imported post
Here are my thoughts on the subject.
First of all, if it is legal to carry openly, then if I'm carrying on foot in a locked container then I am not in legal jeopardy, as this is a lawful purpose, i.e. because I can.
Second, if I AM open carrying, then the officer, by statute, has the right to demand inspection and examination to determine the firearm is loaded or unloaded. For which probable cause to arrest can develop should I carry openly and refuse to allow the inspection.
Third, and most important as it relates to carrying in a locked container, if I am under criminal investigation (as this is all LEOs scope of authority), I ALWAYS have the right to remain silent. I.e., I am under no obligation to communicate ANYTHING to the LEO. So unless the LEO is gifted with superhuman powers such as the ability to see through objects, or my so-called gun case is in the shape and form/design of a firearm, how would the LEO "know" I am carrying to even make the demand for inspection?
Probable cause is "articulable facts giving rise to a reasonable suspicion that the person stop/detained has committed or is about to commit a crime."
I also remember that "[A]n investigative stop or detention predicated on mere curiosity, rumor, or hunch is unlawful, even though the officer may be acting in complete good faith."
I can't see, based on probable cause related case decisions that I've read, that having a holster on, by itself as a fact, can give probable cause for the officer to "know" that I would have a firearm in my lock box, unless my lock box is in the shape of a firearm, which it isn't. Especially when the lock box that I carry is also used to keep other valuables in.
We tend to over think the most simplest of things at times. Of course it is better to be safe than sorry. But they only "know" what I tell them or can visibly see.
I add another element to the encounter (not at the curb side, but at a tort claim), because I understand that LEOs have no duty to protect, and that every stop they conduct is considered by the courts as "voluntary" on the part of the LEO. So therefore, I can then conduct myself in a way that results in a favorable conclusion. If I interact, that interaction is construed as "consensual on the part of me the detainee. This is why they enjoy qualified immunity. This is powerful in almost all defenses. Absent a "special relationship" the whole contact and interaction is considered voluntary on both parties.
So behave accordingly.