Law Office Of Glenn McGovern

06/03/2026

New article published on AI use by police departments to monitor improper police procedures. Several departments have had a 36% reduction in excess force cases and complaints.

06/03/2026

Won a motion today in the 5th Circuit to proceed to trial for a police NOPD whistleblower lab employee Karl Vonderhaar. On to trial! Excited! No immunity for NOPD officers that arrested him.

05/31/2026

🧐The administration plans to use claims that "China interfered in the 2020 election as a basis to declare a national emergency that would unlock extraordinary presidential power over voting.”

The premise, it almost goes without saying, is a total lie.

Back in 2024, Kamala Harris and the Democrats struggled to convince voters that a second Donald Trump term would constitute a serious threat to democracy. We can debate the effectiveness of her, and their, rhetoric. But on a certain level, it was a hard argument to make because it was hypothetical. Voters aren’t very interested in wrapping their heads around hypotheticals, or at least vague ones. And Harris’s hypotheticals were mostly vague, so if she or any Democrat tried to say, for example, that there was a very real threat that once in office, Trump might try to cancel elections, most people kind of tuned that out.

I was more than willing to believe that Trump might try to cancel elections or take over the media. But even I, when I sat down to think about exactly how, couldn’t quite pin down the specifics. No president had ever tried to do either of those things, so how exactly could Trump pull them off?

Well, we’re now beginning to see. Let’s start with elections. The Washington Post—and yes, there’s still good reporting going on there—reported Thursday that pro-Trump “activists” (a rather generous and perverse use of that word, I think) who say they’re working with the Trump administration “are circulating a 17-page draft executive order that claims China interfered in the 2020 election as a basis to declare a national emergency that would unlock extraordinary presidential power over voting.” The plan would mandate voter ID and ban mail-in balloting, and calls on Trump to issue an executive order announcing both measures.

The premise, it almost goes without saying, is a total lie. China did not interfere in the 2020 election. Trump and his people often said so, the implication being that China interfered on behalf of its old friend Joe Biden and his son Hunter, whose alleged business dealings in China left his father hopelessly compromised.

None of it was true. Hunter Biden did have some business interests in China, but nothing that reached his father. The U.S. intelligence services studied foreign influence in the 2020 election, and in March 2021, the government released an intelligence report concluding that China “considered but did not deploy influence efforts intended to change the outcome of the US Presidential election.”

In fact, the report found—and isn’t this a surprise?—the biggest foreign actor in 2020 was Russia, trying to help Trump: “The primary effort the IC [intelligence community] uncovered revolved around a narrative—that Russian actors began spreading as early as 2014—alleging corrupt ties between President Biden, his family, and other U.S. officials and Ukraine.”

But Trump administration officials—including Attorney General Bill Barr—pushed the China lie aggressively. So it’s very easy for Trump today to invoke China again and lie that the threat of even greater Chinese interference in 2026 demands that he take emergency measures.

With respect to those measures, he has no power whatsoever to impose them. As anti-Trump legal expert Norm Eisen put it on Morning Joe Friday: “Just as the Supreme Court struck his supposed emergency powers over tariffs, he has even less here.” That is true. But remember: Between tariff “Liberation Day” (April 2, 2025) and the day the Supremes finally ruled against Trump on tariffs (February 20, 2026), more than 10 months passed.

Trump has no power to “decree” that voters must present ID or to end mail-in balloting. But that doesn’t mean he can’t at least try both. Under the Insurrection Act or some other dusty statute, he can declare a state of emergency. Then he can decide that said state permits, nay requires, him to take extraordinary measures. On October 5, say, that might mean outlawing early voting. By October 13, it might mean no mail-in voting. By October 29, a reminder that all voters must present ID to vote. And by Sunday, November 1, two days before the election—an announcement that all these “reasonable” measures have alas failed, and he is now forced, against his will, to postpone the election.

Have trouble seeing that happen? I didn’t think so.

As for the media takeover: What I didn’t foresee in 2024 was the aggressiveness of Trump patsy David Ellison, the CEO of Paramount Skydance, in trying to take over both CBS and CNN. But he wouldn’t stop. Netflix bid $83 billion. Ellison topped that this week with a bid of $111 billion, and Netflix dropped out.

And somewhere in there, Ellison attended Trump’s State of the Union address, and Trump took to social media to “urge” Netflix to remove Obama and Biden administration official Susan Rice from its board. I once would have written that this is how things go in tinpot dictatorships, or in Viktor Orbán’s Hungary. But today, it’s how things go in the United States of America.

