The Supreme Court had more than its share of surprising opinions and unexpected rulings this year. During the term the justices ruled for criminal defendants in some of most important cases on crime and punishment. While that alone is a rarity for a court that routinely leans to the right, it should be a sign to law enforcement as to the future rulings of […]
2011-2012 United States Supreme Court Update Continue Reading
By: Eric P. Daigle, Esq The utilization of Electronic Control Devices (“ECD”) has led to a windfall of litigation and court decisions which police departments must interpret to draft policies, conduct appropriate training, and implement the ECD into operation. A recent decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Mattos v. Agarano,[1] reinforced and clarified applicable standards regarding the permissible
Electronic Control Devices – Where Are We Now? Continue Reading
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