Let’s face it, police officers do not like to be recorded, especially when performing their official duties in the public arena. The fact is that officers are being recorded daily now that the general public carries recording devices in their pockets ready to record at the push of a button. This leads to clear challenges to law enforcement. We first wrote on this subject […]
Glik v. Cunniffe – Videotaping Police Officers Continue Reading
There are certain policies that those who advise law enforcement agencies consider to be “high risk policies.” Use of Force and Force Related Policies, Pursuit Policy, Sexual Harassment and the Citizen Complaint Process are just some of them. Typically, a violation of a “high risk” policy could make a law enforcement agency more susceptible to an increased level of liability and a higher damages
ADA Do You Have a Policy for That? Continue Reading
It is rare these days to find an individual without a personal cell phone in his possession at any given time during the day or night. Our society has created the ability and psychological need to be in constant contact with the world around us. The introduction of personal cell phones, however, has created many unforeseen issues for a variety of employers. While many
Use of Personal Cell Phones While On Duty: You Want My What… Continue Reading
As I travel the country and work with different police departments, I am concerned with the inconsistency and the lack of knowledge of police management regarding use of Garrity in administrative investigations. I have learned that while investigators and management are aware of the practice of using Garrity warnings, as created by the case Garrity v. New Jersey, these warnings are misinterpreted and applied
Garrity: To Be or Not To Be – That is the Question Continue Reading
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