So picture this. It’s October. The mystery Trump accuser, the one about whom those FBI files have strangely gone missing, has come forward. Her allegations against the president of the United States are lurid and, to most of the country, credible. Trump is down to 29 percent in the polls. The economy is still limping. The polls all indicate that the GOP is in for a historic thrashing. Democrats are favored to win the House and, by now, are odds-on to maybe take the Senate too—their candidates in Alaska and Texas have now pulled slightly ahead.

And Trump declares a state of emergency and postpones the election. The Supreme Court issues an emergency stay, saying he can’t do that. But the court has no army, and Trump does, along with a handful of lickspittle governors who just might follow him down whatever dark path he plows.

That, not to mince words, is a coup d’état. Will he get away with it? I don’t know, but having effective control over how it is presented to viewers of CBS and CNN, and readers of the Bezos-owned Washington Post, to say nothing of the already vast pro-Trump propaganda empire of Fox News and the rest, will certainly make it easier.

That’s how fascism descends. And it’s becoming less and less hypothetical by the week.

This article first appeared in Fighting Words, a weekly TNR newsletter authored by editor Michael Tomasky.
https://trib.al/2mVobyP

05/29/2026

AI’S IMPLEMENTAIN BY POLICE DEPARTMENTS TO REDUCE CLAIMS-GOOD TOOL FOR POLICE DEPARTMENTS TO REDUCE CLAIMS AND A GOOD TOOL FOR PLAINTIFF’S FOR DEPARTMENTS THAT FAILED TO IMPLIMENT IT OR FAIL TO USE IT PROPERLY

BY GLENN C, McGOVERN ATTORNEY
METAIRIE, LA.

Body worn cameras by police officers have become a standard of care for police departments. However, I am shocked that most departments do not review 99% of the body cam footage. The reason given is there is so much volume of video the police departments do not have the time nor manpower to review the footage unless there is an incident. This bodycam footage can be a good teaching tool for police departments. It can also help police departments defend its actions in litigation. It can also help plaintiffs establish that police procedures and national law enforcement standards were in fact violated.
AI PLATFORMS REDUCE BAD POLICE BEHAVIOR-
A study of the AI Truleo system of body cam monitoring shows that a study conducted by the University of South Carolina found that using AI technology to review body-worn camera footage drastically reduces unprofessional behaviors by law enforcement personnel while increasing positive, professional behaviors. Many departments, such as Seattle Police Department have reported an substantial decrease in litigation claims by 36% according to vendors such as Truleo.
These AI tools are expanding. Axon, Motorola, Veritone are expanding AI features for transcription/ redaction and multi-source analysis. Future tools may include in the future CAD/911 radio and Body Worn Camera footage with automatic alerting and review queues.
WHY THEY WORK TO REDUCE BAD BEHAVIOR-
The Truleo system downloads all Body Worn Camera video to the cloud such as AXXON’s storage system. It is stored at substantial costs but not usually fully used to reduce bad police conduct as it is not reviewed unless there is a serious incident or complaint. When the AI is activated by preprogrammed events, like a a gunshot or Taser going off harming a civilian, the event is automatically flagged and a text message can be sent to a supervisor that can then review what happened. Without the AI System being used, there are missed opportunities to detect and prevent bad police behavior. The reported cost is about $40-$50 per month per officer depending on the size of the police department. Police shootings have not gone down but have increased each year. Systems such as AI Truleo have the ability to reduce such police excess force claims and bad police behavior.
Why incidents of excess force decrease-
I have been doing police civil rights cases for 50 years come this October 2026. When I was a baby-lawyer I used to believe it was due to some bad actors, but I have learned most are due to lack of training and mistakes are made due to this lack of training. A policeman in Louisiana only needs about 540 hours of training and can misuse deadly force but a hairdresser need sover 1500 hours of training yet does not cause many deaths due to a bad perm or styling. Makes no sense.
This AI technology for police can reduce excess force by making ongoing recurrent training a part of a policeman’s career—for the protection of the officer, the public and the department.
The AI monitoring system can change bad police behaviors by 1. Early intervention where supervisors get alerts about problems with an officer before it escalates. Officers can be taught based on actual citizen interactions. 2. There is continual accountability since officers know all interactions are being recorded, flagged to a supervisor and reviewed. It’s like having an observer in place 24 hours every day. 3. It enables departments to control risks by detecting repeated patterns of bad conduct so prevent a serious incident before it happens. It is almost like having a Field Training Officer for the rest of the police officer’s work life and to prevent bad Field Training Officers from not coaching properly.
Conclusion-
AI body cam systems like Truleo can detect bad conduct early. It increases the level of police supervision thru a system that is totally independent and unbiased. It can reduce excess force claims and improper police behavior while improving professionalism and compliance.
This brings up two other issues for these systems. 1.) Can failure to use one of these systems be considered to create liability under Monell for deliberate indifference? 2). How can these tools be used by plaintiffs and defendants in litigation 3) How can these tools be used to show prior notice to law enforcement agencies of prior misconduct to prove Monell claims.
We will discuss that in my follow up article in LAJ.

