This episode of the Guardian Mindset Podcast with Attorney Eric Daigle breaks down the Supreme Court’s Case v. Montana decision and what it means for welfare checks, mental health calls, and warrantless entry into a home. Learn when officers can act without a warrant and how to apply the emergency aid exception the right way.

Legal Standards for Emergency Aid Entry
The recent Supreme Court case, Case v. Montana, examined whether law enforcement could enter a home without a warrant based on less than probable cause regarding an emergency. The court held that officers may do so if they possess an objectively reasonable belief that an occupant is in serious danger or needs assistance. This ruling clarifies the Fourth Amendment’s emergency aid exception, reinforcing that a reasonable basis standard suffices, thus diverging from a probable cause requirement typically seen in criminal contexts.

Implications for Law Enforcement
This decision has significant implications for law enforcement’s response to welfare checks, mental health crises, and other emergencies. It emphasizes the importance of acting swiftly when a reasonable belief of imminent danger exists. The case underscores the need for officers to be equipped with adequate training and policies that address emergency situations. Officers should document the rationale for their entry and ensure their actions remain focused solely on resolving the emergency without infringing on the Fourth Amendment rights regarding unwarranted searches.

Policy and Practice Recommendations
To comply with this ruling, police departments should revise their policies to state that officers can enter a residence without a warrant when they have specific and articulable facts indicating a person is in danger or requires aid. Officers must limit their actions to the emergency at hand and avoid using such entries as a means to conduct general searches for evidence. Documentation of all relevant factors surrounding the incident is crucial, including the emergency’s nature and how it was resolved. Additionally, enhancing collaboration with mental health professionals during crisis responses is recommended to improve outcomes for individuals in distress.

Core Points:

Continue Your Education: https://dlglearningcenter.com/scotus-affirms-standard-for-emergency-aid-entry-into-the-home-in-case-v-montana/

The Guardian Mindset Podcast, hosted by Attorney Eric Daigle, discusses the critical issues surrounding prone restraint deaths, moving beyond outdated notions of positional asphyxia to focus on metabolic acidosis and its implications. This episode’s guest, Geoffrey Thor Desmoulin, Ph.D., R.Kin., P.L.Eng., of GTD Scientific, emphasizes the need to recognize the complexities of physiology, biomechanics, and the law when addressing these incidents.

Key Takeaways:

Metabolic Acidosis vs. Positional Asphyxia
Dr. Desmoulin explains that metabolic acidosis, characterized by the buildup of carbon dioxide in the body, is a more accurate explanation for deaths during prone restraint. This condition arises when individuals struggle against restraint, inhibiting their ability to breathe efficiently. He points out that conventional beliefs about weight on the back being inconsequential are misguided, as the physiological realities on the ground differ significantly from research findings.

Identifying Risk Factors
Key risk factors for officers to recognize include obesity, drug use, anxiety, and prolonged struggle. The podcast highlights that these factors compound the risk of deterioration in restrained individuals. The discussion underscores the importance of early recognition of these signs, advocating for a swift response that prioritizes medical assistance when necessary.

The Importance of Time and Recovery Positions
Dr. Desmoulin stresses the critical nature of time in managing restrained individuals. The faster officers can restrain a subject and transition them to a recovery position, ideally sitting up, the better their chances of preventing a metabolic crisis. While recovery positions are useful, sitting upright is deemed most effective for breathing.

Collaboration for Better Outcomes
Finally, the conversation highlights the need for law enforcement agencies to collaborate with medical professionals and researchers. This partnership is vital for developing training protocols that ensure officers are equipped to handle individuals in crisis effectively. By improving communication and understanding across these fields, they can enhance public safety and reduce the tragic outcomes associated with prone restraint incidents.

In this episode, we break down several major Supreme Court cases headed into 2026 that could reshape law enforcement practices and Second Amendment enforcement, from warrantless home entries during emergencies to firearm restrictions on private property and drug-related gun bans. We’ll explain what’s at stake, what officers need to watch for, and how to protect cases through clear documentation and sound decision-making as the law continues to evolve.

Continue your education on the DLG Learning Center

Key Takeaways

Summary

Warrantless Home Entry

One of the most pressing cases on the Supreme Court’s docket involves warrantless home entry during emergency and welfare checks. This case questions how certain law enforcement must be regarding an emergency before entering a home without a warrant, focusing on the “emergency aid exception.” The core issue is whether a mere reasonable suspicion is enough for entry or if probable cause is required. This case’s outcome could significantly affect how officers respond to emergency situations, emphasizing the importance of documenting emergency facts and ensuring that entries remain narrowly tied to the circumstances.

