Hold those thoughts (see below).
I've done a disservice to forum readers by neglecting to link to the actual cases. That's not how I want to roll.
(And I sure hope that my abstracts in
#159 accurately summarize the cases).
An aside: I feel for Mike-Mike, because on p. 269 of Alvarado, the SJC cites and quotes Couture. Offhand, the SJC seems to consider Couture more relevant than was even casually obvious to me from its abstract. I guess that's why they pay the SJC the big bucks.
Well, this case law is probably so obscure and new that at best I'd expect lawyers to speak in terms of probabilities/odds - not certainties.
Haskell is so subtle that even the decision itself apologizes for it. (See below).
First the relevant part of c140 §129c:
So I absolutely agree that a LEO can (at whim)
tell anyone, "show me your LTC",
and they're required to show it.
Now the core of Haskell:
So my take on Haskell is that if a LEO
asks "do you have an LTC" of an un-Mirandized detainee (even during a Terry stop), then the detainee has the option to take the 5th and not self-incriminate by not answering. (The SJC doesn't explore the propriety of silence when the detainee
has a perfectly
cromulent LTC in their possession).
As far as juries go... I imagine that the defense would preemptively move to suppress any testimony (and fruits) impermissible under Haskell/Miranda. And if that removed an essential element, I imagine a motion for those charge(s) to be dismissed, without presentation to the jury.
But in the case of the OP's buddy, it's a thin hypothetical to imagine he'd get charged, but only with 129c. Probably the sheriff either shrugs it off, or goes FR with other charges.
They have a Law Review forum (
423 discussions; 2 (unrelated) Alvarado hits), a Court Decisions subforum (
199 discussions; 6 (unrelated) Alvarado hits), and are not above bringing in case law when discussing current events (2 Alvarado hits). Ironically, in 2011 our own Officer Obie did cite the Alvarado case in one news story -
a tragic police involved fatal shooting in Plymouth, although no illicit firearms were involved.
At its best, it seems an admirable form of continuing legal education.