05/29/2026

POLICE K-9 LIABILITY UNDER SECTION 1983:
Fifteen Critical Issues Every Civil Rights Lawyer Should Investigate
By Glenn C. McGovern
Introduction
Police canine units are among the most effective law-enforcement tools available for tracking suspects, conducting building searches, locating missing persons, and apprehending dangerous offenders. Yet canine deployments also produce some of the most severe injuries encountered in modern civil-rights litigation. Victims frequently sustain deep puncture wounds, permanent nerve injuries, muscle loss, infections, psychological trauma, disfigurement, and long-term disability.
Because police dogs are intentionally trained to locate, bite, and hold suspects, courts have been called upon for decades to define the constitutional limits of canine deployments. While federal courts generally classify police canine apprehensions as non-deadly force, they have repeatedly recognized that the improper deployment of a police dog may constitute excessive force under the Fourth Amendment and may expose individual officers and municipalities to substantial liability under 42 U.S.C. §1983.
The constitutional framework governing police canine cases begins with Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989), and Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985). Graham requires courts to evaluate excessive force from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene and directs consideration of:
• The severity of the crime;
• Whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to officers or others;
• Whether the suspect is actively resisting or attempting to flee.
Although courts generally decline to classify canine deployments as deadly force, Garner remains relevant because the degree of force used must always be proportional to the threat presented.
Modern canine litigation increasingly focuses not only on the actions of the handler but also on municipal liability, training deficiencies, supervisory failures, policy inadequacies, and failures to intervene. Video evidence, body-worn cameras, dispatch recordings, GPS tracking data, and canine training records have become critical evidence in nearly every police-dog case.
The following discussion identifies fifteen critical issues every attorney should investigate when evaluating police canine litigation.

1. Did the Suspect Surrender Before the Dog Was Deployed?
Perhaps the single most important question in any canine case is whether the suspect had already surrendered.
Federal courts consistently recognize that deploying a police dog against a suspect who has surrendered, is lying prone, or is otherwise compliant may constitute excessive force.
The constitutional justification for canine force rapidly disappears once a suspect ceases resistance.
Evidence to review includes:
• Body-camera footage
• Dash-camera recordings
• Witness statements
• Dispatch recordings
• Officer reports
• Surveillance video

2. Was a Canine Warning Given?
Many law-enforcement agencies require verbal warnings before deploying a canine.
A typical warning states:
"Police K-9. Come out now or the dog will be released."
Courts often consider the absence of a warning as a significant factor supporting excessive-force liability.
Warnings should be:
• Loud
• Repeated
• Documented
• Given in a language likely understood by the suspect
Failure to provide warnings may support claims against both the handler and municipality.

3. What Was the Severity of the Underlying Crime?
Under Graham, courts consider the seriousness of the offense.
Canine deployments are more likely to be upheld where the suspect is wanted for:
• Armed robbery
• Burglary
• Violent felonies
• Assaults involving weapons
Conversely, courts frequently scrutinize canine deployments involving:
• Traffic offenses
• Misdemeanors
• Property crimes
• Nonviolent offenses
The severity of the offense alone is never dispositive.

4. Did the Suspect Present an Immediate Threat?
Courts consistently recognize that officer safety is a legitimate governmental interest.
Questions include:
• Was the suspect armed?
• Was the suspect hiding?
• Were officers outnumbered?
• Was the suspect threatening violence?
The absence of an immediate threat significantly weakens the justification for canine deployment.

5. Was the Suspect Actively Resisting or Fleeing?
Canine deployments are generally upheld where a suspect:
• Runs from officers;
• Hides in buildings;
• Refuses commands;
• Attempts escape.
However, once resistance ends, continued canine force becomes increasingly difficult to justify.

6. Did the Handler Maintain Control of the Dog?
A handler is expected to maintain effective control over the canine.
Investigate:
• Recall reliability;
• Obedience certifications;
• Handler training records;
• Prior incidents involving loss of control.
A canine that cannot be recalled or released promptly creates significant liability exposure.

