"He was charged with carrying a concealed weapon, even though hewas carrying openly, anddisorderly conduct".
Now, was that plain stupid, ignorance of the law or wanton disregard for the law?
"On the concealed carry charge, the court held that there was not even arguable probable cause.
This should have been clear from the get-go, is it not?
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)".
"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".
"Thelegal doctrineof 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".
"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 emphasizedthat merely carrying a gun is not"violent and tumultuous." The court held:
Hoping a California Court would say the same thing.
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".