F.Y.I. on Gun Arrests
Seems there was a recent court decision about street stops:
- ....stopping someone for a gun alone, i.e. L shaped object, bulge, butt of handle sticking out of waist, seen on pod, etc. Is not enough to justify a Terry stop. The appellate court on 31Mar affirmed the lower courts decision. The court noted, at least regarding probable cause: “We wish to emphasize that under the current legal landscape, police cannot simply assume a person who possesses a firearm outside the home is involved in criminal activity. Likewise, they cannot use a firearm in partial view, such as a semi-exposed gun protruding from the pant pocket of a person on a public street, alone as probable cause to arrest an individual for illegal possession without first identifying whether the individual has the necessary licenses. We thus caution against an ‘arrest first, determine licensure later’ method of policing".
This would seem to bring into question the visual ID portion of the camera room in a post we made last week. It would also seem that "Terry Stops" are now in play for re-litigating?
The full case is People v. Dorsey, 2025 IL App (1st) 240933 if you're interested in the full decision.
Labels: info for the police
posted by SCC at 12:01 AM
51 Comments:
Didn’t read the full case but the court “cautions” arresting. I would say, if an officer exits to speak and notices more or just to see if the person is legally carrying and has a ccl should be good. If you see something, exit, flees on foot then I would say it’s enough to justify detaining and investigating. If you detain, investigate, find a gun and learn no food no ccl then that’s enough. Either way, everyone should read it, learn it and be careful with it.
Solution:
Stay in the car.
Keep driving by and go back to the hole.
Wait to retire and move to a Red state. SIMPLE.
Just like contact cards, blue cards, PCIs, weeeeeee screwed our selfs and ruined the tools we had to stop people. Alllllll because everyone kept doing the same cookie cutter arrest narratives, word for word. Just like the whole traffic stop and smelling cannabis coming from the vehicle. These never been the police merit hack bosses allowed this instead of teaching and making the arresting officers change the native script up. Keep lowering the bar and pretty soon the police will only be able to be reactive, and not proactive.
morons still go to anonymous calls and do a full search u think they care about case law. Oh hell no this job is dead folks.
So no more foot chases on people with guns unless you have personal knowledge on who you are chasing. Do you guys get it yet? They don't want you doing anything
Hope that none of you super pro gun anti any form of regulation folks aren't mad that arresting mopes on the street for illegal weapons just got alot harder.
That’s why you “detain” (not arrest yet) the person to determine if they have the proper credentials to carry a firearm. If it’s not concealed like it’s supposed to be you can’t stop them? A conceal carry license doesn’t permit someone to open carry hence the conceal part.
Make it easy for them, do nothing. It’s really what they want so it keeps black and brown people out of jail. Just sit back and handle calls and cut paper, let it burn. When people have finally had enough, maybe they stop voting for these fools, but until then just collect your check, doing only what’s required and prudent. They created it, let them figure it out.
Alright, I'll bite.
There isn't PC to stop a guy for a gun sticking outside their waistband. There is RAS. It's a Terry stop where they are detained, no one is in custody until you figure some stuff out. The gun will be discovered from a patdown, not a custodial search. Also CCL holders gotta answer if they are conceal carry. Running away or talking shit about not having to tell us shit builds my reasonable suspicion that this guy didn't take the course and aren't CCL.
I dunno, I live in this city. I'll have to live here for many more years. I'm gonna try to do my job.
Well yeah. Stop on RAS. Verify proper licenses. Make arrest or complete an ISR.
Who cares. Why stop anyone and put yourself at risk. Let them kill each other if this is what the court decides
This has nothing to do with a Terry Stop. Terry Stop is detainment. This excerpt explains probable cause. This is day 1 stuff. Verify CCL/FOID information prior to arrest.
Isn't concealed supposed to mean that the weapon is not visible. Glad I'm retired and will be able to leave this shithole in about 3 more years.
Don't stop anyone. It's safer.
Guns are legal for felons to carry. No guns allowed for normal citizens.
Well that's an Illinois liberal appellate court ruling. The United States Supreme Court says otherwise.
