Daigle Law Group

Daigle Law Group

Navigating the Slippery Slope of Free Speech and Retaliation in the Murphy v. Schmitt Case

The Eight Circuit’s recent decision in Murphy v. Schmitt highlights the fine balance between the First Amendment right to free speech, retaliatory claims, unlawful detention, and the discretionary powers of law enforcement officers. The central conflict in this case stems from a contentious encounter between Officer Michael Schmitt of Sunrise Beach and a local pedestrian, Mason Murphy. Before delving into the details of Murphy […]

Navigating the Slippery Slope of Free Speech and Retaliation in the Murphy v. Schmitt Case Continue Reading

Deadlifts, De-escalation & Deadly Force: Ninth Circuit’s Deliberation on Qualified Immunity Amidst Gym Confrontation in Smith v. Agdeppa

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in the case of Smith v. Agdeppa, recently explored the parameters of qualified immunity in a case where two police officers faced an intense confrontation with a suspect at a Los Angeles Gym.1 The subsequent use of deadly force by Officer Edward Agdeppa led to legal action by the deceased’s mother, Paulette Smith. She contended that her son’s

Deadlifts, De-escalation & Deadly Force: Ninth Circuit’s Deliberation on Qualified Immunity Amidst Gym Confrontation in Smith v. Agdeppa Continue Reading

Duty, Dilemma, and Decisions: Leonard v. Silva’s Spotlight on Use-of-Force during Mental Health Turmoil

In a recent decision, Leonard v. Silva, et al., the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals addressed a pressing issue currently dominating the law enforcement profession.1 This pivotal case brings to the fore the nexus between § 1983 claims for excessive use of force and the intricate challenges law enforcement officers confront when responding to mental health crises in healthcare settings. The insights offered from

Duty, Dilemma, and Decisions: Leonard v. Silva’s Spotlight on Use-of-Force during Mental Health Turmoil Continue Reading

Knock, Announce, and the Fourth Amendment: Lessons from Penate v. Sullivan on SWAT Protocols and Constitutional Rights

The First Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision in Penate v. Sullivan, offers a detailed examination of SWAT team entries and the significance of the knock-and-announce principle for upholding individuals’ constitutional rights as guided by the Fourth Amendment.1 This case originated out of Worcester, Massachusetts, where police were called to respond to a distraught woman’s report of sexual assault. With the victim’s assistance, the police

Knock, Announce, and the Fourth Amendment: Lessons from Penate v. Sullivan on SWAT Protocols and Constitutional Rights Continue Reading

Orders Under Fire: Navigating the Tensions of Excessive Force, Muddled Commands, and Qualified Immunity

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals presented a decision in Franklin v. City of Charlotte, a case that emphasizes the tensions between police response and perceived threats, while considering the potential pitfalls of ambiguous or conflicting officer commands.1 Stemming from an incident at a local fast-food restaurant, what might have been an everyday incident rapidly escalated into an irreversible tragedy. The plaintiff, acting on

Orders Under Fire: Navigating the Tensions of Excessive Force, Muddled Commands, and Qualified Immunity Continue Reading

US v. Smith Unveiled: A Fresh Lens on Reasonable Suspicion in Vehicular Stops and Searches  

The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently explored the case of US v. Smith, a case that guides officers through the principles of reasonable suspicion, as they pertain to police procedure in vehicular stops and searches. At around 2:00 am, two individuals, D.B. and Sharon, left a Detroit bar, with D.B. suspecting that they were being followed by a silver sedan. Evidence

US v. Smith Unveiled: A Fresh Lens on Reasonable Suspicion in Vehicular Stops and Searches   Continue Reading

Force, Flight & Immunity: A Dive into the Controversy of Parsons v. City of Ann Arbor

The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued a decision in Parsons v. City of Ann Arbor, a case that grapples with the issues of qualified immunity, alleged excessive use of force, and state law assault and battery allegations. The situation stemmed from a heated encounter between a law enforcement officer and an uncooperative individual during an investigatory detention outside of a local

Force, Flight & Immunity: A Dive into the Controversy of Parsons v. City of Ann Arbor Continue Reading

Canine Conundrum: Police Dogs, Excessive Force, and Fourth Amendment Jurisprudence

The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued a decision in Putman v. Harris, a case that centers on an alleged use of excessive force during the seizure of a potentially armed person, threatening self-harm and suicide.1 The plaintiff in this case, Dillard Putman, raised a 42 U.S.C. §1983 claim, where he accused the defendant Officer of infringing upon his Fourth Amendment rights

Canine Conundrum: Police Dogs, Excessive Force, and Fourth Amendment Jurisprudence Continue Reading

Between Silence and Speech: Tracing the Path of Voluntary Confessions in US v. Woolridge

The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued a decision in United States v. Woolridge, a case that addresses the issue of voluntary confessions and the application of Miranda warnings1. The decision by the Sixth Circuit emphasizes the primacy of the Fifth Amendment in safeguarding suspects’ rights during officer interactions with detainees. Joshua Woolridge, the defendant in the case, was charged under 18

Between Silence and Speech: Tracing the Path of Voluntary Confessions in US v. Woolridge Continue Reading

Impersonation to Impoundment: Dismantling Qualified Immunity and Warrantless Driveway Seizures

In the landscape of modern law enforcement, a recent ruling from the Sixth Circuit Court has cast a spotlight on the complex interplay between the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments and the doctrine of Qualified Immunity. The case in question, Habich v. Wayne County, was borne out of a contentious circumstance surrounding the impounding of a vehicle from a private driveway without a warrant. At

Impersonation to Impoundment: Dismantling Qualified Immunity and Warrantless Driveway Seizures Continue Reading

Generate POST Form

Thank you for your commitment to professional growth and your dedication to staying up to date with the latest in policy and police practices. Click the button below to access our POSTC-50 Review Training Credit Form generator.
Generate Credit Form
For assistance, please email help@dlglearningcenter.com or contact support.