Yes, I read that very section myself. According to the article (again, looking to an article for details is often problematic, as I have referenced in, for example, their misstatement OF the law), the man HAD a permit on him but refused to show it
So, he was arrested - a legal arrest per Iowa law.
Apparently, if he shows the permit at trial, he won't be convicted. Groovy. But he has to SHOW the permit. So, the "point of the whole exercise" iow the arrest is TO GET HIM TO SHOW HIS PERMIT. If he doesn't want to comply with the law (and note: I don't agree with the law as a matter of policy), he gets arrested. then, if he wants to not get convicted, he shows the permit at trial. The point/goal is reached - getting the man to show his permit. If he wants to spend some time in jail, and deal with all the hassle etc. then he can refuse to show his permit.
Generally speaking, most of the time I have PC for arrest, no arrest is made . Either a criminal cite is issued or a warning given. Just because I *can* arrest, doesn't mean I will. I look at a host of metrics to make that decision.
In this case, the officer sees a guy carrying, and if in a incorporated city, the officer is vested with authority ot demand production of the person's permit
So he does so. The POINT of the arrest is to
1) get the guy to show his permit. And note, upon arrest, the officer would be justified in searching the man incident to arrest. So, he may be able to find the permit then, since the guy said he DID have the permit on him, this would likely be the case. He will still be arrested, because the arrest isn't for carrying without a valid permit having been issued, but for the crime of refusing to show the permit which he still has PC for. In fact, his PC is BETTER upon finding the permit since he now knows the guy was refusing to show it (vs not having it on his person
2) disincentivize the guy from breaking the law. The guy now recognizes - if I break this law I get arrested. Most people would prefer not to get arrested, so at least NEXT time he is so approached , he will comply with the law
If the officer didn't arrest the guy, he would be sending the message that it's ok to disobey this law and the officers lawful order to produce the permit, since there is no negative consequence of doing so. Not only would this person be so incentivized, but others he told about the non-arrest would be so incentivized.
So, in (not so brief), the point of the arrest is to get the guy to show his permit and demonstrate to him that there are consequences for refusing to do so.
I am glad we have no such law in my state. I see open carriers, I don't bother them. If and when I lawfully stop an OCer (has never happened) or a CCWer for some other offense, I will of course check to see if they are a valid carrier. In the former case, when I run his name, I can check to see if he's a convicted felon, a subject of a DV protection order, and in some cases I can also see if he has a mental health adjudication forbidding carry. In the latter case, I can check on the above listed things + check to see if he has a valid permit, which is required to CCW (apart from in one's abode or business)
I;m not sure what the person's reason(s) in this case were for not showing the permit, but it's his responsibility to comply with the (imo stupid) law. He made a conscious choice to disobey the law, and thus he has nobody to complain about his arrest, but himself - and maybe the legislators who passed this dumb law.
Palo, good info and research too, however I must also remind people of Marbury vs. Madison 5 US (2 Cranch) 137,174,176. (1803)
"All laws which are repungent to the Constitution are null and void".
Also Miranda vs. Arizona 384 US 436 p. 491
Also Norton vs.Shelby County 118 US 425 p. 442
The "Officer" is NOT bound to follow an unconstitutional law, but rather support and defend the Constitution which includes
the Bill of Right since DEC/15/1791.They are bound to protect our rights.
The "Officer " swore an oath of office to "We the People" not the oath breaking Politicos.