The Wisconsin legislature gave parents more options in planning for the short-term care and support of their children, if they are unable to do so. This assistance came in the form of a new power of attorney document which allows a parent to temporarily delegate full or partial parental authority to a third person without court or social services involvement.  The Wisconsin Legislative Council Act Memo to 2011 Wisconsin Act 87, which created Wisconsin Statute § 48.979, specifically mentions the statute “authorizes the parent of a child to delegate certain powers regarding the care and custody of the child by a power of attorney . . . . without court involvement.”  This section is similar to Ohio law which provides for a Grandparent Power of Attorney (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 3109.52), specifying that the person caring for the child must be a grandparent, while the person delegating the authority can be a “parent, guardian, or custodian.”

Prior to the enactment of this new law, the only way a parent could delegate parental authority was through a formal guardianship proceeding or a petition for protective services. Obviously, these options were not practical for parents simply looking to delegate legal decision-making authority to a third person for a short period of time.

The new power of attorney allows a parent to temporarily delegate legal decision-making authority and care-giving responsibility for their children to a third party for up to one year. This tool is perfect for situations where parents will be unavailable due to a vacation or military service and they wish to delegate healthcare and other decision-making authority to a third party while they are away. This delegation of parental authority will also work in more serious situations such as the incapacity, medical treatment or incarceration of a parent.

There are limits to the use of the new parental power of attorney. For example, the power of attorney designation may not exceed one year, parental authority may only be delegated by individuals who have legal custody and both parents must sign if both have legal custody. The power of attorney must be properly executed and substantially conform to the statutory requirements. A parent who has delegated his or her powers may revoke the power of attorney document in writing at any time.

Where a child is at risk, however, a parental power of attorney may not be used to avoid protective services.  And many parental powers cannot be delegated under the power of attorney provision, such as the parent’s right to consent to marriage of a minor child, or to consent to military enrollment.  Neither can it be used to voluntarily place the child in foster care without the parent’s consent.

Whether it is for a short-term vacation or more permanent planning, it is important to plan for the care and support of your minor children.  Attorney Paul A. Ksicinski has the expertise to advise you on what tools are best suited to accomplish your goals.

968.24  Temporary questioning without arrest. 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.

While this Wisconsin statutes allow law enforcement officers to "demand" ID, there is no statutory requirement to provide them ID nor is there a penalty for refusing to, hence Wisconsin is not a must ID state.

So in Wisconsin, how can you tell if an officer asking you to identify yourself has reasonable suspicion? Remember, police need reasonable suspicion to detain you. So one way to tell if they have reasonable suspicion is to determine if you’re free to go. You can do this by saying “Excuse me officer. Are you detaining me, or am I free to go?” If the officer says you’re free to go, leave immediately and don’t answer any more questions.  Walk but do not run away from the the police since running can give the police reasonable suspicion to detain you.

If you’re detained, you’ll have to decide if withholding your identity is worth the possibility of arrest or a prolonged detention. In cases of mistaken identity, revealing who you are might help to resolve the situation quickly. On the other hand, if you’re on probation or parole, for example, revealing your identity will likely lead to a legal search.

Remember that the officer’s decision to detain you will not always hold up in court. Reasonable suspicion is a vague legal standard, and police often make mistakes. So if you’re searched or arrested following an officer’s ID request, you may contact an attorney to discuss the incident and explore your legal options.

By contrast, in Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177, 181 (2004), a Nevada statute (Nev. Rev. Stat. § 171.123 (2003)) specifically required that a person subjected to a Terry stop “shall identify himself.” The Supreme Court held that the statute was constitutional.

