Interesting question about showing LEO my LTCF if asked while I am OC as well as CC.

[TheF00L]

Interesting question about showing LEO my LTCF if asked while I am OC as well as CC.

Here is the scenario:
I am going to adopt the plan others use when on foot and OC. I will leave my DL at home. I will have to bring along my LTCF though because I always CC my BUG.

If involved in a normal "encounter" while only OC'ing I know that I do not have to show my LTCF if asked while on foot. But in my case I will also be CC'ing.

Hypothetical LEO will most likely only think that I am OC so his/her question will be based on the belief that I am only OC.

Is there a legal opinion yet on this scenario and what I must do?

Thanks

[gnbrotz]

IMO, if "asked" to present your LTCF, you have absolutely no obligation to do so under any circumstance.

[BenGlock]

IMO, if "asked" to present your LTCF, you have absolutely no obligation to do so under any circumstance.

You are incorrect. See Section 6122 of the UFA, entitled, "Proof of license and exception."

"When carrying a firearm concealed on or about one's person or in a vehicle, an individual licensed to carry a firearm shall, upon lawful demand of a law enforcement officer, produce the license for inspection."

[gnbrotz]

You are incorrect. See Section 6122 of the UFA, entitled, "Proof of license and exception."

"When carrying a firearm concealed on or about one's person or in a vehicle, an individual licensed to carry a firearm shall, upon lawful demand of a law enforcement officer, produce the license for inspection."

IMO, "asking" is not the same as "demanding", nor is every "demand" automatically "lawful".

[nathaniel.seacat]

You are incorrect. See Section 6122 of the UFA, entitled, "Proof of license and exception."

"When carrying a firearm concealed on or about one's person or in a vehicle, an individual licensed to carry a firearm shall, upon lawful demand of a law enforcement officer, produce the license for inspection."

Demanding is not the same as asking.

[BenGlock]

IMO, "asking" is not the same as "demanding", nor is every "demand" automatically "lawful".

If a police officer says "Can I see your license to carry firearms" and he somehow knows or has good reason to believe that you are conceal carrying (e.g. you are printing) or that you are carrying in a motor vehicle, it is a demand, and it is also a lawful demand because he has reasonable suspicion. I would agree that if you are just walking down the street open carrying and the officer doesn't know you are also conceal carrying (although I'm not sure how you would know this yourself), then it is arguable that the demand is not lawful. However, since you don't known for sure if the officer shows, if the officer does in fact know or reasonably believe that you are conceal carrying you may be taken away in handcuffs. It is really a matter of semantics and I judge is likely to take the "lawful" requirement with a grain of salt if it turns out that you were actually conceal carrying.

[Gun]

Unless the hypothetical LEO has xray vision, he uses the plain sight rule.

[gnbrotz]

If a police officer says "Can I see your license to carry firearms" and he somehow knows or has good reason to believe that you are conceal carrying (e.g. you are printing) or that you are carrying in a motor vehicle, it is a demand, and it is also a lawful demand because he has reasonable suspicion. I would agree that if you are just walking down the street open carrying and the officer doesn't know you are also conceal carrying (although I'm not sure how you would know this yourself), then it is arguable that the demand is not lawful. However, since you don't known for sure if the officer shows, if the officer does in fact know or reasonably believe that you are conceal carrying you may be taken away in handcuffs. It is really a matter of semantics and I judge is likely to take the "lawful" requirement with a grain of salt if it turns out that you were actually conceal carrying.

That's why I believe it's important that one specifically ask the officer "Are you asking or demanding?" His answer will then be captured on my recorder for future evidence if necessary, and I can decide if I have the option to voluntarily show it, or if I must do so under duress (and tell them as much) as a result of his demand under color of authority.

[MDJschool]

I don't know whether I was reading a court case that referenced the statistics of UFA arrest or whether it was a PSP or PCCD report, but the report indicated, that for some year, 1 person had actually been subject to a criminal charge of violating 18 Pa.C.S. 6122. I would certainly like to know how I can locate that case.

I think it's pretty easy to delineate the request that comes from a mere encounter to the lawful demand that would come from wherever it may (RAS? PC?) although it will obviously depend on what an officer feels like articulating. In the absence of § 6119, I would simply wait until an actual arrest to occur to bother bringing up a license. (Personally, I would tend toward the same in light of § 6119 if an officer simply cannot bring himself to perform the tough task of actually articulating reasonable suspicion that a 6106 violation is occurring...) Probable cause is viewed as a totality of the circumstances, and it can dissipate upon new facts tending that totality toward improbability. An officer cannot pick and choose facts, such as ignoring a license even after arrest.

"If probable cause is established at any early stage of the investigation, it may be dissipated if the investigating officer later learns additional information that decreases the likelihood that the defendant has engaged, or is engaging, in criminal activity. A person may not be arrested, or must be released from arrest, if previously established probable cause has dissipated. "As a corollary . . . of the rule that the police may rely on the totality of facts available to them in establishing probable cause, they also may not disregard facts tending to dissipate probable cause." Bigford v. Taylor, 834 F.2d 1213, 1218 (5th Cir.1988); BeVier v. Hucal, 806 F.2d 123, 128 (7th Cir.1986) (citation omitted) ("The continuation of even a lawful arrest violates the Fourth Amendment when the police discover additional facts dissipating their earlier probable cause.")." United States v. Ortiz-Hernandez, 427 F.3d 567, 574 (9th Cir. 2005). "In some instances there may initially be probable cause justifying an arrest, but additional information obtained at the scene may indicate that there is less than a fair probability that the defendant has committed or is committing a crime. In such cases, execution of the arrest or continuation of the arrest is illegal. . . . It will not suffice that, at some earlier point in time—before the police gleaned certain "dissipating" facts—the police may have had probable cause." United States v. Lopez, 482 F.3d 1067, 1073 (9th Cir. 2007). "More specifically, an investigative stop must cease once reasonable suspicion or probable cause dissipates. See United States v. Jacobs, 986 F.2d 1231, 1235 (8th Cir.1993) (unlawful for police to execute search after they learn that probable cause no longer exists); United States v. Babwah, 972 F.2d 30, 34 (2d Cir.1992) (agents' continued detention of suspect became illegal once their reasonable suspicion proved unfounded)." United States v. Watts, 7 F.3d 122, 126 (8th Cir. 1993). There are some 3rd Cir. cites on this matter but someone decided to move my "Who determines probable cause when a private criminal complaint is submitted?" post from General to The Lounge where it is no longer accessible by Google or me (I don't know why since PCCs are part of a toolkit of utmost importance in preserving our firearms liberties...General is exactly where it should be).

[BenGlock]

That's why I believe it's important that one specifically ask the officer "Are you asking or demanding?" His answer will then be captured on my recorder for future evidence if necessary, and I can decide if I have the option to voluntarily show it, or if I must do so under duress (and tell them as much) as a result of his demand under color of authority.

Again, a matter of semantics. In the real world, from a lawyer's perspective, no judge in their right mind is going to distinguish between "asking" and "demanding." Whether the "demand" is lawful will basically depend on whether the officer had reasonable suspicion to believe you were conceal carrying or carrying in a vehicle. That, of course, depends on the facts.