This episode discusses a Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals opinion, United States v. Wilson, concerning a Fourth Amendment challenge to the exclusionary rule and its good-faith exception. The majority opinion affirms the district court’s decision to suppress evidence obtained from Ricky Wilson's girlfriend's apartment, finding the search warrant affidavit was "bare-bones" because it failed to establish a nexus between Wilson’s alleged crime (an aggravated assault at a Waffle House) and the place searched. The majority criticizes the affidavit for resting on conjecture rather than facts, thereby rendering the officers' reliance on the warrant unreasonable. In contrast, the dissenting opinion argues that the good-faith exception should apply, based on the common-sense inference that people typically keep personal items, including firearms and ammunition, in their homes, especially when the residence is in reasonable proximity to the crime.

This episode presents an appeal in the case of United States v. Damion Wilson, decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The primary issue addressed is whether carrying a firearm alone provides sufficient grounds for a Terry stop, a question the court answers definitively in the negative, rooted in the Fourth Amendment's history against general warrants and writs of assistance. However, the court ultimately affirms Wilson's conviction and sentence, finding that other specific factors, such as his association with a federal fugitive and prior criminal history, provided reasonable suspicion for the stop. A concurring and dissenting opinion highlights a disagreement with the majority's extensive discussion on the Terry stop and contests the application of an obstruction-of-justice sentencing guideline based on the indictment's language.

This episode details an appeal case in the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal, State of Louisiana versus Koby Dillon. The court affirmed Dillon's convictions for possession with intent to distribute marijuana and illegal possession of a weapon while possessing a controlled dangerous substance. However, the sentence for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon was vacated due to the district court's failure to impose a mandatory fine, and the case was remanded for resentencing on that specific count. The episode further addresses Dillon's various assignments of error, including challenges to the sufficiency of evidence for his prior convictions and the identity of the seized substance, as well as arguments regarding the admissibility of "other crimes" evidence and the constitutionality of his twenty-year sentence. Ultimately, the court rejected most of Dillon's arguments, upholding the convictions and most of the sentences.

This episode provides an update on legislative changes impacting Driving While Impaired (DWI) laws in Louisiana, specifically focusing on Act No. 194 of 2025 and Act 662 of 2024. Act 194 increases fines for certain driving offenses, including Operating While Impaired (OWI) and reckless operation, to benefit the Louisiana Emergency Response Network (LERN) Fund. The episode highlights that this seemingly minor fine increase for OWI First and Second Offenses could elevate them to "Duncan Misdemeanors," triggering the right to a jury trial and complicating current plea, jurisdiction, and appeals processes. Additionally, Act 662 significantly alters the elements of OWI from "intoxication" to "impairment," potentially rendering many local ordinances misaligned with state law and creating challenges for future prosecutions and responsive verdicts. The episode highlights the potential for widespread litigation and calls for legislative action to resolve these procedural and jurisdictional ambiguities.

This episode details the Louisiana Supreme Court case of State of Louisiana vs. Malcolm J. Chester, decided on June 27, 2025. The core issue revolves around a defective bill of information that failed to specify the victim's exact age and the relevant penalty provision for aggravated crime against nature, despite the defendant's conviction for an offense involving a victim under thirteen, which carries a harsher sentence. While the Court of Appeal reversed the conviction and remanded for a new trial due to this defect, the Supreme Court reinstated the conviction but remanded for resentencing under a less severe penalty, finding the error in the original charging instrument did not prejudice the defendant's ability to defend himself. Dissenting opinions argue the defect was harmless and the original sentence should stand, given the clear evidence and jury's finding of the victim's age. A concurring opinion highlights that the trial court overstepped its authority by effectively amending the charges.

This episode details the Louisiana Supreme Court's decision to reverse and remand the conviction of Brhian Thomas for second-degree murder, ordering a new trial. The majority opinion found Thomas's trial counsel provided ineffective assistance, specifically by failing to adequately challenge the State's primary witness, Javonnie Raymond, and by advising Thomas not to testify on his own behalf. The dissenting opinion, however, argues that the objective evidence, particularly the fact that the victim, Deeric Raymond, was shot in the back, strongly undermines Thomas's self-defense claim and that the alleged errors by counsel were not substantial enough to warrant a new trial. The case centers on the interpretation of whether Thomas acted in justifiable self-defense or was the initial aggressor, and the reliability of witness testimony versus forensic evidence.