Gun Carrying on Private Property

Another crucial case is Wilford v. Lopez, which scrutinizes Hawaii’s law that prohibits individuals from carrying firearms onto private property without the owner’s consent. The challengers argue this restriction violates Second Amendment rights. The Supreme Court’s decision could either reinforce states’ abilities to regulate firearm possession or limit such regulations. This ruling will directly impact law enforcement’s ability to enforce firearm restrictions in public areas and private properties, necessitating clear communication of current laws to officers and proper training on distinguishing between criminal trespass and lawful gun possession.

Drug Use and Gun Possession

The Supreme Court will also hear a case concerning the prohibition of firearm possession for habitual drug users. This case stems from a ruling that found the law potentially unconstitutional. Should the Court side with the challenger, it could eliminate significant barriers for certain individuals in possessing firearms, fundamentally altering the legal landscape surrounding gun ownership and drug use. For law enforcement, this necessitates thorough documentation of drug use patterns and timing in relation to gun possession, emphasizing the importance of a well-supported case for prosecution.

These cases highlight the evolving legal challenges faced by law enforcement, urging officers to stay informed and prepared to adapt to potential changes in the law as they unfold in 2026.

---------

About Daigle Law Group

Attorney Daigle focuses on evaluating and providing policy guidance and training on areas of increased liability for law enforcement agencies nationwide. His work emphasizes current trends in legal standards, operational practices, and community expectations, with particular attention to the intersection of these areas. Through this lens, Attorney Daigle provides agencies with practical evaluations and forward-looking recommendations to reduce risk and strengthen decision-making.

This publication is produced for general informational purposes only. It is distributed with the understanding that the publisher, Daigle Law Group, LLC, is not engaged in rendering legal or professional services. Although prepared by professionals, this content should not be relied upon as a substitute for legal or other professional advice. If such advice is required, the services of a qualified professional should be sought.

This episode of the Guardian Mindset Podcast was recorded live as the opening keynote at the 2025 Use of Force Summit, setting the tone for a critical discussion on how modern courts, communities, and agencies evaluate police use of force. The episode examines the growing legal and operational focus on Officer Created Jeopardy and why decisions made well before force is used are now central to accountability, training, and liability. Drawing from emerging case law, including Barnes v. Felix, this session challenges law enforcement leaders, trainers, and officers to rethink how tactics, policy, and real-world practice must align under the Totality of the Circumstances standard—and the consequences when they do not.

Continue your education at the DLG Learning Center with upcoming training programs.

Key Takeaways

Detailed Summary

Officer Created Jeopardy

The concept of Officer Created Jeopardy is gaining prominence in the analysis of police use of force. This principle suggests that officers must be held accountable for the risks they create through their actions leading up to an incident. Trainers are encouraged to ensure that the skills imparted to officers are effectively implemented in real situations. The accountability aspect of training has become increasingly significant, particularly in the context of litigation where officers’ decisions and adherence to training will be scrutinized.

Legal Precedents and Their Implications

The recent case of Barnes v. Felix illustrates the importance of evaluating the totality of circumstances surrounding a use of force incident. This legal framework requires courts to consider not only the immediate actions of officers but also the events that preceded those actions. This principle underscores the need for law enforcement agencies to assess their training programs rigorously and ensure they equip officers to handle situations effectively without escalating them unnecessarily. The emphasis on a holistic view of force incidents highlights the necessity for departments to focus on the tactics employed by officers prior to force application.

Training and Policy Updates

The discussion further stresses the importance of updating use of force policies to align with evolving legal standards and community expectations. Agencies should continuously review their training and operational policies, particularly in areas like mental health responses and emergency interventions, to ensure they are comprehensive and effective. As the legal landscape shifts, officers must be prepared to demonstrate adherence to these policies in high-pressure situations to avoid liability and uphold community trust.

Future Considerations

The evolving legal interpretations and expectations surrounding officer conduct call for proactive measures from law enforcement agencies. As discussions around duty to intervene and excessive force become more prominent, departments must cultivate a culture of accountability and rigorous training. Moreover, with emerging technologies like artificial intelligence in report writing, agencies should consider the implications of AI on officer accountability and legal perceptions, ensuring that human judgment remains central in assessing use of force incidents.

This segment from the Daigle Law Group Technology Summit 2025 introduces a panel discussion that highlights collaboration and shared learning across the law enforcement and public safety community. The speaker emphasizes the value of hosting this annual event for the past four years as a way to foster conversations among professionals with different perspectives, while also showcasing strategic partnerships with organizations that support the field.

The discussion sets the tone by underscoring that partnerships are not just symbolic, but practical opportunities to learn from one another and address evolving challenges together. By bringing in partners and key law enforcement representatives, the summit creates a platform for collective problem-solving and innovation in technology, policy, and public safety practices.

