Makes a Good Start


During the last week, Wisconsin lawmakers passed and Governor Walker signed a new bill affecting how deaths caused by police officers would be investigated.

Officer Stephen Heimness

Officer Stephen Heimness

In November of 2012 Paul Heenan was shot and killed by Madison, Wisconsin Police officer Stephen Heimness. Heenan had been drinking and had entered the wrong house on his street.  He was shot as he was struggling with the home owner and reportedly with officer Heimness.  Heimness said that Heenan attempted to take his gun and that he was in fear of his life when he shot Hennan.

An internal investigation conducted by the Madison PD and an investigation by the Dane County DA’s office cleared Heimness.  A federal DOJ investigation was reportedly started, but where it went is not known.  The Madison Chief of Police later found that Heimness had committed 118 violations of 13 department policies and Heimness resigned in lieu of a termination hearing.  The Chief, who later retired, said that the shooting was still a good shooting and was within policy.

Uh huh.  The lawsuit for wrongful death wouldn’t have anything to do with that statement, would it?


Billboards calling for change

This wasn’t the only case where the internal police investigation was questioned.  In 2011 Derek Williams choked to death in the back of a Milwaukee squad car, and although there was a finding of probable cause that officers committed criminal acts, there was no prosecution.   In 2004, unarmed Michael Bell Jr. was shot and killed and the Kenosha Police internal review found no wrong-doing after only 2 days.  Despite that, the city settled the lawsuit for $1.75 million.  Michael Bell Sr. then used the money for billboards and fullpage newspaper ads.  The settlement outraged the police – but the city and the insurance company doesn’t hand out that type of money unless there is a reason for it.

In any event, the bill, AB 409, now requires:

  • An investigation by two outside investigators, one of whom is in charge of the investigation;
  • Any internal investigation may not interfere with the outside investigators;
  • The outside investigators submit their report directly to the District Attorney; and
  • If the District Attorney does not prosecute, the outside investigators are required to release their report to the public.

This is a good start on what is needed.  As an example, in Dallas, Texas, a former officer was recently indicted for aggravated assault for her actions in shooting an unarmed carjacking suspect who had his hands up and was surrendering.  She is the first Dallas officer indicted in 41 years for an on-duty shooting.

It all depends on how the individual agencies implement the law.  For example, the policy issued by the Madison Police after the law is, in my opinion, not compliant with the new law.  For example, the outside “lead” investigator is allowed to “observe” the Madison Police department investigation and submits his observations.  It is not to contain the facts of the case, but only if the investigation was impartial.  The policy also states that the Madison Chief of Police is the sole authority on whether an officer is to be arrested.

That hardly seems to meet either the spirit or letter of the law.



A Call for Police Cover and Suppressive Fire


Anyone who has been in the military, particularly the Infantry should be appalled by this.  At PoliceOne, retired Wisconsin police leiutenant Dan Marcou has noted that “The military would have no qualms about laying down cover fire to rescue a downed soldier” and lays out a hypothetical situation where a shooter has taken a hostage and wounded a police officer by firing shotgun slugs through a closed door.

Lt. Dan, as he is known, is disappointed that police cannot lay down cover fire to support the extraction of the downed officer.

OK, that seems reasonable, until you actually look at the facts.

The shooter is behind a closed door with at least one innocent hostage.  To provide cover fire, other officers would be firing blindly through the door.  There would be no target identification, acquisition, or isolation, just blind shooting through a door or wall.  There would be no way of knowing where the innocent hostage was located, whether they would be in danger or not, and despite Lt. Dan’s acknowledgement that officers are responsible for every round fired, that is not reality.

Don’t believe me?

Look at the following cases:

  • NYPD officers hit two innocent bystanders while shooting at an unarmed man who they believed had a weapon.  No officers have been charged.  Sept. 2013.
  • Boston police shot an officer while shooting at the bombing suspects.  The officer almost died.  They also shot up an empty black SUV.  Multiple homes were damaged by gunfire.  No charges against any officer.  Apr. 2013.
  • LAPD officers fire over 100 rounds at two innocent women during the Dorner manhunt.  No criminal charges were filed.  Apr. 2013.
  • Las Vegas Metro officers hit an innocent bystander while shooting an armed shooting suspect.  No charges were filed against the officers.  Feb. 2013.
  • NYPD officers shot an armed suspect near the Empire State Building, hitting him 10 times and killing him.  Nine innocent bystanders are also hit by police.  Mayor Bloomberg defended the officers’ actions and no charges were filed.  Aug. 2012.
  • San Francisco PD officers shoot at (and miss) an armed suspect, striking an innocent bystander.  No criminal charges were filed against the officer.  July 2011.

We could go on.  In 10 years, from 2002 t0 2012, NYPD shot 30 innocent bystanders without filing criminal charges on any of the officers involved.

Allowing police to use cover and suppressive fire is a ludicrous idea.  In the military, the idea of suppressive fire is to put enough firepower into an area to keep the enemy from engaging your own forces.  The military is not concerned about collateral damage.  They are not concerned about citizen safety as opposed to officer safety.

take that, goliath.

just another day sitting next to the defendant

Hercules and the umpire.



Classical liberalism, criminal laws, the war on drugs, economics, free speech, technology, photography, sex work, cats, and whatever else comes to mind.


Res ipsa loquitur - The thing itself speaks

Chasing Truth. Catching Hell.

A Public Defender's Blog, @normdeguerreesq

The Legal Satyricon

Occasionally irreverent thoughts on law, liberty, tech, and politics.

Legal Writing Prof Blog

General ramblings of a former police officer turned lawyer


General ramblings of a former police officer turned lawyer

How Appealing

General ramblings of a former police officer turned lawyer

General ramblings of a former police officer turned lawyer


General ramblings of a former police officer turned lawyer

Real Lawyers Have Blogs

General ramblings of a former police officer turned lawyer

Say What?! Classic Courtroom Humor from Judge Jerry Buchmeyer

General ramblings of a former police officer turned lawyer

Judge Bonnie Sudderth

Law Blog on the Texas Rules of Evidence


Chronicling the high cost of our legal system

Defending People

General ramblings of a former police officer turned lawyer

Preaching to the choir

General ramblings of a former police officer turned lawyer

Crime and Consequences Blog

General ramblings of a former police officer turned lawyer

Koehler Law

Criminal and DUI Defense in Washington, D.C.

The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times

General ramblings of a former police officer turned lawyer

The Volokh Conspiracy

General ramblings of a former police officer turned lawyer


A Group Complaint about Law, Liberty, and Leisure


General ramblings of a former police officer turned lawyer