Cop demands LTC

[jdubois]

If a small thing like that bothers you then you should not carry a gun. If he asked you to see your licence. You say yes, hand him the lic. he gives it back and thank you its over you go on your way.

Well, yes and no. Certainly in this exact scenario, you are required by law to exhibit your license if the officer asks to see it, so you've got quite a battle ahead of yourself if you decide not to comply. Given, that, I agree that just showing the license and moving on is overwhelmingly the best choice.

But to suggest that someone who is bothered by an unwarranted search by a government representative, even if it is not terribly inconvenient, shouldn't carry a gun is patently crazy. People exercising their fourth amendment rights is the only way to preserve those rights.

Now I'm not suggesting hassling any LEO who approaches you. I know the majority of them are decent folks who are just trying to do their jobs. But you can certainly be firm in your communication of your desire to reserve your rights, while still being polite and respectful.

 

[doobie]

"Am I being detained? Should I call my lawyer?"

 

[GaryO]

The one time a PO saw my sweatshirt got hung up on my holster he just asked me to double check that it's properley concealed, no question about my LTC and this was in a Jaimaca Plain coffee shop.

 

[squeeze]

Quote:
Originally Posted by JonJ
Where a police officer personally observes an individual with a firearm, the
following option is available:

Demand that the person exhibit a Firearms Identification Card
(FID) or License to Carry (LTC), assuming the person is outside
the limits of their own property on residence. G.L. c. 140, § 129C.
On failure, the person may be required to surrender the firearm,
although failure is not made criminal. Com. v. Jones, 372 Mass.
403, 361 N.E.2d 1308 (1977). In Com. v. Haskell, the court suppressed the answer to the officer’s inquiry as to whether the defendant had a permit to possess the revolver he produced at the officer’s request. If the officer had simply demanded to see any license, this would have been permitted under G.L. c. 140, § 129C.

Exactly...asking/demanding to see the license compared to asking IF YOU HAVE A LICENSE. This is why it is difficult to navigate the law and why it is important to not monday morning quarterback.

Imagine being a police officer and getting into a fight with a drunk on the street at 2am and finding him in possession of a handgun. With adrenaline still going and the suspect still being combative you ask if he has a LTC. He says no. The charge for illegally posessing the firearm gets thrown out of court because you failed to give Miranda warnings. The same scenario but instead you say to the suspect "show me your LTC". The suspect fails to produce and the charge stands as being good.

Tough semantics to have to deal with under stress at 2am on the side of the road. It takes several judges in black robes sitting in a climate controlled building weeks to decide that the officer was wrong when the officer needs to make a split second decision.

Sorry for the rant but I thought it was a good example to indicate why people should not be so quick to fault an officer and be a Monday morning quarterback.

I will shut up now!!

Half Cocked,
Please continue to "rant", this is probably one of the most civil rants I've seen in a while, your posts are full of useful and helpful info. So, rant on!!

Kurt

 

[Half Cocked]

Well, yes and no. Certainly in this exact scenario, you are required by law to exhibit your license if the officer asks to see it, so you've got quite a battle ahead of yourself if you decide not to comply. Given, that, I agree that just showing the license and moving on is overwhelmingly the best choice.

But to suggest that someone who is bothered by an unwarranted search by a government representative, even if it is not terribly inconvenient, shouldn't carry a gun is patently crazy. People exercising their fourth amendment rights is the only way to preserve those rights.

Now I'm not suggesting hassling any LEO who approaches you. I know the majority of them are decent folks who are just trying to do their jobs. But you can certainly be firm in your communication of your desire to reserve your rights, while still being polite and respectful.

He was not suggesting submitting to a unwarranted search. He simply stated that there was no big deal with showing the officer the LTC and moving on.

That is a far cry from a unwarranted search.

 

[jdubois]

He was not suggesting submitting to a unwarranted search. He simply stated that there was no big deal with showing the officer the LTC and moving on.

That is a far cry from a unwarranted search.