Of course, the police believe they have an absolute right (just where in the Constitution the police were granted any rights I am not sure) to demand identification of a citizen.  Jeff Bray, Senior Legal Advisor, Plano, Texas, Police Department, “Suspects Who Refuse to Identify Themselves,” The Police Chief: The Professional Voice of Law Enforcement vol. 74, no. 4, April 2007, http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display_arch&article_id=1150&issue_id=42007.  In Milwaukee, Police Chief Flynn created a legal fiction by saying his officers are entitled to “legal pretext stops.”  Don Walker, “Chief Flynn says police will adjust tactics to battle violent crime,” Milwaukee Journal, January 11, 2013, http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/chief-flynn-said-police-will-adjust-tactics-to-battle-violent-crime-4i8boc3-186537711.html.  With all due respect to Chief Flynn, there are no such constitutional animals as “legal pretext stops.”  If a stop is pretextual, it is unconstitutional.  A police officer simply cannot seize and search every person whom he sees on the street or of whom he makes inquires.  Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40, 64(1968).  “Before [a police officer] places a hand on the person of a citizen in search of anything, he must have constitutionally adequate, reasonable grounds for doing so.”  Id.

The National Lawyers Guild and the ACLU of Northern California, recommend to either remain silent or to identify oneself whether or not a jurisdiction has a "stop and identify" law:

And in any state, police do not always follow the law, and refusing to give your name may make them suspicious and lead to your arrest, so use your judgment. If you fear that your name may be incriminating, you can claim the right to remain silent, and if you are arrested, this may help you later. Giving a false name could be a crime.  "Know Your Rights! What to Do if Questioned by Police, FBI, Customs Agents or Immigration Officers". National Lawyers Guild, S.F. Bay Area Chapter; ACLU of Northern California; American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee.

In a more recent pamphlet, the ACLU of Northern California elaborated on this further, recommending that a person detained by police should:

. . . give your name and the information on your drivers’ license. If you don’t, you may be arrested, even though the arrest may be illegal.  "Your Rights and the Police". ACLU of Northern California.

​“Alright you son of a fucking bitch.  Look, you better fucking call me right away because we need to talk, immensely we need to fucking talk, quickly because I'm gonna go down there and the call …. I'm going to talk to the lady and let her know that you fucking blow because I am not paying rent here.  I told you I cannot fucking afford this place.  You are fucking responsible for this.  I will fucking move out.  We committed to a fucking year whether you like it or not we were going to be roommates.  You better fucking call me or you are going to fucking reaping the fucking pain.  And I know where you work too.   And don't think … you just better fucking call me.”

A client was criminally charged for making that statement above and other statements to another person that repeatedly used some form of the word “fuck.”  Obviously a vulgar term but is it one that taxpayers want to invest money in the form of prosecution of someone who swears or uses profanity followed by warehousing the person in jail or put on our over-burdened probation system?  Before I answer that, remember that in 2006 summit meeting in Russia, as conflict heated up between Israel and the Lebanese terror group Hezbollah, a microphone picked up a candid moment between George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair.  Syria, Bush told Blair, should tell Hezbollah to "stop doing this shit."

It is important to recognize the evils which the regulation of profanity seeks to prevent. One major concern is the impact of profanity on children, both as subjects and objects. Few contest the legitimacy of this concern. This has not, however, provided the United States Supreme Court with a rationale for permitting general regulation of all things deemed profane. The Court has isolated the problem of the child audience though permitting the regulation of materials sold directly to children, but it has not allowed protection of the child audience to be used as a predicate for adult regulation.

Other than the potential child audience notwithstanding, the most often cited possible ''evils'' of profanity are: (i) The material will move the audience to anti-social sexual action; (ii) the material will offend the sensibilities of many in the audience, (iii) the material will advocate or endorse improper doctrines of sexual behavior; and (iv) the material will inflame the imagination and excite a sexual response from the body.  Kalven, Jr., A Worthy Tradition: Freedom of Speech in America 33 (1988). See also United States v. Amirault, 173 F.3d 28 (1st Cir. 1999) (questioning whether a picture evoking a sexual response from a person is a subjective or objective standard; ''should we be evaluating the response of an average viewer or the specific defendant in this case?

The first concern, although still voiced by occasional politicians and ''morality'' lobbies, lacks scientific support. The second may pose a problem for captive audiences, but many times profanity regulation occurs when there is a mutual exchange between people of profane or vulgar words The third, thematic profanity, falls within the consensus regarding ''thought crimes''; unsound ideas about sex, like unsound ideas about anything else, present an evil which the law cannot regulate.