So if I am a CCL holder and someone can see my weapon protruding out, there is no problem? Or do I have to be a criminal in the commission of a crime for it to be no problem?
If you’re saying all those things L shaped bulge, handle protruding from pocket/waistband then you already believe it is a firearm, say that and document that in your report, that is enough for Terry stop, as always the new kids read other reports where corners are cut and they repeat the same language without actually understanding what they are reading/trying to say
So we see the bulge of a gun and wait for the person to do 1 thing wrong and then stop them.
BAD IDEA! The bad guy/gal now has the advantage as the element of surprise has past.
well, let's see,,, stop a criminal with a gun and be called a racist cop and get fired, arrest a criminal with a gun be called a racist cop and get fired or ignore the criminal with a gun so he can go shoot a little kid and keep your job,,,, hmmmm,,, decisions, decisions,,,,,
All this does is guarantee Shitcago will hit 14 years in a row as the deadliest city in this US of A. Yes, before someone is taken into custody for protection of
our officers, when a gun is seen on his person, let’s just ask politely if he has a CC permit, an Illinois registration card for said weapon, etc. Makes a lot of sense. Am sure every judge on this court lives in a cushy suburb where predators don’t prowl. Democrat insanity prevails yet again.
https://www.flgov.com/eog/news/press/2025/governor-ron-desantis-awards-bonuses-law-enforcement-recruits-reaching-7800-total
Tactical is the biggest offenders. Can not wait for the plaintiff's attorney to foia seven years of gun arrests and check the wording of every report. Most of these guys and girls have written them into a a 1983 lawsuit. Oh, and the bosses who told you to do this. Well, they will deny every saying such a thing under oath. Trust me, I have been in this situation.
No!
excuse me? this is 2nd amendment Mr. Blue state - what? you think a red state is going to allow the stop? Seems strange you are so confused, Sgt.
Not mad at you. Unfortunately, the reasoning protects the guilty as well as the innocent.
This is what happens when you elect people who you wouldn't want living next door to you.
Do you think that you can seize the gun before the you ask the person if they have a CCW, or do you have to wait for the person to tell you they don’t have a license?
If not harder, surely more dangerous. But, you’re right, the judges are jamming up it the pro-gun lobby’s backside.
The most disturbing aspect of these decision is that it fundamentally changes how cops interact with armed people. I’m just guessing here, but it seems to me that working cops shouldn’t have to learn about this decision from an “ insignificant” blog. Shouldn’t the CPD/training,-legal be putting some guidance? Maybe SCC is not so insignificant after all.
Read the IL Conceal Carry Act and Indiana V Pinner.
Just in time for this: https://bustednuckles.net/three-easy-payments-all-sent-today/ With a switch and 30 round mag a gangbanger could rock & roll. (Too bad it is April Fools- you know it would sell big in Chicago.)
Obviously none of you read the case. It states that none of this is enough for a Terry stop, which is detainment. Yes detainment. Not arrest. The Appellate Court in this case affirmed that you cannot even detain someone for any of these things, L-shaped bulge, suspicion of a weapon alone by itself. Not enough, without something else like prior knowledge being a felon or warrant or whatever. All ya got is consensual encounter. I'm curious to see how this will play out. As so many officers stop people for this and get felony approval still.
This case was for suspicion of just having a gun alone, by itself. As the ONLY thing you have (which isnt a crime by itself so...no RAS). No other suspicion of any crime. Whether that is enough for a TERRY stop, (detention), the state argued and argued. The court and appellate court both agreed that it is NOT. Gotta have something more. Now , have we stopped people with guns when that's all we had? Absolutely, and gotten felony approval. Plenty. But if I was walking down the street and a cop saw the outline of my pistol and detained me in cuffs...I would be pissed, without them knowing my foid and CCL/leo status. Point is, it's not enough, it's not even RAS, cause there's no crime. It's legal to carry a firearm. Unless you have prior knowledge that dude is a felon or there is another element like dealing dope or something, it's not enough. Not anymore. Technically never was, but we've been getting away with it. Forever. All you have in this situation is a consensual encounter and asking him because they have to technically tell you. Or you can just keep driving because Illinois doesn't want you doing shit anymore.
how are they supposed to shoot each other if you keep on taking their guns away!!!!
There is a Chicago gun case that went up to the Supreme Court regarding a subject who fled on foot after seeing the cops exit their vehicle to talk to him. The Supreme court ruled that fleeing from the cops is not a crime nor is it probable cause that a crime has been committed. The gun case got tossed and case law precedent was set. So go ahead and be the change 🫵
Fetal vs Nineteenpaul Writ of Dunkinparty
Literally the first line from SCC's quoted court decision; "stopping someone for a gun alone, i.e. L shaped object, bulge, butt of handle sticking out of waist, seen on pod, etc. Is not enough to justify a Terry stop"
And I agree with your sentiment, we live here, we want a safe city for our families. I also want the coppers who aren't dogasses to not get caught up in bullshit. All this compounded by the ILCS language stating a concealed firearm needs to be completely or 'mostly' concealed. What constitutes mostly?
I will continue to wear blinders
https://ilcourtsaudio.blob.core.windows.net/antilles-resources/resources/ad9d832f-632a-492f-8579-2890ded074e9/People%20v.%20Dorsey,%202025%20IL%20App%20(1st)%20240933.pdf
Late post but If you actually read the case and opinion it makes sense. Police are watching him from the cameras and see a gun and automatically detain him. Where is the RAS for detainment? There's already case law stating mere possession does = crime committed.
So suspicion of having an illegal gun on the public way isn't enough to detain on it's own anymore. That's dumb, but whatever.
CHA property, CTA property, parks, grant funded housing complexes, and any business or facility with a sticker on the door all prohibit CCL firearms. With CCL prohibited, L-shaped bulges aren't the sole reasoning for the stop at any of those spots.
If you see
Read the Il. Concealed Carry Act. Which if you are a police officer than you should have read it by now. Then, read the opinion from the court. RAS REASONABLE Articulable Suspicion are grounds for a Terry Stop. NOTHING HAS CHANGED.
In Texas detaining for spotting a gun is "rare if ever". Yet somehow Houston murder rate, lower than Chiraq, every year?
Did everyone miss the training bulltin about this from Indiana v pinner? It's been like this for a while due to conceal carry.
It's a shame our department is garbage at training us up on current case law.
No one was watching from camera. Team of officers followed up on intel of Areanah
Preston’s stolen gun being on the block. The surveillance officer was 10 feet behind the subject who was observed pulling a gun from his waistband and placing it in a the rear cargo area of the car. Enforcement officers learn this info from the S/O and speed to the scene for officer safety and detainment. Gun is clearly visible by all three officers, the one S/O and two E/Os. Subject is detained and cuffed due to being in arms reach of gun. Not only does he not possess a CCl but he’s a felon. And if he had been a CCL , an observation was made by the S/O that he violated the statute when he decided to not conceal it fully, not partially, but fully exposed. There is clear RAS for the stop and one may argue PC for an arrest if he turns out to be a CCL carrier. ASA dropped the ball on this as they always do. During the motion she calls one officer but not the S/O who makes the initial observation, in fact he isn’t even notified. Puts an enforcement officer on who can only testify to what was told to him by the S/O. And now because of this colossal blunder police practice may be changed forever and Officer safety is at greater risk than ever.
right, CCL holders have to answer when asked if they are carrying correct?
Terry Stop not permitted, it's pretty clear.
Anyone carrying a gun in public in Illinois might not have a CCL and thus might be guilty of unlawful possession. A justification based on that sole fact thus lacks any “particularized and objective basis for suspecting the particular person stopped of criminal activity.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Navarette v. California, 572 U.S. 393, 396 (2014).
This may hold true in constitutional carry states but the ILCS says it violated law if any part is exposed
I hope you’re not the police.
From the law
Concealed firearm" means a loaded or unloaded handgun carried on or about a person completely or mostly concealed from view of the public or on or about a person within a vehicle.
Post a Comment
<< Home