imported post
eye95 wrote:
If we educate the officers on St John v. Alamogordo, that the officers themselves are at financial risk for seizing an OCer or his property just because he OCed, that limited qualified immunity does not protect them in this specific instance, then the officers (even if the department does not change policy) will be hesitant to make anything of OC.
The case you're calling "St. John v. Alamogordo" is actually
St.John v. McColley, 653 F. Supp 2d 1155 (D. N.M. 2009). It is a decision by a United States District Court in New Mexico. It has absolutely no application in Alabama.
First off, the decision is based onNew Mexico's handgun laws, which are much clearer than Alabama's. Unless the law is clearly established, an officer has qualified immunity for his interpretation of it. Alabama's law is so muddy that qualified immunity isassured.
Second, New Mexico's handgun laws cannot clearly establish the law in Alabama, and neither can a decision by a United States District Court from New Mexico.
New Mexico is in the Tenth Circuit. Alabama is in the Eleventh. "In this circuit, the law can be clearly established for qualified immunity purposes only by decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court, Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, or the highest court of the state where the case arose."
Lee v. Ferraro, 284 F.3d 1188, 1197 n.5 (11th Cir. 2002).
Unless there is a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, or the Alabama Supreme Court that clearly establishes a right to open carry in Alabamanotwithstanding 13A-11-52 - and there isn't - qualified immunity shields officers from liability when they enforce 13A-11-52.
If you don't like the laws on the books, you need to ask your legislator to change them and stop threateningwell-intentioned cops with bogus civil suits.