DeBerry argues that the police did not have probable cause to arrest him until they found the gun, and therefore the seizure of the gun was unlawful. The premise is correct, but not the conclusion.

At least as far as the Fourth Amendment is concerned, police do not have to have any degree of reasonable suspicion in order to accost a person and say they want to talk to him.

(accost:1.Approach and address (someone) boldly or aggressively.)

The "reason" for this rule, if it can be called a reason, is that the mere accosting of a person is not a search or seizure of him, and so is not within the amendment's scope. This seems a little feeble, since very few people think themselves free not to stop if a policeman accosts them. But the law is well established that if the officer asks rather than commands, the person accosted is not seized, and so the protections of the Fourth Amendment do not attach.

It is not altogether clear whether the officer in this case asked or commanded, but even if it was the latter, transforming the encounter into a Terry stop requiring articulable suspicion to be lawful,

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. They did know. It is a crime in Illinois to carry a concealed gun,

DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge, concurring.

The only fact that saves the officer's stop of DeBerry, in my opinion, is the fact that it is unlawful in Illinois to carry a concealed weapon.



U.S. v. Deberry Link

That conclusion seems to say that the popo can stop anybody at any time in Illinois because if they were carrying a concealed firearm they'd be violating the law. That's a bunch of horse manure.