Posted on 07/25/2009 9:30:24 AM PDT by marktwain
Georgia resident Luke Woodard ended up in the Paulding County jail for purchasing lottery tickets while carrying a handgun openly. He was charged with carrying a concealed weapon, even though he was carrying openly, and disorderly conduct. As reported in these pages previously, Luke Woodard sued the two Paulding County Sheriff's Deputies involved. Federal Judge Harold Murphy, Northern District of Georgia, recently ruled that the officers had no probable cause to arrest Mr. Woodard on either charge, and that therefore, his arrest was illegal.
The analysis does not end there, however, as the court decided to go further and argue that the two deputies had something called "arguable" probable cause relating to one of the criminal charges. The result of a finding of "arguable" probable cause was that the officers were immune from damages in a lawsuit.
On the concealed carry charge, the court held that there was not even arguable probable cause.
The Court concludes that a reasonable officer with an adequate understanding of the law would not have concluded that Plaintiff had violated O.C.G.A. 16-11-126(a) (the concealed carry statute).
On the disorderly conduct charge, however, the court came to a startlingly different conclusion. Although the officers did not have facts to support the necessary elements of a disorderly conduct claim, the court was willing to accept that the officers may have had facts to support two of the three elements, and "a reasonable officer could have concluded" that the missing element was present. In order to reach this conclusion, the court had to make three conclusions. First, it had to find that Mr. Woodard was "acting in a state of violent agitation." The sole fact used to support this finding was the undisputed and admitted fact that Mr. Woodard checked his gun more than once to see if it was secure on his belt. Second, the court had to conclude that a reasonable (even though mistaken) officer could have concluded that Mr. Woodard's "violent and tumultuous" action of checking his gun was aimed at certain people. Third, the court had to find that those people were placed in reasonable fear of their safety.
Officers who spot people openly carrying should not, however, believe that the result of this case would be the same for them should they detain a person merely for legally carrying a gun openly and exposed. The court emphasized that merely carrying a gun is not "violent and tumultuous." The court held:
Likewise, if Plaintiff had merely entered the store while legally carrying a gun in the small of his back, he would not have acted in a tumultuous way.
The lesson from this case is probably not to "fidget" with your gun or check it when people are watching.
Finding that the officers unlawfully arrested Mr. Woodard with a lack of probable cause while also finding that the officers had "arguable" probable cause results in the conclusion that Mr. Woodard wins but cannot recover damages from the officers. The legal doctrine of qualified immunity protects officers who were "reasonable but mistaken." Only one mistaken charge needs to be reasonable for the entire damages claim to be thrown out, so the fact that the concealed carry charge was unreasonable for any officer "with an adequate understanding of the law" ends up meaning nothing in terms of damages.
Although the officers are immune from damages, the case is still alive on the issues of seeking an injunction and declaratory relief. Roswell attorney John Monroe, who represents Luke Woodard, said, “We will examine the order and determine what further relief from the court appears appropriate based on the court’s rulings." For more info: You may read Judge Murphy's ruling for yourself by clicking here and visiting GeorgiaCarry.Org.
Some time in general population in a federal pen would do them some good too. It would also send a much needed message to the other jerks who do things like this.
Sure sounds like the “Court” is trying to protect the two cops!
Could have led to another Waco Holocaust!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.