7. How Long Did the Bite Continue?
Modern excessive-force cases frequently focus on bite duration.
Courts increasingly recognize that even an initially justified deployment may become unconstitutional if officers allow a dog to continue biting after control is established.
Key evidence includes:
• Video timestamps;
• Medical records;
• Bite reports;
• Handler testimony.

8. Did Officers Order the Dog to Release?
Failure-to-release cases are among the fastest-growing areas of canine litigation.
Questions include:
• When was the release command given?
• How many release commands were required?
• Did the dog obey immediately?
• Was additional force used while the dog continued biting?
Repeated unsuccessful release commands may indicate deficient training.

9. Was the Canine Properly Trained and Certified?
Training records are often the most important documents in canine litigation.
Obtain:
• Certification records;
• Annual evaluations;
• Training logs;
• Decertification notices;
• Corrective training records.
Expired certifications may support municipal liability claims.

10. What Is the Dog's Bite Ratio?
Several courts have discussed bite ratios when evaluating canine programs.
A high bite ratio may suggest:
• Poor training;
• Aggressive deployment practices;
• Deficient supervision;
• Improper handler influence.
Discovery should seek deployment statistics for both the canine and handler.

11. Was There Negligent Training or Supervision?
Under Monell, municipalities may be liable where policymakers fail to adequately train or supervise canine units.
Plaintiffs should examine:
• Use-of-force instruction;
• Canine deployment policies;
• Warning procedures;
• Release procedures;
• Disciplinary records.
Repeated incidents may establish deliberate indifference.

12. Was There Ratification by Supervisors?
Municipal liability may arise when supervisors approve unconstitutional conduct after the fact.
Evidence may include:
• Internal affairs investigations;
• Command reviews;
• Use-of-force audits;
• Failure to discipline.
A pattern of approving questionable deployments may support Monell liability.

13. Was Adequate Medical Care Provided After the Bite?
Many canine cases involve both excessive-force and medical-care claims.
After deployment, officers should:
• Summon EMS when appropriate;
• Control bleeding;
• Document injuries;
• Obtain medical evaluation.
Failure to provide prompt medical care may create separate constitutional violations.

14. What Does the Body-Camera Evidence Show?
Modern police-dog litigation is increasingly driven by video evidence.
Body-camera footage often resolves disputes regarding:
• Warnings;
• Surrender;
• Resistance;
• Bite duration;
• Release commands.
Video frequently becomes the most persuasive evidence at summary judgment and trial.

15. Does the Municipality's Policy Comply With Constitutional Standards?
The final inquiry concerns departmental policy itself.
Investigate whether the agency has:
• Written canine policies;
• Deployment criteria;
• Warning requirements;
• Release procedures;
• Medical-care requirements;
• Supervisory review procedures.
Policies that fail to address foreseeable constitutional risks may support municipal liability under Monell.

Municipal Liability Under Monell
Modern canine litigation increasingly targets municipalities rather than individual officers alone.
Under Monell v. Department of Social Services, municipalities may be liable when constitutional violations result from:
• Official policy;
• Custom or practice;
• Failure to train;
• Failure to supervise;
• Ratification;
• Deliberate indifference.
Plaintiffs should obtain:
• Training records;
• Prior complaints;
• Internal investigations;
• Use-of-force reviews;
• Canine deployment statistics.
Patterns of repeated canine injuries often become the centerpiece of municipal liability claims.

The Future of Police Canine Litigation
Police canine litigation continues to evolve as body-camera technology, GPS tracking systems, and canine performance analytics provide increasingly objective evidence regarding deployments.
Courts remain reluctant to classify canine deployments as deadly force. Nevertheless, agencies face substantial exposure when officers deploy dogs against compliant suspects, fail to issue warnings, permit prolonged bites, neglect medical care, or operate canine programs without adequate training and supervision.
The most successful police canine cases are rarely won on the severity of the injury alone. Instead, they are won through meticulous examination of policy, training, supervision, warnings, deployment decisions, release procedures, and post-deployment conduct.
Attorneys handling these cases should remember that every canine deployment is judged under the totality of the circumstances. Careful investigation of those circumstances often reveals whether a police dog's bite was a reasonable law-enforcement tool—or an unconstitutional use of force.