If you read my post again, you'll see I agree with the course of action of showing your LTC and moving on. Heck, if you met me you'd see I'm about as non-confrontational as one can get. I'd always much rather diffuse a situation easily than 'get into it'. In fact, just because we're having this conversation, I'm going to PM you a copy of my LTC

But I was taking issue with the suggestion that if something like that bothers you, you shouldn't carry a gun. That's crazy. I'm always 'bothered' when a police officer officially asks me to prove anything. That doesn't mean I won't politely comply, it just means it concerns me. If an authority figure gets into your business, and you're NOT bothered, there's something seriously wrong with your spidey sense. This kind of complacency can lead to allowing unwarranted searches.

As to whether an LEO asking for your LTC is warranted or unwarranted (philosophically, at least, if not legally) that is obviously entirely dependent upon the situation.

 

[Half Cocked]

If you read my post again, you'll see I agree with the course of action of showing your LTC and moving on. Heck, if you met me you'd see I'm about as non-confrontational as one can get. I'd always much rather diffuse a situation easily than 'get into it'. In fact, just because we're having this conversation, I'm going to PM you a copy of my LTC

But I was taking issue with the suggestion that if something like that bothers you, you shouldn't carry a gun. That's crazy. I'm always 'bothered' when a police officer officially asks me to prove anything. That doesn't mean I won't politely comply, it just means it concerns me. If an authority figure gets into your business, and you're NOT bothered, there's something seriously wrong with your spidey sense. This kind of complacency can lead to allowing unwarranted searches.



As to whether an LEO asking for your LTC is warranted or unwarranted (philosophically, at least, if not legally) that is obviously entirely dependent upon the situation.

Fair enough!!

 

[AHM]

(This thread is old, and the cases have been properly explained elsewhere).

Does a Police officer have the right to see your LTC if you are in a gun store carrying.

Look up "Commonwealth v. Couture"

Red herring (see below).

MGL Ch. 140 §129C grants a police officer the power to demand to see your LTC whenever you are off your property or your property is being searched. In particular, the police need not have any articulable suspicion of a crime, let alone probable cause. (I speculate for the same reason that the ABC can inspect a bar: the proprietors are engaged in a highly regulated activity).

What is interesting about Commonwealth v. Couture is that a conviction for illegal carry was reversed simply because the arresting officer got a "man seen with gun call", and did the "your papers please" routine without any evidence, other than the gun, that the man was engaging in an illegal act. The court held that asking for the LTC was improper absent any indication that the person was engaged in an illegal act, and that the cop could not simply assume the person had no LTC.

No, Commonwealth v. Couture establishes that a witness's mere allegation of the presence of a gun does not suffice to trigger a more-intrusive-than-Terry search. Hence any evidence (here, a .45 revolver thrown under a car seat) found in such an unjustified search is fruit of the poison tree, and inadmissible as evidence.

As stated above a LEO must demand for your license/LTC. If the officer asks for your license " May I please see your LTC" certain Miranda issues arise.

Your close. Miranda would not be needed if the officer stated "May I please see your LTC". being polite does not trigger Miranda. Miranda may be required depending upon the circumstances if the officer were to ask "Do you have a LTC".

No; that mischaracterizes Commonwealth v. Haskell, which established that asking an un-Mirandized detainee if they have an LTC yields an inadmissible answer, while failure to produce an LTC on demand is admissible evidence.

 

[commodon]

If a small thing like that bothers you then you should not carry a gun. If he asked you to see your licence. You say yes, hand him the lic. he gives it back and thank you its over you go on your way.

Agreed!

IMO if you're a law-abiding citizen, when an LEO asks to see your LTC (especially if you're carrying) while out in public, you give the LEO your LTC and answer their questions, period, end-of-story. The exchange is brief and you're on your way. The only exception would be unless you have actually done something illegal, which under those very different circumstances, you ask to speak to your attorney and you don't answer any questions.

 

[Palladin]

A 10yr thread revival.

Mic drop

 

[Coyote33]

A 10yr thread revival.

Mic drop