Digby Law Firm

Directions Website Contact the business

Digby Law Firm I represent people the way I would want to be represented.

I give honest, knowledgeable advice and couple that with, aggressive, hard-nosed, and most importantly, successful representation.

10/09/2026

New federal ruling on "FLOCK Cameras": what it means (and what it doesn’t)

A federal judge in the Northern District of Oklahoma just ruled that a deputy’s warrantless search of a month of license plate reader (ALPR/flock camera) data was an unconstitutional search under the Fourth Amendment.

The facts: A deputy saw a Mazda with a California plate on an Oklahoma highway. With no other reason to suspect anything, he ran the plate through ALPR systems, which showed a roughly month-long history of the car’s movements. He then followed the car, pulled it over for traffic violations, extended the stop, and ultimately searched the vehicle.

The holding: In United States v. Kyle, No. 26-CR-00189-SEH (N.D. Okla. Oct. 1, 2026), the court granted the motion to suppress on two independent grounds:

🔹 The stop was unlawfully extended. The officer had no reasonable suspicion to hold the driver after returning her license.

🔹 The ALPR search violated the Fourth Amendment. Relying on Carpenter and the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Chatrie, the court held that people have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the whole of their physical movements, and that indiscriminate, dragnet-style tracking of every vehicle crosses the line.

IMPORTANT CAVEAT: This is a single district court opinion from Oklahoma. It is not binding law in Arkansas or the Eighth Circuit. The court itself acknowledged that nearly every other court to consider the issue has reached the opposite conclusion, and neither the Tenth Circuit nor the U.S. Supreme Court has decided whether ALPR use is a search. Expect an appeal, and expect this issue to keep developing.

Why it matters: As ALPR networks expand, courts are being asked how far the Fourth Amendment’s protections reach in an era of mass data collection. This opinion is one to watch.

If you or someone you know has been stopped or charged in a case involving ALPR data, the details matter. Contact our office to discuss your situation.

For everyone in Pulaski County this is a great chance to "Get Right with the Court."This Saturday, September 26th, if yo...
09/24/2026

For everyone in Pulaski County this is a great chance to "Get Right with the Court."

This Saturday, September 26th, if you have warrants for failure to pay fines or child support or misdemeanor failures to appear, you can show up get fines potentially reduced, and warrants recalled with no fear of arrest.

This is a great service that the courts are offering. If you qualify, take advantage. 

09/03/2026

SENSITIVE/EMOTIONALLY CHARGED POST - Do not read if you are not interested in the legal basis for a recent 7th Federal Circuit Court of Appeals opinion involving AI created images.

7th Circuit's Anderegg Ruling: The Legal Reasoning, Explained

On August 25, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit issued its decision in United States v. Anderegg — and the legal reasoning behind it is more narrow and precedent-bound than headlines suggest.

The core legal question: Can the government criminalize private, in-home possession of obscene AI-generated images that don't depict a real child?

The two precedents that controlled the outcome:

Stanley v. Georgia (1969) — established that the First Amendment protects an individual's right to possess obscene material privately in their own home.
Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (2002) — struck down a federal ban on "virtual" child po*******hy that doesn't involve real children, reasoning that such images, however disturbing, don't carry the same government interest in preventing harm to an actual victim.

The court's holding: Because Anderegg's images (created with Stable Diffusion) didn't depict a real, identifiable child, the panel found itself bound by these two precedents. It ruled the possession statute — 18 U.S.C. § 1466A(b)(1) — unconstitutional as applied to this specific charge.

This is a narrow, "as-applied" ruling, not a broad one:

The statute itself wasn't struck down.
Only the possession charge was affected.
The three other charges against Anderegg — production, distribution, and transferring the material to a minor — remain pending and untouched by this decision.

The notable concurrence: Two of the three judges (Lee and Kolar) wrote separately to flag that the legal landscape has shifted since 2002. They noted that modern AI-generated images are now "virtually indistinguishable" from real abuse material, and that some training datasets have been linked to real CSAM — potentially undermining the assumptions Free Speech Coalition relied on. They explicitly invited the Supreme Court to revisit the issue, writing that lower courts aren't free to redraw precedent on their own.

Bottom line: The panel felt legally compelled by binding Supreme Court precedent, even while expressing discomfort with where that precedent leads in the age of generative AI. This sets up a strong candidate for Supreme Court review.

It is important to note that Arkansas criminalizes AI generated CSAM. Arkansas is not in the 7th circuit, so this is not binding law on Arkansas. It will be interesting to note whether the U.S. Supreme Court takes up the issue.

This post is only to educate people on how our Courts are dealing with Aritficial Intelligence in real world scenarios.

08/21/2026

Amazing Client Success Story!!!

