• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Deffert open carry incident in 2015


Regular Member
Jun 27, 2010
North Carolina
I can't seem to find out Judge Janet Neff's decision to allow law enforcement to stop open carriers in 2015 was ever appealed. Mr. Deffert was openly carrying a firearm. Law Enforcement stopped and detained him. Judge Neff ruled this constitutional, and Mr. Deffert was going to appeal the decision. It seems to go completely against Terry v. Ohio.
Can anyone enlighten me?


Regular Member
Nov 5, 2013
Kalamazoo, MI
Deffert never appealed the ruling. The idiot judge in the case ruled that because there was a phone call to police about "a man with a gun" the officer had all the PC he needed to do what he did.


Founder's Club Member
Nov 15, 2006
Fairfax Co., VA
Deffert never appealed the ruling. The idiot judge in the case ruled that because there was a phone call to police about "a man with a gun" the officer had all the PC he needed to do what he did.

That would be judicial fail.

The OP is correct that the facts offered here violate even the expansive, loop-hole generating Terry v Ohio.

It also violates dicta in Florida vs JL. Dicta is from Latin. It is legalese for all the commentary a court heaves into an opinion that is not binding law. The point here being that Judge Fail didn't contradict the legally binding part of Florida vs JL. He just stomped all over an express statement by the US Supreme Court that would be directly applicable to Mr. Deffert's case (as I understand the case.)

You see, Florida vs JL was a case involving a juvenile. That's why we only know his initials in the name of the case. The case wasn't about a gun (although it did involve one). The case was about signs of reliability in a tip to police. For example, if I call the fuzz on you and report you smoking weed in the stairwell of our apartment building, and give the dispatcher my name and address, the courts consider that more reliable with regard to reasonable suspicion, than if I make the call anonymously. There are a number of other points, too; but you get the idea. Is the tipster reliable?

So, that's what the case was actually about. They were sorting out whether the tipster who reported JL as having a gun under his shirt was reliable enough to give reasonable suspicion of a gun carried illegally.

But!!! What the court said in its commentary is very cool.

One of the arguments the government side tried to make was that since there was a report of a gun, that alone was enough for reasonable suspicion. SCOTUS said, "[nope.]" SCOTUS expressly declined to adopt the government's position.

Now, ya gotta understand the full significance of this. SCOTUS went out of its way to mention the government's argument and shoot it down. It wasn't even the question in front of the court--reliability of tipster. The court, any appeals court, traditionally only has to address the main point(s) of the case--the question(s) in front of the court. Court's typically address the winning and losing sides' arguments about the question in front of the court. But, SCOTUS, in Florida vs JL, went out of its way to shoot down the government side-argument that the report of the mere presence of a gun was enough to rise to reasonable suspicion.

Oh, by the way, do I get coolness points for combining a dignified word like judicial with a youth-slang term like fail?
Last edited: