... We recently decided that a person did not have criminal status while hospitalized once a trial court stays confinement. State v. Edwards, 2003 WI App 221, __ Wis. 2d __, __ N.W.2d __. We reached that determination in State v. Edwards, which addressed jail credits for hospitalized offenders. An offender subject to an escape charge for leaving the hospital was in "custody" pursuant to Wis. Stat. §946.4291). Id., ¶21. We did not consider the fact that the jail administrator instructed the hospital to notify him when it was time for the hospital to release the offender probative of criminal status. Id., ¶5. Similarly, Gibson was not in custody after the trial court dismissed the charges against him. The State could not have charged him with escape if he had left the hospital. See § 946.42....

¶39. In Wisconsin, bail jumping and the crime underlying a bail jumping charge are distinct and separate offenses for purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause. State ex rel. Jacobus v. State, 208 Wis. 2d 39, 53, 559 N.W.2d 900 (1997) (citing State v. Harris, 190 Wis. 2d 718, 724, 528 N.W.2d 7 (Ct. App. 1994); State v. Nelson, 146 Wis. 2d 442, 449, 432 N.W.2d 115 (Ct. App. 1988)), review denied 147 Wis. 2d 890, 436 N.W.2d 30 (1988)). These cases conclusively demonstrate that the legislature's purpose in enacting bail jumping laws was to authorize multiple punishments to promote multiple interests. "[B]ail jumping laws are intended not only to deter bail jumping, but also to enhance the effective administration of justice in the courts. . . . [C]ourts impose bond conditions with the intent to protect members of the community . . . and prevent a defendant from violating the law." Jacobus, 208 Wis. 2d at 52.

¶25. We appreciate that State v. Hauk, 2002 WI App 226, 257 Wis. 2d 579, 652 N.W.2d 393, review denied, 2002 WI 121, 257 Wis. 2d 122, 653 N.W.2d 893 (Wis. Sept. 18, 2002) (No. 01-1669-CR), holds that a bail jumping conviction premised upon the commission of a further crime does not require proof of conviction of the further crime, but does require "evidence sufficient to allow a reasonable jury to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that [the] defendant intentionally violated his or her bond by committing a crime." Id. at 19. We think it self-evident that when a bail jumping charge is premised upon the commission of a further crime, the jury must be properly instructed regarding the elements of that further crime. We think it equally self-evident that when a bail jumping charge is premised upon the commission of a lesser-included offense of such further crime, the jury must be properly instructed under the law of lesser-included offenses.

¶19 We therefore conclude that as long as there is evidence sufficient to allow a reasonable jury to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant intentionally violated his or her bond by committing a crime, that evidence is not required to be in the form of a conviction for the underlying crime.

¶5. To be guilty of escape, Zimmerman must be found to be in custody. Wis JI-Criminal 1773. The relevant language of the escape statute defines custody to include "without limitation actual custody of an institution ... or of a peace officer or institution guard and constructive custody of prisoners ... temporarily outside the institution ...." Wis. Stat. § 946.42(1)(a). The statute also contains an exception: "It does not include the custody of a probationer [or] parolee ... unless the person is in actual custody or is subject to a confinement order under s. 973.09(4)." Sec. 946.42(1)(a)....

¶14. We conclude that the escape statute unambiguously excludes from the definition of "actual custody" the physical custody of probation and parole officers. Therefore, because Zimmerman was in the hands of probation or parole agents at the time she fled, she is not chargeable with felony escape.

¶73      Officer Alfredson testified that after he ordered Young to return to the car the first time, Young "turned and started walking away." We acknowledge that people may have the right to disregard the police and walk away without giving rise to reasonable suspicion. …

¶74      Plainly, however, a person who disregards a police officer's order assumes the risk that the officer cannot establish that he had reasonable suspicion for an investigatory stop. The person who believes he is exercising his Fourth Amendment rights by disregarding the officer may be subjecting himself to criminal prosecution if the officer has reasonable suspicion to make a stop. ^[20]

¶75      Young's actions were not consistent with disregarding the police presence and going about his business. Young had remained in the car for at least five to 10 minutes. The instant Alfredson illuminated Young's car with the spotlight, Young altered his course of conduct and got out of the car. It is improbable that the timing of Alfredson's appearance and Young's abrupt departure, with no word to the officer, were mere coincidence. Young's action smacked of evasion and flight, which can properly give rise to reasonable suspicion when viewed in the totality of the circumstances. See Wardlow, 528 U.S. at 125. Thus, we conclude that Young's evasive action, set against the above-described facts, reinforced reasonable suspicion.

¶76      Because Alfredson had reasonable suspicion before he issued his second command for Young to return to the car, we conclude Alfredson was acting with lawful authority when he issued this second order. Thus, there is sufficient evidence in the record for a jury to have convicted Young of obstruction.

¶21    … Wisconsin JI——Criminal 1766A (2003) accurately sets forth the elements of obstructing an officer based on giving false information to police as follows: 

1.  The defendant knowingly gave false information to an officer.

2.  The officer was doing an act in an official capacity.

3.  The officer was acting with lawful authority.

4.  The defendant intended to mislead the officer.

…

¶25 The focus is clearly on what the defendant intended to do by knowingly making false statements, not on the eventual outcome. If the intent was to purposefully deceive, or if the defendant was aware that making the false statement was practically certain to deceive, the statute is satisfied. Whether the police were thwarted, therefore, is immaterial.

...

¶48 In sum, we conclude that there is no exculpatory denial exception in the obstructing statute. The statute criminalizes all false statements knowingly made and with intent to mislead the police. Although the State should have sound reasons for believing that a defendant knowingly made false statements with intent to mislead the police and were not made out of a good-faith attempt to defend against accusations of a crime, we conclude that the latter can never include the former; knowingly providing false information with intent to mislead the police is the antithesis of a good-faith attempt to defend against accusations of criminal wrongdoing. Accordingly, we overrule Espinoza. Because the complaint in this case is satisfactory, we affirm the decision of the court of appeals and remand the matter to the circuit court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

“¶20. … (T)he legislature did not intend such a broad result as to include within the statute all false answers or false statements which a defendant utters intending to exculpate himself or herself against a charge of a crime and to prevent his or her prosecution.…

“¶22. It seems that the intent of the legislature in Wis. Stat. § 946.41 was to prevent the waste of time, energy and expense involved in having law enforcement officers running down false leads concerning criminal conduct. Doubtless the legislature intended to circumscribe conduct which would frustrate or thwart the police function. The State makes no claim that Espinoza's mere denial of wrongdoing thwarted the police function. And though truth and morality may have required Espinoza to answer in the affirmative when he was questioned regarding the tire incident, we cannot say that the law required him to do so.”

¶20 We reject Venema's argument that a contract has to be in existence in order for a violation to occur under Wis. Stat. § 946.13(1)(a). Such an interpretation is undermined by the plain meaning of the statutory language. The common meaning of "negotiate" is to "communicate with another party for the purpose of reaching an understanding[.]" Black's Law Dictionary 1059 (7^th ed. 1999). Consequently, negotiation ordinarily precedes the formation of a contract and it is these precontractual bargaining relationships that raise the specter of self-interest if one of the parties is also a public official. By contrast, the practical effect of Venema's technical construction is to read the words "negotiate, bid or enter" completely out of the statute or render them surplusage. This we cannot allow. See Donaldson v. State, 93 Wis. 2d 306, 315, 286 N.W.2d 817 (1980).