This success story is not about how great the DLF did in representing this client, but the amazing change in their life the client did. Recently in federal court, a client was facing a guideline sentence of about 5 years and was originally facing 10 years to life for distributing Fentanyl. After arrest, the client completely turned their life around, turning their life over to Jesus, getting clean, working two jobs, and became a first time, loving, caring parent.

As the Court stated, in pronouncing what was the lightest sentence the Court had ever handed down for a charge this serious, the client was one of the very rare success stories that completely changed their life around, prior to being sentenced.

The client was sentenced to 1 year and 1 day in federal prison. This was one of those times where both the Court and prosecuting attorney acknowledged the great strides the client had made.

08/13/2026

BREAKING: Suppressor Registration Requirements Just Ended — Here's What It Means for You

Big news for gun owners. On August 5, 2026, a federal judge in Texas ruled that the National Fi****ms Act's registration requirements for suppressors, short-barreled ri**es, and short-barreled sh****ns are unconstitutional. And now it's official: the DOJ let its appeal window close without filing — Rep. Andrew Clyde announced the Trump administration confirmed the DOJ will not appeal the ruling.
R***e Configurator

Here's the plain-English version:

Back in 1934, Congress could only regulate suppressors because it was collecting a $200 tax every time one was made or transferred — that tax was the legal foundation for the whole registration system (Form 4s, fingerprints, ATF approval, the works). Last year, Congress zeroed out that tax. The judge ruled that once there's no tax to collect, there's no constitutional basis left to force you through registration to buy or make one.

What changed as of August 13, 2026:
The injunction covers members of GOA and five other plaintiff groups, plus customers of B&T USA, PSA, and SilencerCo — if you fall in one of those categories, ATF is barred from enforcing NFA registration against you for suppressors, SBRs, SBSs, and AOWs.
GOA members have already completed the first suppressor purchases without filing a Form 4 or complying with other enjoined NFA provisions.
The DOJ's decision not to appeal removes the biggest source of uncertainty — but the formal appeal window doesn't fully close until early October, so it's not 100% locked in yet.

What did NOT change:
❌ Machine guns and destructive devices — Congress left that $200 tax in place, so those remain fully regulated.
❌ The Gun Control Act still applies — suppressor sales still have to go through an FFL, background checks still apply.
❌ State law still applies. If your state independently regulates or bans suppressors, this ruling doesn't touch that.
❌ If you're not a member of one of the covered organizations or a customer of the named retailers, you may not yet be covered by the injunction — talk to an attorney before assuming this applies to you.

This is one of the biggest wins for gun owners in decades, but the legal landscape is still moving fast. If you have questions about how this affects you personally — especially if you're facing an existing NFA-related charge — give our office a call.

(This post is for informational purposes only and is not legal advice.)

08/10/2026

It's been a whirlwind few weeks here at the Digby Law Firm — trial after trial set and prepared for, and result after result for our clients.

Here's a look at what we've helped our clients achieve recently:

⚖️ R**e & 2 Counts of Permitting Abuse — At trial, the jury returned a not guilty verdict on the r**e charge. Client received 5 years probation on the permitting counts.

⚖️ Capital Murder & 13 Counts of Unlawful Discharge of a Fi***rm — With the jury waiting to be sat, our client accepted a plea to a lesser charge — just 4 years until parole eligibility.

⚖️ Attempted Capital Murder — Negotiated a plea to a lesser charge before trial, with our client eligible for release in 2 years.

⚖️ Attempted Murder, 1st Degree — One week before trial, secured a plea to 6 years probation with expungement on a Class D Felony.

⚖️ Commercial Burglary & Possession of a Controlled Substance — After the client spent 5 months in jail under previous counsel, we negotiated a plea to misdemeanor ma*****na possession and got him released immediately.

⚖️ Aggravated Assault & Terroristic Threatening — The day before trial, the prosecution declined to move forward and the case was dismissed.

⚖️ Aggravated Assault & Endangering the Welfare of a Minor — Two days before jury trial, the prosecution dropped the case entirely.

The takeaway? Be willing to go to trial. Have an attorney who will fight for you every step of the way. And it never hurts to have the Digby Law Firm in your corner.

07/29/2026

Big development out of the 8th Circuit today for right to possess fi***rmes.

In United States v. Striplin (July 28, 2026) — a case with real implications for anyone facing a federal charge under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), the "unlawful drug user in possession of a fi***rm" statute.

The background: After a high-speed chase in Independence, MO, police found a pistol and drug paraphernalia in Striplin's car. He admitted to regular m**h use. He was convicted after a bench trial and sentenced to 33 months. On appeal, he argued the statute violated his Second Amendment rights as applied to him.