The final consideration is the evil of exciting adult sexual fantasies. There is no dispute that some such material does in fact excite the sexual imagination. Application of the societal concern and the resultant obscenity/profanity doctrine dates from an earlier day; it was stressed by such moralists as Anthony Comstock. Presumably, the underlying concern is with non-marital sex and masturbation. The question is whether this state interest is sufficient, in the case of consenting adults, to justify legislation regulating sexual expression.

In any event, the use of profanity may engender attitudes that run counter to our notions of equality, but banning profanity because of the discrimination it may cultivate runs counter to the first amendment. In Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969) , for example, the United States Supreme Court acknowledged the first amendment right of the defendant, a member of the Ku Klux Klan, to engage in discriminatory speech. In so doing, the Court struck down Ohio's criminal syndicalism statute authorizing punishment for speech that advocates ideas and which does not incite imminent lawless action. Id. at 448-49 . Similarly, in Smith v. Collin, 578 F.2d 1197 (7th Cir. 1978), the Court's refusal to stay a Seventh Circuit decision to strike ordinances passed by the Village of Skokie, Illinois, to block a march by the American Nazi party also represents an implicit recognition that discriminatory speech, despite its unpopular message, is deserving of first amendment protection.

So in reality, the interest in profanities regulation can only rest on imposing some sort of uniform moral code on society.  In other words, from my client above, the word “fuck” was singled out for regulation because our society uniformly forbids it use.  Hmmmm…..really?

Just as making the well-known middle finger gesture is no longer obscene or illegal, “fuck” is a more commonly used and accepted term in today's twenty-first century society than it was in the past. Coggin v. State, 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 8678, (memorandum decision October 9, 2003).  Use of the word “fuck” "has been accepted in R-rated movies (and occasionally in PG-13 movies, though not often). Since the 1970's, the use of the word Fuck in R-rated movies has become so commonplace in mainstream American movies that it is rarely noticed by most audiences."  Id.  Some movies such as Scarface, Porky's and Goodfellas are known for the extensive use of the family of “fuck” words (fuck, fucking, fucker, fuckface, fucked, absofuckinglutely, etc.) and in the non-US version of the comedy Four Weddings and a Funeral, Fuck is the chief word and repeatedly uttered during the first five minutes of the film. Id. Pulp Fiction was nominated for seven academy awards and took home the Oscar for best screenplay with its zealous and gratuitous use of Fuck phrases. It would be far fetched to argue that the fuck and variations thereof has not made its way into mainstream society. 

In the world of performing arts, “fuck” and its many variants are not limited to Hollywood and the big screen. George Carlin, a well known and admired American comedian, for years has based his act on the use of the more colorful words in the English language, including extraordinarily large amounts of “fuck” phraseology. In fact, one of the most well known comedic skits in American history is George Carlin's "Seven Dirtiest Words," two of which are “fuck” and “motherfucker.”  Andrew Dice Clay, Eddie Murphy, Chris Rock, Robin Williams and countless others have used the Fuck family to entertain audiences across the land, enriching their lives with the entertainment and comedic value of Fuck and its progeny. 

The word “fuck” can be heard almost anywhere at anytime, not just at your local movie theatre or comedy club. Numerous other mainstream and well-respected artists have used the family of “fuck” words in their music and performances. The Rolling Stones (who have nine number one albums, thirty-four top 10 albums and thirty-eight gold/platinum albums) have used the word in numerous recorded songs and hoards of additional live performances. Other popular musical artists such as Eminem, Lenny Kravitz, Tupac Shakur, Kid Rock, Busta Rhymes, 311, Bad Religion, Beck, Dr. Dre, Blink 182, Spleen Dingo and Everlast have actually titled songs that contain some variation of the word “fuck.” For a complete listing of at least 417 song titles containing a member of the “fuck” variations, one need only access to a computer to visit the non-pornographic site inlyrics.com. Literally millions of “fucking” recordings have been distributed by national recording artists, who are backed by national record labels, who seem not to have a problem proliferating this prolific word and its closely related cousins. Counsel knows of no record label or record label executive that has been prosecuted for titling a band, a song or an album with a member of the “fuck” family.  In fact, an agency of the United States Government, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), declared in October that "Fucking Brilliant" (as stated by Bono of the musical group U2 at the live telecast of the Golden Globe awards in January) to not be obscene.  Shepherd Express (October 30-November 5, 2003) p. 61.

