Civil Rights – Qualified immunity

Listen to this article

U.S. Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit

Civil

Civil Rights – Qualified immunity

Where the plaintiff was reported to be driving a car while holding an unholstered firearm, the officer who arrested him for disorderly conduct is entitled to qualified immunity on the driver’s wrongful arrest claim.

“We think it would be imprudent to base our decision on speculation about the appropriate scope of the Wisconsin statute. In our view, the second section of the disorderly conduct statute poses significant interpretative problems that are best answered by the Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Including the conduct at issue here within the scope of subsection 947.01(2) would no doubt have significant ramifications on issues of state and municipal governance in matters of public safety. In this age of ‘road rage’ and similar motorist misbehavior, an individual’s driving around at a high speed while holding an unholstered weapon in plain view of other motorists raises serious issues of public safety. Whether such activity
constitutes merely ‘carrying[] or going armed’ should be decided, if at all possible, by a state court far more familiar with the exigencies of state and local governance and far more familiar with the legislative practice of its state. If it were necessary to construe the problematic statutory language in order to resolve this case, we well might consider using the certification privilege accorded to us by the Wisconsin legislature.

However, such a necessity is not upon us since the second prong of the established qualified immunity analysis affords a solid basis for decision. ‘[I]t is apparent that the alleged right at issue [was] not clearly established’ at the time Officer Lomas acted. Catlin v. City of Wheaton, 574 F.3d 361, 365 (7th Cir. 2009).”

Reversed and Remanded.

13-3121 Gibbs v. Lomas

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, Crocker, Mag. J., Ripple, J.

Full Text