Indeed an excellent article. The writer seems to be a real journalist of the old school, which is a great compliment.
A real practical issue in this misunderstanding is safety. No one wants to have an officer expecting one thing, and the citizen expecting another. That is why the DNR’s pushing the limits is even more than just an attempt to shade the law: it creates the chance of a dangerous misjudgment.
I have heard too many accounts of accidents occurring in ordinary traffic cases, such that in the last decades whenever I have been stopped while driving, I keep my hands on the steering wheel, or on the edge of the window, so that the officer cannot possibly misinterpret.
I know a young chap who was stopped at night returning home with friends after a party. The officer asked the boy for his driver’s license, and the kid responded by reaching under his seat (where he habitually placed his wallet). The next thing he knew, he heard a click, and felt a large barrel against his head.
I am not saying that this is good police procedure, but police are often injured or killed in what seemed at the time like a routine stop. I would never reach under a seat like that without explaining what I was doing. It is absolutely necessary to understand what is going on both sides of the “interview.” It is good fortune that nothing bad happened in the case of my friend (he didn’t even get any sort of ticket), but to my way of thinking that is a close call.
Likewise, it would be good if the courts figured out (correctly) this matter with the DNR in Wisconsin.
How about defusing the whole situation by vastly reducing the reasons for primary traffic stops?
I will accept the increased risk of traffic accidents and even death in return for freedom.