The episode details the Louisiana Supreme Court's review of the case State of Louisiana vs. Kayla Jean Giles Coutee, involving a defendant convicted of second-degree murder and obstruction of justice for killing her estranged husband. The majority opinion reverses and vacates the murder conviction, arguing that the trial court's jury instruction on the "aggressor doctrine" was an error because it conflicted with Louisiana's "stand your ground" law, which creates a presumption of reasonable belief in using deadly force when someone is unlawfully entering a vehicle. However, the dissenting and concurring opinions argue that the "aggressor doctrine" instruction was appropriate given evidence of premeditation by the defendant and that the jury was capable of discerning the facts. The case is remanded for further proceedings on the murder charge, and for the appellate court to reassess the sufficiency of evidence for the obstruction of justice conviction and the length of its associated sentence.

This episode details the Louisiana Supreme Court's decision in State of Louisiana v. Dionte Bracken, a case addressing the legality of "Allen charges" in jury deliberations. The Per Curiam opinion reverses a lower court's ruling, finding that the trial judge's supplemental instructions to a jury, which had inquired about a hung jury, were not coercive. The Court explicitly abrogates its prior decision in State v. Nicholson, which had previously banned "Allen charges" in Louisiana, aligning the state with the majority of other jurisdictions that permit such instructions, provided they are not coercive under the totality of the circumstances. Concurring opinions further discuss the defendant's failure to contemporaneously object to the instructions and commend the Court for correcting what one justice deemed a previous judicial error lacking constitutional basis.

This episode details the Louisiana Supreme Court's reversal of an appellate court decision concerning Reginald Ruffins' conviction for false personation of a peace officer. The Court found that the appellate court misinterpreted the statute by adding a requirement that the "special privilege or advantage" sought must be exclusive to law enforcement. Instead, the Supreme Court clarified that the statute only requires the intent to obtain any special privilege or advantage through impersonation. The Court reinstated Ruffins' conviction and sentence, citing evidence that he impersonated an officer to secure a security contract, obtain a rent roll, and enter a private residence to handcuff and interrogate an individual. This ruling emphasizes the broad scope of the law regarding the intent element in false personation cases.

This episode discusses a precedential opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, the appeal of United States v. Outlaw. The central issue revolves around whether a police detective had probable cause to arrest Abdul Outlaw, which would justify a search incident to arrest. The court affirmed the District Court's decision to suppress evidence found on Outlaw, including a firearm and marijuana, because the smell of burning marijuana alone was not sufficient to establish probable cause for arrest when multiple individuals were present in the vehicle. The opinion clarifies that while the smell can justify searching a vehicle, it must be particularized to an individual for a lawful arrest, and in this instance, it could not be definitively linked solely to Outlaw.

This episode details a United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit case, Estate of Parker v. Mississippi Department of Public Safety, concerning the tragic death of a three-month-old infant, La’Mello Parker, during a police confrontation with his fugitive father. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the case, concluding that while the circumstances were devastating, the officers' actions did not amount to a constitutional violation under the Fourth or Fourteenth Amendments, and they were shielded by qualified immunity. The ruling emphasizes that the officers' use of force, including ramming the vehicle and returning fire when the father shot at them, was deemed objectively reasonable given the immediate threat posed by the armed and dangerous suspect, despite the accidental death of the child. The court also rejected claims of bystander and municipal liability, as they require an underlying constitutional violation that was not found in this instance.

This episode involves an opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit regarding the case of Chisesi v. Hunady. The case involves an appeal by Officer Matthew Hunady and Sheriff Huey Hoss Mack after a district court denied their motions for summary judgment in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuit. The lawsuit was filed by Donna Chisesi, as administratrix of Jonathan Victor's estate, alleging excessive force against Officer Hunady and failure-to-train supervisory liability against Sheriff Mack, following Victor's death during a standoff. The appellate court dismissed Officer Hunady's appeal for lack of jurisdiction, finding he only contested factual disputes, but reversed the denial of summary judgment for Sheriff Mack, concluding that the plaintiff failed to show the Sheriff had sufficient notice of training deficiencies to incur liability. The case was then remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Eleventh Circuit's rulings.

