Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: US vs Deberry

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Nampa, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    1,060

    US vs Deberry

    I am confused by this. Upon reading it appears that the mere presence of a firearm is grounds for a stop. Then again, perhaps the meaning is that a legally carried forearm is NOT grounds for a stop. The last paragraph of Posner, Chief Judge is what confuses me as it almost seems to contradict itself.

  2. #2
    Regular Member Tucker6900's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Iowa, USA
    Posts
    1,248
    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.


    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.
    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.

    And from the last paragraph:
    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.
    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.



    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!!
    Last edited by Tucker6900; 07-06-2012 at 03:31 PM.
    The only terrorists I see nowadays are at the Capital.


    The statements made in this post do not necessarily reflect the views of OCDO or its members.

  3. #3
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    11,478
    Don't talk to police and if you are going buck the system know what you are doing in the first place. Not only don't talk to the police don't talk to anybody else. In all likely hood the anonymous tip came from a rival who knew he was armed. IMO the judge was wrong because the Illinois law was unconstitutional, but judges have a tendency not to care.

  4. #4
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,369
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    Don't talk to police and if you are going buck the system know what you are doing in the first place. Not only don't talk to the police don't talk to anybody else. In all likely hood the anonymous tip came from a rival who knew he was armed. IMO the judge was wrong because the Illinois law was unconstitutional, but judges have a tendency not to care.
    Judges are also easily bought, particularly when they have to run and campaign for office. Campaigns are expensive!
    The 1st protects the 2nd, and the 2nd protects the 1st. GET THIS OR LOSE IT ALLl: 27-2=0. Our 2A is THE bellwether, and ain't none finer: Islamic Reality. Our Founding Fathers on Church and State. PC=ZERO.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Florida Panhandle
    Posts
    108
    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker6900 View Post
    While I dont condone felons in possession of firearms, this is a perfect example of why you should NEVER TALK TO POLICE!!
    Once a man is released from prison - having successfully and in full paid his due to society - I see no problem with him carrying arms. If you are worried about recidivism or his propensity for violence, might we find this felon permanent quarters behind bars?

    I challenge you to apply the fix to our legal/judicial system instead of a 2A restriction.

    No free man shall be debarred the use of arms, right? Free is free.

  6. #6
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    11,478
    Quote Originally Posted by marinepilot81 View Post
    Once a man is released from prison - having successfully and in full paid his due to society - I see no problem with him carrying arms. If you are worried about recidivism or his propensity for violence, might we find this felon permanent quarters behind bars?

    I challenge you to apply the fix to our legal/judicial system instead of a 2A restriction.

    No free man shall be debarred the use of arms, right? Free is free.
    +1

  7. #7
    Regular Member hammer6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    928
    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker6900 View Post
    US v Deberry is a case of a concealed firearm.




    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.


    Florida v. J.L.

    http://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/c...orida-v-j-l-2/

  8. #8
    Regular Member hammer6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    928
    Quote Originally Posted by carracer View Post
    I am confused by this. Upon reading it appears that the mere presence of a firearm is grounds for a stop. Then again, perhaps the meaning is that a legally carried forearm is NOT grounds for a stop. The last paragraph of Posner, Chief Judge is what confuses me as it almost seems to contradict itself.

    mere presence of a firearm isn't grounds for a stop in a state where it's legal...in illinois, it's illegal, so there was wiggle room there...that's why he mentioned texas

  9. #9
    Regular Member Tucker6900's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Iowa, USA
    Posts
    1,248
    Quote Originally Posted by marinepilot81 View Post
    Once a man is released from prison - having successfully and in full paid his due to society - I see no problem with him carrying arms. If you are worried about recidivism or his propensity for violence, might we find this felon permanent quarters behind bars?

    I challenge you to apply the fix to our legal/judicial system instead of a 2A restriction.

    No free man shall be debarred the use of arms, right? Free is free.
    I am humbled by your statements and wholeheartedly agree with you.

    Looking at it differently, DeBerry may have had good intentions of carrying. Unfortunately he did it in a place where the lawmakers are terminal hopolophobes who care nothing about the rights of the people. Thats why we need to end all gun regulations. Let the people take this country back from the criminals. I personally believe that if there were never ANY restrictions on 2A, this country would be in alot better shape than it is right now.
    The only terrorists I see nowadays are at the Capital.


