Amy Everett v. Cobb County, Georgia, et al.

In the face of clear law, under Reno v. ACLU and traditional categories of unprotected speech, was it error to treat Everett’s emails, which she created in Alabama that assert a claim of right to protect her marriage and the institution of marriage, as phone conduct, and to make a new category of unprotected speech of “harassing emails,” to legitimize Everette’s arrest and prosecution under O.C.G.A. § 16-11-39.1?

Was it error to grant summary judgment to Respondent Cobb County on the claim asserting a custom and practice of causing arrests for citizens’ failure to comply with Cease-and-Desist orders issued under the unfettered discretion of Cobb police officers by requiring evidence of specific other cases?

Was it error to grant summary judgment on the merits and qualified immunity to Ofc. Hopkins, individually and in his official capacity, as to Everett’s federal malicious prosecution claim, arising from Hopkins falsification of material facts for the warrant, his unfettered abuse of the Cease-and-Desist custom, and failing to stop the arrest when he could have?

Was it error to find that the complaint did not plausibly show that Respondent Miller acted under color of law by withholding the truth from Ofc. Hopkins that she had engaged in an adulterous affair, as one of the multiple causes of the challenged arrest and malicious prosecution?