This episode discusses a judicial opinion from United States v. Ostrum concerning a defendant's motion to suppress evidence in a criminal case. The defendant, Dylan Ostrum, sought to exclude evidence obtained from the search of a stolen rental car and two safes found inside it, arguing the search violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The court denied the motion, ruling that Ostrum lacked standing to challenge the search because he had no reasonable expectation of privacy in a stolen vehicle. Furthermore, the court found the search permissible under both the automobile exception due to probable cause and as a lawful inventory search conducted according to police policy.

This episode discusses an appellate court opinion from the Fifth Circuit, specifically the case of Estevis v. Cantu, filed on April 16, 2025. It details an appeal regarding qualified immunity for police officers who fired shots at a suspect, Alejandro Estevis, after a high-speed pursuit. The court examines whether the officers' actions, particularly shots 4-9, violated clearly established law regarding excessive force. Ultimately, the Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's decision, granting qualified immunity to the officers for all shots fired, finding that existing precedent did not clearly establish their conduct was unlawful under the dangerous circumstances.

This episode on Salinas v. City of Houston, details an appeal before the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit concerning the fatal shooting of David Salinas by Houston police officers. The plaintiff, Brittany Salinas, argued that the officers used excessive force and that the City of Houston was liable. The court affirmed the lower court's dismissal of all claims, finding that the officers had reasonable suspicion to detain Salinas and did not violate his Fourth Amendment rights regarding excessive force, as a reasonable officer could have perceived him as an immediate threat. Furthermore, the court concluded that the City of Houston could not be held liable under 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 due to the absence of an underlying constitutional violation, and was entitled to sovereign immunity under the Texas Tort Claims Act.

This episode discusses the judicial opinion from Clark v. Dep't of Pub. Safety, an appeal before the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, concerning Torriana Clark's lawsuit against prison officials. Clark, an inmate, alleged excessive force by Sergeant Lance Wallace under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, following a prison incident. The district court had previously granted partial summary judgment to the defendants, ruling that Clark's § 1983 claim was barred by the Heck v. Humphrey doctrine, which prevents challenges to convictions or sentences that have not been overturned. The appellate court ultimately affirmed the district court's decision, concluding that Clark's claim would contradict his prior guilty pleas to disciplinary charges that resulted in a loss of good-time credits. The court also upheld the denial of Clark's motion to amend his petition, deeming such an amendment futile given the existing evidence.

This episode briefly discusses a comprehensive report titled "Managing a Multijurisdictional Case: Identifying the Lessons Learned from the Sniper Investigation," prepared by the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF). It offers an exhaustive review of the 2002 sniper investigation, drawing on over 100 interviews with law enforcement and government officials. The report serves as a guide for planning and managing high-profile, multi-agency criminal investigations, covering aspects like leadership, resource coordination, information management, media relations, and community engagement. It details successful strategies and challenges encountered during the sniper case, aiming to provide valuable insights and lessons for future incidents of similar complexity.

This episode details Grisham v. Valenciano, a case heard by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on February 26, 2024. The plaintiffs, Christopher Grisham and James Everard, appealed a district court's summary judgment in favor of defendants, including Olmos Park Chief of Police Rene Valenciano and the City of Olmos Park, concerning civil rights claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The plaintiffs, who identify as Second Amendment protestors, alleged their arrests on March 27, 2018, violated their First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights through unlawful arrest, excessive force, and retaliation for protected speech. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision, concluding that the officers had probable cause for the arrests and that the force used was not excessive, thereby entitling the officers to qualified immunity and absolving the city of municipal liability.

This episode offers a comprehensive overview of police administration, focusing on the multifaceted roles of police executives and the fundamental aspects of police work. They explore the internal and external responsibilities of leadership, including managing operations and engaging with external entities like government agencies, the media, and the community. The sources emphasize the critical role of information and decision-making through various analysis techniques and the importance of performance evaluation in policing. Additionally, the texts discuss the core values and objectives guiding police agencies, such as crime prevention, order maintenance, and service provision, while also examining the human element within policing, including officer attitudes, subculture, and the impact of motivation and organizational development on effectiveness.

This episode outlines a procurement officer's dilemma within a county police department regarding the acquisition of new squad cars. The narrative details the standardized process for purchasing, involving Requests for Proposals (RFPs) and the evaluation of both cost and qualitative factors like comfort and maintenance. The officer faces a moral and professional quandary when their Deputy Director instructs them to improperly influence a top bidder to lower their price, despite a fair selection process. The text explores the officer's internal conflict, weighing loyalty, professional responsibility, and personal ethics against the potential benefits and risks of following or defying the directive.