From “Fa” (a syllable used to represent the fourth tone of a major scale or sometimes the tone F) to “Fytte” (archaic version of Fit), there are roughly eight thousand six hundred words in the English language that begin with the letter F. Webster's 3rd New International Dictionary of the English Language, Unabridged, pp. 811-926, (1986). Fuck has the unique distinction of being the only word commonly known as the F word. Fuck is so popular that the well-respected national publisher Random House Books in 1999 published a 272-page book entitled “The F Word”. Coincidentally, Random House also happened to be 1999's number one ranked distributor of children's books. "The F Word" is readily available at the world's largest online bookseller, Amazon.com, or your local Barnes and Noble bookseller for around fifteen dollars.

A search of Internet web sites suggests “fuck” is a more commonly used word than mom, baseball, hot dogs, apple pie, and Chevrolet. Google Search Engine at Google.com.  The following table depicts the number of internet search engine hits for "fucker" and "fucking" statements as compared to “fuck” itself and other commonly heard words or phrases. All results are approximate.

Word

Approximate number of hits

Fuck

24,900,000

Fucking

24,700,000

Fucker

735,000

Mom

9,040,000

Baseball

13,600,000

Hot Dogs

607,000

Apple Pie

308,000

Chevrolet

4,090,000

Freedom of Speech

542,000

First Amendment

933,000

Unconstitutional

691,000

Sticks and Stones May Break My Bones

7,360

“Fuck” has distinct meanings based on the context in which it is used. When formally defined:

a.      "FUCK, n, 1680

1.      usually obscene: an act of copulation

2.      usually obscene: a sexual partner

3.      usually vulgar: DAMN

4.      usually vulgar: used especially with the as a meaningless intensive <what the fuck do they want from me>"

Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary, www.m-w.com (emphasis in original)

b.      The Cambridge English Readers Online Dictionary adds more zest to the definition of fuck and fucking (emphasis in original):

"fuck (EXTREME ANGER) exclamation offensive

used when expressing extreme anger or annoyance, or to add force to what is being said:

Fuck — the bloody car won't start!

Shut the fuck up!

Who the fuck does she think she is, telling me what to do?

fucking adjective, adverb offensive

used to emphasize a statement, especially an angry one:

What a fucking waste of time!

He's a fucking idiot.

He'd fucking well better do it."

“Fuck” possesses incredible versatility. It can be a noun (“you fuck”), a verb (“everything Billy touches, he fucks up”), and adjective (“I'm really fucking broke”), an adverb (“I've been fucking drinking too much”), an exclamation (“holy fuck, Batman!”) or question (“what the fuck?”). This versatility could partially explain the prevalence of the word and why it is so readily available to anyone with access to a computer, VCR, CD player, eight-track recorder, DVD player, phonograph, cassette deck or Blockbuster Video outlet. It may explain why Fuck can be used in almost any sentence at any time no matter what the circumstances and why the word has become almost commonplace in United States culture and society.

Please note the religious overtones of the government regulation of profanity. Profanity is by definition "contempt or irreverence for what is sacred." And so who is to say what is sacred? Politicians? Preachers? The Parents Television Council? Or parents? Your friends? 

All I know is that I do not want the government to sit as America's latter-day ecclesiastical court and nanny or official cultural critic.  For instance, the FCC penalized a public TV documentary, The Blues: Godfathers and Sons, which had hip-hop legend Chuck D (of Public Enemy) and Marshall Chess (son of Leonard Chess and heir to the Chess Records legacy) explore the heyday of Chicago blues along with contemporary hip hop musicians for its subjects' language. Yet the commission earlier made exceptions for the Steven Spielberg films Saving Private Ryan and Schindler's List. So when black musicians say bad words, it is a crime. I guess the government believes when white people use profanity in war, it is art.

I guess that is what bothers me often with criminal prosecutions, in particular prosecution for profanity.  Many times who does the act will determine if someone will be prosecuted.  For instance, I do not know if President Bush ever faced prosecution for using profanity.  It is not that President Bush said “shit” that bothers me, it is that if someone else other than President Bush said “shit,” they face criminal prosecution.