In this episode of the Guardian Mindset Podcast, Attorney Eric Daigle dives deep into the critical legal issues shaping modern protest response tactics. Broadcasting from Dallas, Daigle walks through the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Puente v. City of Phoenix, a pivotal case arising from a 2017 protest at a Trump rally. This case is more than a legal ruling—it’s a training roadmap for law enforcement navigating First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment obligations during high-tension demonstrations.

How Puente v. Phoenix defines the limits of force in crowd control

Why the use of pepper balls and tear gas didn’t qualify as a "seizure"

What the “Shocks the Conscience” standard means for fast-moving protests

First Amendment obligations during “unlawful assembly” declarations

How planning, policy, and training helped officers maintain qualified immunity

The real-world consequences of unprofessional conduct—like commemorative coins gone wrong

The Future of AI in Law Enforcement

The Guardian Mindset Podcast is back with a critical conversation on Artificial Intelligence in Law Enforcement. Attorney Eric Daigle sits down with Attorney Joseph Race, an expert in policy and accreditation, to break down the real-world implications of AI in policing. From predictive analytics and real-time crime centers to the legal minefield of facial recognition, this episode tackles what’s coming, what’s at risk, and how agencies can stay ahead.

AI is here—but is your department ready for it? Tune in for a no-nonsense discussion on how smart policies, proper training, and transparency are the keys to leveraging AI without exposing your agency to legal and operational failures.

Listen now and stay ahead of the future of policing.

What You’ll Learn in This Episode:

What’s Next? Continue your education with DLG Training, including our upcoming First Amendment Summit and Tech Summit on AI in Policing—giving you the knowledge and tools to keep your agency ahead of the curve. Stay informed, stay prepared, and stay ahead!

In this episode, Attorney Eric Daigle dives into Barnes v. Felix, a crucial Supreme Court case with significant implications for law enforcement professionals. The case, currently under review after oral argument on January 22, 2025, addresses the use of deadly force, the totality of the circumstances standard, and the moment of threat doctrine. Daigle provides an in-depth legal breakdown, discusses how the ruling could reshape police training and policies, and offers practical takeaways for officers handling high-pressure situations.

Key Takeaways:

Final Thoughts:

This case is a stark reminder that use-of-force decisions don’t happen in isolation—they are shaped by everything leading up to the moment of action. Officers must be proactive in using sound tactics and making legally defensible decisions to ensure their actions hold up under scrutiny. As we await the Supreme Court’s ruling, now is the time for law enforcement professionals to reflect. Whether the Supreme Court rules in favor of the moment of threat doctrine or shifts toward a totality of the circumstances approach, one thing remains clear: agencies should take this case as an opportunity to evaluate their training programs, reinforce de-escalation strategies, and emphasize the importance of avoiding officer-created jeopardy.

Resources:

Welcome back to The Guardian Mindset Podcast with Attorney Eric Daigle. Kicking off 2025, this episode tackles the timely and controversial topic of geofence warrants. As technology continues to redefine modern policing, these powerful investigative tools raise critical questions about privacy, constitutional rights, and the future of law enforcement. Eric explores the evolving legal landscape, breaks down recent circuit court rulings, and discusses their implications for professionals navigating this complex intersection of technology and law.

As law enforcement professionals, it’s essential to remain aware of the evolving legal standards around modern policing tools. By seeking clear, actionable guidance from legal advisors and staying current on judicial trends, agencies can leverage technological innovations responsibly while honoring constitutional boundaries. Together, we can effectively balance public safety with privacy rights in an ever-evolving digital landscape. 

In this episode, Eric tackles the hot topic of election law as we approach the November 2024 elections. Eric took the time to address the critical intersection of law enforcement and community safety during elections.

The Role of Law Enforcement in Elections: Eric emphasizes the essential role law enforcement plays in ensuring free, fair, and secure elections. He stresses the importance of police in preserving democracy and managing safety around polling places.

Current Threat Landscape: Drawing from intelligence reports and updates from Homeland Security and the FBI, Eric discusses the rise in threats toward election officials, ballot dropbox sabotage, and swatting incidents, as well as the proactive measures law enforcement must take.

Training Initiatives: Georgia's groundbreaking mandate for election law training for police officers is highlighted as an important step in preparing officers to handle election-related incidents, with a focus on de-escalation and non-threatening conduct.

Legal Framework and Threats to Election Security: The episode dives deep into the balance between free speech and election security, referencing key Supreme Court cases like Brandenburg v. Ohio and Counterman v. Colorado, which outline how law enforcement should approach threats while respecting First Amendment rights.

Election Threats Task Force: Created by Attorney General Merrick Garland, this task force works alongside law enforcement to investigate and prosecute threats against election workers. Eric explains the challenges and limited scope of prosecutions due to concerns about free speech.

Best Practices for Law Enforcement Agencies: Eric provides actionable steps for law enforcement, including early planning, conducting tabletop exercises, fostering interagency collaboration, and supporting election officials with security assessments and recommendations.