against another,” United States v. Broadie, 452 F.3d 875, 881 (D.C.Cir.2006) (emphasis added) (internal quotation marks omitted), the government has conceded that Officer Alton lacked probable cause to arrest for PPW. The government nonetheless argues the arrest was valid because there was probable cause to believe Vinton committed the offense of “carrying a dangerous weapon” (CDW), D.C.Code § 22-4504(a), which “does not require proof of intent to use the weapon for an unlawful purpose,” Broadie, 452 F.3d at 881. Because the Fourth Amendment inquiry is objective, an officer’s “subjective reason for making the arrest need not be the criminal offense as to which the known facts provide probable cause.” Devenpeck, 543 U.S. at 153, 125 S.Ct. 588; see also Broadie, 452 F.3d at 881 (<HOLDING>). The CDW statute prohibits “carry[ing] within
holding that there is no  1983 cause of action for false arrest unless the arresting officer lacked probable cause holding that there was no probable cause to arrest the plaintiff because the facts of the case amounted to a contract dispute holding that under fourth amendment standards for determining probable cause for arrest and probable cause for search and seizure are same holding that qualified immunity applies only if an officer had arguable probable cause to arrest holding arrest was valid because there was probable cause of cdw even though officer incorrectly believed at the time that he had probable cause of ppw