05/29/2026

Glenn C. McGovern: Four Decades on the Front Lines of Civil Rights Litigation
By Staff Writer
For more than forty years, Louisiana attorney Glenn C. McGovern has built a career representing people who find themselves in unequal battles against powerful institutions. Whether confronting government misconduct, police abuse, correctional neglect, disability discrimination, employment discrimination, or medical negligence, McGovern has consistently focused his practice on cases where the stakes extend far beyond financial compensation.
His work has taken him into federal and state courtrooms throughout Louisiana and across the country, litigating complex civil-rights and catastrophic-injury cases that often involve constitutional violations, institutional failures, and life-changing injuries.
A Career Defined by Accountability
At the center of McGovern's practice is a simple proposition: public officials, governmental agencies, corporations, and healthcare providers must be held accountable when their actions cause harm.
Over the course of his career, McGovern has represented victims of excessive force, unconstitutional jail conditions, denial of medical care, disability discrimination, wrongful death, and serious medical malpractice. Many of these cases have involved extensive discovery, expert testimony, and years of litigation against well-funded defendants.
His willingness to pursue difficult and controversial cases has earned him a reputation as an attorney who is prepared to challenge established institutions and demand answers when others may not.
Championing Civil Rights
Much of McGovern's work has focused on federal civil-rights litigation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Rehabilitation Act.
His cases have addressed allegations involving:
• Excessive force by law-enforcement officers;
• Failure to provide adequate medical care to detainees and inmates;
• Wrongful arrests and unconstitutional detention;
• Disability discrimination by public entities;
• Failures in police and correctional training and supervision;
• Violations of due process and equal protection rights.
McGovern's litigation frequently examines not only the conduct of individual officers or employees but also the policies, customs, and practices that allow misconduct to occur.
Taking on High-Profile Discrimination Cases
McGovern has also represented employees in significant workplace discrimination and retaliation matters involving race, religion, disability, and protected civil-rights activities.
One notable case involved allegations of anti-Semitic workplace harassment within Jefferson Parish government. The matter drew public attention and highlighted the continuing importance of enforcing federal anti-discrimination laws in public employment. The case ultimately resulted in a settlement following extensive litigation and discovery. The matter was covered by the Gambit Weekly, which identified McGovern as counsel for the plaintiff.
Advocating for the Mentally Ill and Disabled
Throughout his career, McGovern has devoted significant attention to cases involving individuals suffering from mental illness and disabilities.
His litigation has frequently examined whether public agencies, correctional institutions, and healthcare providers adequately accommodated vulnerable individuals and complied with federal disability-rights laws. In these cases, McGovern has argued that constitutional protections are most important when individuals are least able to protect themselves.
His advocacy has contributed to broader conversations concerning jail healthcare, psychiatric treatment, disability accommodations, and the treatment of individuals experiencing mental-health crises.
Medical Malpractice and Catastrophic Injury Litigation
In addition to civil-rights litigation, McGovern has represented clients in complex medical-malpractice and catastrophic-injury cases involving allegations of surgical negligence, delayed diagnosis, hospital errors, and wrongful death.
These matters often require coordination with nationally recognized medical experts and detailed analysis of medical records, hospital procedures, and standards of care.
Colleagues describe McGovern's approach as meticulous, noting his willingness to master technical medical and scientific issues in order to present them effectively to judges and juries.
Publications and Legal Scholarship
Beyond the courtroom, McGovern has written and spoken on issues involving civil rights, law-enforcement accountability, disability law, correctional healthcare, and trial practice.
His articles have explored emerging legal issues affecting law enforcement, public institutions, and individuals with disabilities, helping educate attorneys, public officials, and advocates regarding evolving constitutional and statutory protections.
Educator and Speaker
Over the years, McGovern has participated in legal education programs, professional conferences, and public discussions concerning civil-rights enforcement, litigation strategy, governmental accountability, and disability rights.

05/18/2026

State prosecutors on Monday charged a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent with assault in the January shooting of a Venezuelan immigrant in Minneapolis, an incident that sparked violent protests at the height of the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown. There is no presidential pardon for state criminal charges so this ICE agent if found guilty of perjury and excess force manslaughter or murder will go to jail for a long time. The function of the law is to deter bad conduct by others. This is an important case to keep us all more safe.

04/19/2026

New article on ADA and how it protects persons with mental and physical disabilities by Callan Johns and myself.

02/19/2026

Former patients and their loved ones say North Carolina doctor with a string of malpractice settlements should face more accountability.

02/19/2026

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1a7kFFafwX/
We have handled many cases of lack of medical care in correctional facilities. We have ADA violation cases pending for correctional facilities. Profits over safety over and over again unfortunately. Plus lack of policy and training of correctional staff and lack of competent medical staff. Especially with mentally ill persons is really terrible.

Jason Zong filed a $5 million lawsuit against Washington County and health care company NaphCare.