US v Deberry is a case of a concealed firearm.
Basically, the decision was in favor of the fact that, if someone is carry a gun in illinois, and they were not a police officer, then more than likely they were committing a crime.
[b]We have assumed-everyone connected with the case has assumed-that the police, who did not know DeBerry's name and therefore did not know that he was a felon, knew, or at least had reason to believe, that if he was carrying a concealed firearm he was violating the law.
Even if this were Texas rather than Illinois, and carrying a concealed weapon was lawful except for felons and a few other classes of ineligibles, the police would have been entitled to accost DeBerry and ask him whether he was carrying a gun.
This means that the police still have the right, even without RAS or PC, to ask to talk to someone about anything. With RAC or PC, we dont have to talk with them, unless ordered. Which then becomes a Terry stop, and RAS or PC is required to continue.
They might have a hunch he was a felon and so violating the law. It would not matter, so far as the Fourth Amendment is concerned, as we explained earlier.
They are saying here that the 4th amendment requires the officers to be working on more than a hunch. Meaning, even if he was a felon, they needed to have reasonable suspicion or probable cause to believe that he was. They cant just take a guess and hope they are right.
This one is a little trickier, and I think the judge is wrong in his decision. Technically, the officer did not have RAS or PC to believe deberry was carrying a gun. Just an anonymous tip. Which, I believe has been ruled not RAS, someone please correct me if I am wrong. But due to the fact that deberry's actions raised the level of the stop to one which required the officer to act defensively, the officer then gained the RAS that he may be armed.But if the asking crossed over to commanding, so that DeBerry was stopped, then it would be essential that the officers have a reasonable belief and not a mere hunch that if he was carrying a gun he was violating the law. But they would have a reasonable belief, because this is Illinois rather than Texas.
And from the last paragraph:
This is stating that if Illinois didnt grossly violate the 2nd amendment, and allowed citizens to carry guns, then the case would have ended badly for the police. If someone calls the cops on me, in Iowa, and tells them Im carrying a gun, the police have absolutely no reason to stop and detain me for doing something legal.The tipster informed the police that DeBerry was armed, and it appears from the facts before us that the weapon was not in plain view. I do not agree that this case would necessarily come out the same way if Illinois law, like the law of many states, authorized the carrying of concealed weapons. At that point, the entire content of the anonymous tip would be a physical description of the individual, his location, and an allegation that he was carrying something lawful (a cellular telephone? a beeper? a firearm?). This kind of nonincriminatory allegation, in my view, would not be enough to justify the kind of investigatory stop that took place here. It would mean, in states that permit carrying concealed weapons, that the police no longer need any reason to stop citizens on the street to search them.
For the most part, this decision is in favor of our freedom to carry a gun without being detained, lawfully. There are tons of different circumstances that could have changed the outcome of this. For instance, if Deberry wasnt already a felon, I think the outcome would have been alot different.
But this case does prove one thing......Gun control doesnt work...
While I dont condone felons in possession of firearms, this is a perfect example of why you should NEVER TALK TO POLICE!!