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hosted by Attorney Eric Daigle, discusses the critical issues surrounding prone restraint deaths, moving beyond outdated notions of positional asphyxia to focus on metabolic acidosis and its implications.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:

• The concept of positional asphyxia is outdated; metabolic acidosis is a more relevant explanation for prone restraint deaths.
• Officers should recognize key risk factors such as obesity, drug use, anxiety, and prolonged struggle to identify individuals at risk.
• Time is critical; quicker restraints can mitigate risks associated with metabolic acidosis.
• Recovery positions should be encouraged, but sitting up is optimal for breathing efficiency.
• Collaboration between law enforcement, medical personnel, and researchers is essential for effective training and response protocols.

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.

• (00:00:00) - Guardian Mindset: Posed Restraint Deaths
• (00:01:56) - Deadliest Warrior: The Law Enforcement Host
• (00:04:15) - The Use of Force: Explained
• (00:07:04) - What Do Most People Get Wrong About Praying Deaths?
• (00:10:04) - metabolic acidosis
• (00:13:38) - Risk Factors for Police on the Street
• (00:15:48) - Obesity and prone Restraint
• (00:20:09) - Critical Variables in Point Restraint
• (00:26:58) - Why Does Continuing to Struggle After Cuffing Matter?
• (00:31:29) - The Use of Force in Custody
• (00:34:06) - Discipline in the Police Training

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

• The Supreme Court is reviewing several key cases that may impact law enforcement procedures and Second Amendment rights in 2026.
• One significant case involves warrantless home entry during emergencies, raising questions about the level of certainty required for police intervention.
• Another case examines the legality of prohibiting licensed handgun carriers from bringing guns onto private property without express permission.
• A Third case addresses the Second Amendment implications of federal laws banning gun possession for habitual drug users.
• Law enforcement should document emergency facts meticulously, distinguish between trespass and firearm laws, and build strong cases for prosecution regarding drug use and gun possession.

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...

• (00:00:00) - Welcome to 2026
• (00:02:02) - Upcoming Supreme Court Cases
• (00:03:10) - Case Spotlight: Warrantless Home Entry
• (00:09:48) - Guidance for Emergency Entries
• (00:09:58) - Second Amendment Challenges
• (00:15:25) - Gun Possession and Drug Use
• (00:21:21) - Building a Strong Case
• (00:26:06) - Looking Ahead: Hot Topics for 2026

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

• Core Concept: Officer Created Jeopardy is a crucial concept affecting use of force analysis, emphasizing the need for accountability in police training and tactics.
• Legal Precedents: Cases like Barnes v. Felix highlight the importance of assessing all circumstances leading to force use, including officer behavior and decisions.
• Training and Practice: Agencies must ensure training translates effectively into practice; failure to do so can lead to litigation challenges and accountability issues.
• Totality of the Circumstances: This approach is gaining traction in courts, requiring a thorough examination of events before and after a force incident.
• Policy Updates: Policies surrounding use of force should be regularly updated to reflect current practices, especially in relation to mental health responses and traffic stops.

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...

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:

• AI in Policing – How departments are already using AI in report writing, license plate readers, and crime analysis.
• Legal & Ethical Risks – Why one bad rollout could put AI tools—and your agency—in legal jeopardy.
• Facial Recognition: The Next Battleground – A single misstep could lead to nationwide bans.
• Policy & Training: The Non-Negotiables – Before deploying AI, your agency must have clear policies, oversight, and accountability.
• The ACLU & Public Trust – Why transparency matters before launching AI initiatives.
• AI & Report Writing – The serious risks of letting AI replace an officer’s perception in critical reports.

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:

1. Moment of Threat vs. Totality of Circumstances

• The Supreme Court is reviewing whether force should only be judged at the exact moment of threat or if prior officer actions that escalated the situation should also be considered.

• Review of foundational cases:
  • Tennessee v. Garner (1985) – Deadly force limitations.
  • Graham v. Connor (1989) – Objective reasonableness in use-of-force cases.
  • Kingsley v. Hendrickson (2015) – Application to corrections settings.
  • Lombardo v. St. Louis (2021) – Clarifications on totality of circumstances.

• The 5th Circuit upheld qualified immunity, stating that only the moment Felix was in danger should be considered—not the actions leading up to it.
• The Supreme Court is now reviewing whether courts must consider the officer’s entire decision-making process when analyzing excessive force cases.

• Backup & De-escalation: Call for support before escalating to deadly force.
• Avoid “Car Surfing”: Jumping onto moving vehicles creates officer jeopardy.
• Totality of Circumstances Matters: Courts may soon require a broader analysis of use-of-force decisions.
• Policy & Training Implications: Agencies may need to revise force policies and training curriculums if the Supreme Court sides with totality analysis.

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:

• Officer Felix Dashcam Footage
• Barnes v. Felix, No. 22-20519 (5th Cir. 2024)
• Barnes v. Felix, No. 23-1239 (SCOTUS)

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.

Key Takeaways:

1. Impact of Geofence Warrants
   • Geofence warrants have significantly changed how criminal investigations are conducted.
   • They provide novel investigative avenues but also raise pressing concerns about constitutional protections.
2. Circuit Split and Constitutional Questions
   • The Fourth Circuit (Chatrie) upheld geofence warrants, emphasizing voluntary data sharing and limited expectations of privacy.
   • The Fifth Circuit (Smith) struck them down, citing Fourth Amendment violations and potential overreach.
   • These conflicting rulings could propel the issue to the Supreme Court for definitive guidance.
3. Balancing Public Safety with Privacy
   • Rapid technological advancements outpace existing legal frameworks.
   • Law enforcement professionals must stay informed and seek targeted legal advice when employing emerging technologies.

Final Thoughts:

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.

Referenced Topics and Resources:

• Supreme Court Decision: Carpenter v. United States (CSLI data and Fourth Amendment implications)
• Key Court Cases:
  • United States v. Chatrie, 107 F.4th 319 (4th Cir. 2024)
  • United States v. Smith, 110 F.4th 817 (5th Cir. 2024)