SmarterthanYou
rebel
WTF is 'arguable probable cause'? It's when a corrupt fucking judge wants to protect agents of the state when they knowing fucked with a law abiding citizen and arrested them illegally.
cops arrest man not breaking the law
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.
cops arrest man not breaking the law
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.