Why it matters: For years, prosecutors have leaned on the idea that Congress can categorically strip gun rights from anyone who uses drugs, full stop. The 8th Circuit just made clear that's not the law. Citing its own recent decision in United States v. Cooper and the Supreme Court's United States v. Hemani (2026), the panel held that § 922(g)(3) only survives a Second Amendment challenge in narrower circumstances — specifically, when the person's drug use makes them act dangerously or mentally unstable, not simply because they use drugs at all.

The takeaway: If you or someone you know is facing a § 922(g)(3) charge in Arkansas, Missouri, or elsewhere in the 8th Circuit, this case matters. The government can no longer treat "drug user + gun" as an automatic conviction. It has to show your specific conduct falls within the narrow, historically grounded categories the courts have now defined. That's a meaningfully higher bar — and a real opening for the defense.

If you're facing a federal fi***rms charge, don't wait to get ahead of it. Reach out to our office to talk through your options.

07/07/2026

ASSOCIATE ATTORNEY POSITION OPEN

The Digby Law Firm in Benton, Arkansas, has an immediate opening for an associate attorney. This is an opportunity to join a leading, growing team and office, participate fully in case strategy and development, and learn innovative trial strategies in consequential state and federal criminal cases from a seasoned criminal trial attorney. The ideal candidate will have practiced law for a minimum of 2 years. Prior courtroom participation in evidentiary hearings is a must. Criminal trial experience is preferred. Candidates must be active members of the Arkansas Bar in good standing. Digby Law Firm is a full-service law firm providing quality legal services in a variety of practice areas, but with a focus on criminal defense.

The Digby Law Firms offers competitive salary based on qualifications and experience; paid vacation and health benefits. Candidates can expect a caseload of approximately 50 cases.

Cover letters and resumes may be submitted to Bobby Digby at [email protected]

07/02/2026

🚨 BREAKING: The Supreme Court Just Ruled That Your Phone's Location Data Is Protected by the Fourth Amendment

On June 29, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark 6-3 decision in Chatrie v. United States — and if you carry a smartphone, this ruling directly affects your constitutional rights.

📍 WHAT HAPPENED?
In 2019, police in Virginia used a "geofence warrant" to demand that Google hand over location data for every cell phone within 150 meters of a bank robbery. Google's Location History feature logs your position roughly every two minutes — often accurate to within 20 meters — and can even identify which floor of a building you're on. Law enforcement used that data to identify and ultimately arrest Okello Chatrie.

⚖️ WHAT DID THE COURT RULE?
The Supreme Court held that when police obtain your cell phone location data — even from a third-party tech company like Google — that constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment. You have a reasonable expectation of privacy in where your phone has been, and the government cannot simply demand that data without satisfying the Constitution's warrant requirements.

The Court sent the case back to the lower court to determine whether the geofence warrant at issue actually met those requirements — including whether it was sufficiently particular and supported by probable cause at each step of its three-stage process.

WHY THIS MATTERS FOR YOU:
✅ Geofence warrants that sweep up data on everyone in an area face serious constitutional challenges
✅ The "third-party doctrine" — the old rule that data shared with a company has no Fourth Amendment protection — continues to erode for sensitive location information
✅ Cases built on location data obtained without a proper warrant may be vulnerable to suppression
✅ This builds on Carpenter v. United States (2018) and extends Fourth Amendment protections further into the digital age

If you or someone you know is facing charges where law enforcement used location data as evidence, the validity of how that evidence was obtained matters — a lot.

06/18/2026

A Major Second Amendment Decision from the U.S. Supreme Court:

Today, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in United States v. Hemani, holding that the federal government cannot automatically strip a person of their Second Amendment rights solely because they are a regular user of ma*****na.

The case involved a Texas man who admitted to using ma*****na several times a week and possessed a fi***rm in his home. The government prosecuted him under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), a federal law that prohibits fi***rm possession by unlawful users of controlled substances.

In a 7-2 decision, the Court held that the prosecution violated the Second Amendment. Applying the framework established in Bruen and Rahimi, the Court found that the government failed to identify a historical tradition that would justify automatically disarming all regular users of controlled substances without any showing that they are dangerous, violent, intoxicated, or incapable of managing their affairs.

Importantly, the Court did not hold that all fi***rm restrictions involving drug use are unconstitutional. The Court specifically left open questions involving addicts, individuals who are actively intoxicated, or situations where the government can prove a person's drug use makes them dangerous.

The decision is another significant development in the Supreme Court's ongoing effort to define the scope of the Second Amendment and the government's ability to restrict fi***rm possession based on status rather than conduct.

Address

109 W. South Street
Benton, AR
72015

Website

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Digby Law Firm posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Contact The Business

Send a message to Digby Law Firm:

Shortcuts

Share

Category