    The statements made in this post do not necessarily reflect the views of OCDO or its members.

  10. #10
    Regular Member Tucker6900's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Iowa, USA
    Posts
    1,248
    Quote Originally Posted by hammer6 View Post
    mere presence of a firearm isn't grounds for a stop in a state where it's legal...in illinois, it's illegal, so there was wiggle room there...that's why he mentioned texas
    According to the case log, his firearm was concealed. So, regardless of felon status, wouldnt, or shouldnt that have made the entire stop unlawful? According to the the Florida V JL case, it was confirmed that the anonymous tip doesnt constitute RAS or PC.
    The only terrorists I see nowadays are at the Capital.


    The statements made in this post do not necessarily reflect the views of OCDO or its members.

  11. #11
    Regular Member hammer6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    928
    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker6900 View Post
    According to the case log, his firearm was concealed. So, regardless of felon status, wouldnt, or shouldnt that have made the entire stop unlawful? According to the the Florida V JL case, it was confirmed that the anonymous tip doesnt constitute RAS or PC.


    right- but that only applies in florida...

    as far as the stop, it wasn't a "stop", he was just stopping to say hi, and the guy acted weird, so the cop drew his gun. had he not done that, he could have asked, "am i free to go?"

  12. #12
    Newbie
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    3

    Anonymous Tips

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker6900 View Post
    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.
    Anonymous tips are granted legal cause for RAS in circumstances where

    1) The tip is made in a timely manner.

    2) The tipper has identified themselves or has acted in a manner that easily lets them be identified. This includes times when people call into dispatch, knowing that it is a recorded and traced line. This, also, includes times when people approach officers on the street, allowing officers to identify them by their physical features.

    3) The tipper indicates that they have direct knowledge of criminal activity or indicates that someone's actions MAY LEAD to criminal activity.

    4) A tip is considered legal RAS when the threat to personal/public safety outweighs the "minimal invasion of a stop".

    5) As seen in the People v. Lindsey case, even if the tipper did not actually see the crime, as long as the tipper has reasonable means to suspect a particular individual, the tip is cause for legal RAS.

    So... to sum it up, Police CAN AND WILL use tips to use RAS as an excuse for stops.

  13. #13
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,235
    Wow, zombie thread. Typically it's considered bad to 'rez' old, dead threads. Since it's here though, I actually just read a case yesterday in Texas where an appeals court sent back a conviction saying that a motion to suppress evidence should have been granted because the officer did not have RAS to stop based on tip alone. The tip was not an anonymous one, in fact it was a store working calling about someone in their own parking lot.
    Righteous government, or the righteous lack thereof, is the product of a righteous society, not the producer of it.

  14. #14
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    11,419
    If the "tip" is later found to be complete fantasy the cops will be held harmless even if their acts upon making "contact" with the citizen results in the death of the citizen. Tips, even when the tipster is known must never be used to initiate a encounter. The cops must act based on what they witness upon arrival. The tip only gives a cop the legal justification room to get it wrong, terribly so in some cases, from time to time.

    Two resent situations illustrate this.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  15. #15
    Newbie
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    3
    Here is a good source that I have found... if you're willing to read through it, that is.

    http://www.fdap.org/downloads/articl...ymous_tips.pdf

  16. #16
    Newbie
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    3
    Here is a good resource that I found... if you're willing to read through it, that is.

    http://www.fdap.org/downloads/articl...ymous_tips.pdf

    And, as far as reposting goes:

    1) I am a new member
    2) I probably won't be posting much
    3) The way I found this post was by searching the case in Google; it was one of the very first links. That means that, if someone else Googles it, they will probably see this thread. If they see the thread, I want them to have as much information as possible.

  17. #17
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,235
    Quote Originally Posted by huckbug View Post
    Here is a good resource that I found... if you're willing to read through it, that is.

    http://www.fdap.org/downloads/articl...ymous_tips.pdf

    And, as far as reposting goes:

    1) I am a new member
    2) I probably won't be posting much
    3) The way I found this post was by searching the case in Google; it was one of the very first links. That means that, if someone else Googles it, they will probably see this thread. If they see the thread, I want them to have as much information as possible.
    Fair enough I guess. I did say typically to leave room for exceptions
    Righteous government, or the righteous lack thereof, is the product of a righteous society, not the producer of it.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •