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."
Check out other Gun Rights Examiners:
- Atlanta: You bet it's personal
- Austin: Is the Brady Campaign for the children?
- Boston: Sotomayor: Unfit to serve
- Charlotte: Dangers of gun registration: 'The Belgian Corporal'
- Cleveland: 'Shotgun Robber' is an equal opportunity bandit
- DC: Under Obamacare, where will Canadians go for medical services?
- Denver: What happens to you when you buy a gun?
- Los Angeles: SoCal Churches go concealed carry.
- Minneapolis: It takes a gun to stop a gunman
- National: Are those against nationwide concealed carry for states' rights?
- Seattle: Lautenberg’s legislation cloak’s anti-gun senator’s true intention
- St. Louis: The Brady Campaign to create 'gun crime'
- Wisconsin: Gun rights advocates make progress
Comments
Basically, the courts ruled that the officers involved did not have an "adequate knowledge of the law", had no probable cause at all, conducted a totally illegal arrest and subjected a law abiding citizen to jail and all the humiliation associated with the above. Yet, the court chose to protect these officers from having to pay for their wrongful acts because of a "fidget". Our wonderful court system in action!!!
At the very least, hopefully other Georgia law enforcement officers will come to know Georgia's gun laws better and conduct themselves accordingly in the future. The next judge & court might not be so "blind" as to protect officers who don't have an "adequate understanding of the laws".
We are seeing more and more of this. No consequences for the local and state institutions when they mess up or break the law but when a citizen does it we get punished, as we should but they should too.
What a load of crap. The officers are now above the law because the are idiots. Where is that reset button...
Just goes ta show ya we're all criminals if we don't have badges. The police see anyone without a badge as the enemy, simply wondering what we've done, and how to catch us. It's quickly becoming "us or them". Too bad...
Lived in and around Atlanta for 20 years from 85-05. I have talked to many gun store owners and LEOs about open carry. Was invariably told open carry was illegal as the weapon was "concealed" by the holster.
A Georgia oddity, if I had a weapon in my car it had to be in plain sight, on the dashboard, to be "legal". If it were in its holster, in a case, under or behind the seat, it was illegal. Florida law was completely different at the time, "out of sight", in its holster, being the operative.
I'd say, on balance, this was a good ruling.
Was having a conversation years back with a State Trooper in Indiana, I believe it was. No problems just an ordinary conversation about the same things anyone talks about. However, I noticed that every time someone else was speaking he would fold his arms across his chest, but when he spoke his right would automatically and subconsiously drop to butt of his service weapon. Finally, I asked him "Are you going to use that sonofabitch?" He said "What do you mean?" I explained what he was doing and his arms were folded across his chest. He looked startled and replied "I don't do that." As his hand dropped to the butt of his service weapon.
I pointed to his hand and said "You have become so use to intimidating people by reminding them you have the power of life and death, you don't even realize you do it." He looked down at his hand and the most extreme look of surprise crossed his face. He really wasn't aware he did it.
This is the language they speak, so they read it the way th
[cont] This is the language they speak, so they read it the way they use it.
This does not excuse the officers in this case and, in fact, exposes them even more as an us v.them mentalities. Of all people, they should have understood the language.
Next time any of you are speaking to police, count how many times your attention is drawn to his gun by him.
The better lesson to be learned is not to be a moron like Woodard and WEAR A DAMN SHIRT!!
If he looked halfway presentable and had his piece OC on his belt, no 911 call and no problems.
I agree that it must have been the "fidget factor". I've actually schooled myself to check my piece by resting my elbow on it. It's a nonthreatening gesture that can't possibly be mistaken as a possible attempt to draw it.
If the officers did not have adequate knowledge of the law in regard to firearms carry, then they themselves should not carry firearms until properly trained and educated on the law.
Think the judge was angry about the fact that the defendant knew more about the law than the officers?
I think the more important lesson to be learned is to not "fidget" with one's sidearm at any time...I'm not paranoid, but one can NEVER know if someone is watching, and to "fidget" with it, thinkig noo nei eiswatchhing, could be inviting trouble.
regardless of whether or not he looked suspicious, the police have absolutly no right to detain a person unless they show a
threat to the officer and bystanders. i remember reading a case recently on the news about a man who had a gun in plain sight on the dashboard of his car, he showed no intention to draw or use it, and showed no violent intentions. regardless of that the police pulled him out at gunpoint and arrested him until he was cleared a day or two later. i am not a gun owner, but i support the rights of anybody who wishes to exercise their right o protect themsleves.
I want to know, how it is that a law abiding citizen is punished for ignorance of law! And police,get away with it! Are they not also governed by the same laws? To be a P.O.S.T. Certified police officer,you must attend rigorous training in law,annual training and re-certification. Tell me what`s worse ; real criminals who could cares less about law or POLICE that don`t understand LAW to start with!
Ignorance of the law is no excuse for an officer upholding those laws!
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!