How this parses out under Mass. law depends critically on
precisely what the sheriff said. "Are you licensed?" has radically different implications than "Show me the license for your [STRIKE=LINE]codpiece[/STRIKE] carry piece".
That's the understatement of the year.
With 150-some-odd notes and counting, this thread contains Mt. Everest-sized chunks of fail, and that's based
solely on solid information cited elsewhere within NES.
You managed to capture
both pieces of relevant case law in one sentence:
- Possession is not probable cause: Commonwealth v. Alvarado, 423 Mass. 266 (1996): The SJC held that ``our cases have not yet declared reasonable suspicion warranted simply on a report of gun possession just because this country has problems with the unlawful use of guns.''
- Asking about (not demanding) LTC requires Miranda warning: Commonwealth v. Haskell, 438 Mass. 790, 793 (2003): A suspect who had been subjected to a custodial interrogation when a police officer asked him whether he had a license to carry firearms, without first advising him of his Miranda rights, was entitled to suppression of his answer where, although the police officer need not have administered Miranda warnings before demanding that the suspect in custody produce one of the documents listed in G. L. c. 140, s. 129C (here, a firearms license), the officer's asking the suspect whether he had such a document constituted a request for a testimonial communication that entitled the suspect to the protections of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution including the right to refuse to answer.
The only reason why I knew the rulings exist is by having read their detailed discussion on NES:
- What would you have done?
- When am I required by law to provide an ID?
On the other hand, the first question was apparently non-custodial. So OP's buddy didn't have to answer; he could have gone Full YouTube Obstreperous. But faced with non-response, few cops would fail to escalate to a faux Terry Stop (i.e., an unconstitutional stop - not actually based upon RAS). This could be the start of a beatable rap, but with an unbeatable ride.
I don't fault OP's buddy cooperating, but if only he knew his rights he could have let the other shoe drop. Since the sheriff was such a great guy, the carrier would have at least had the
option of reminding them after the fact that Printing Is Not Probable Cause, and that conversationally asking someone in custody if they have an LTC will get the answer tossed as a Miranda violation just as if they beat it out of him with a rubber hose.
I have the impression (can't remember why) that those SJC rulings are important enough have affected academy training, and ought to have resulted in memos to the rank-and-file. If the beat cops are incapable of absorbing the nuance, or are just thugs who ignore whatever civil rights are inconvenient, then they'll embarrass their departments with dismissed cases and successful civil suits.
If instructors are failing to incorporate those precedents into their syllabus, they are training their students to fail hard whenever they come up against defense attorneys who know their stuff.
I hear prosecutors hate it when that happens.
Commonwealth v. Alvarado, 423 Mass. 266 seems to be the silver bullet you've been looking for. It would make fun reading to see an after-action report from someone who calmly brings it to their CoP's attention on Monday morning, and actually convinces them to pass it along to their watch commanders.