Guardian Mindset Podcast

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hosted by Attorney Eric Daigle, discusses the critical issues surrounding prone restraint deaths, moving beyond outdated notions of positional asphyxia to focus on metabolic acidosis and its implications.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The concept of positional asphyxia is outdated; metabolic acidosis is a more relevant explanation for prone restraint deaths.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.

Chapters

(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...

Chapters

(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.

What You’ll Learn in This Episode:

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