Steve Papenfuhs and Eric P. Daigle The Public Duty Doctrine provides that, “absent a special relationship between the governmental entity and the injured individual, the governmental entity will not be liable for injury to an individual… the governmental entity owes a duty to the public in general. The doctrine has been commonly described by the oxymoron, ‘duty to all, duty to none.’”[1] The concept […]
Duty to All, Duty to None Continue Reading
Police officers, like many citizens, are often camera-shy.[1] We all know that “Officers dislike being recorded in embarrassing situations and may be concerned that dissemination of their images may put them at risk of retaliation.”[2] Public perception is that officers are also accustomed “to substantial deference in the construction of official reports, and many would prefer to be in a position to draft their
Recording Police Officers – Just Say Cheese… Continue Reading
By Atty. Eric P. Daigle, Daigle Law Group On April 26, 2011, the Supreme Court of Connecticut issued its opinion on a case which Daigle Law Group, LLC defended on behalf of the subject officer. The decision will impact both police departments, municipalities, and individual officers concerning the ability of officers to seek indemnification for economic losses incurred in defense of criminal charges arising
By: Eric P. Daigle, Esq. On May 16, 2011, The United States Supreme Court clarified the standard for the “exigent circumstances” exception to the Fourth Amendment.[1] Specifically, the Court held that “the exigent circumstances rule applies when the police do not gain entry to premises by means of an actual or threatened violation of the Fourth Amendment.”[2] The Fourth Amendment establishes two requirements: (1)
Exigent Circumstances – What is that? Continue Reading