Court Rules "No Probable Cause"

Finding that the officers unlawfully arrested Mr. Woodard with a lack of <a class="zem_slink" href="" title="Probable cause" rel="wikipedia">probable cause</a> while also finding that the officers had "arguable" probable cause results in the conclusion that Mr. Woodard wins but cannot recover <a class="zem_slink" href="" title="Damages" rel="wikipedia">damages</a> from the officers. The legal <a class="zem_slink" href="" title="Legal doctrine" rel="wikipedia">doctrine</a> of <a class="zem_slink" href="" title="Qualified immunity" rel="wikipedia">qualified immunity</a> 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 <a class="zem_slink" href="" title="Concealed carry in the United States" rel="wikipedia">concealed carry</a> charge was unreasonable for any officer "with an adequate understanding of the <a class="zem_slink" href="" title="Law" rel="wikipedia">law</a>" ends up meaning nothing in terms of damages.

The lesson from this case is probably not to "fidget" with your gun or check it when people are watching.

Read the whole story at <a href=" court rules no probable cause in arrest for openly carried firearm"</a>

<div style="margin-top: 10px; height: 15px;" class="zemanta-pixie"><a class="zemanta-pixie-a" href="" title="Reblog this post [with Zemanta]"><img style="border: medium none ; float: right;" class="zemanta-pixie-img" src=" alt="Reblog this post [with Zemanta]"></a><span class="zem-script more-related pretty-attribution"><script type="text/javascript" src="" defer="defer"></script></span></div>