Civil Rights & Police Misconduct

Protecting Constitutional Rights and Holding Wrongdoers Accountable

Police officers and other government officials are entrusted with substantial authority. That authority does not permit them to use unnecessary force, make unlawful arrests, conduct unconstitutional searches, fabricate evidence, deny necessary medical care, discriminate, retaliate against protected speech, or conceal misconduct.

A badge does not place an officer above the law. Police-misconduct cases can be difficult. Government agencies may control the body-camera footage, dispatch recordings, internal reports, personnel records, physical evidence, and witness information needed to determine what occurred. Official reports may omit important facts, minimize the force used, or place unjustified blame on the injured person. The Westmoreland Law Firm represents individuals and families in civil-rights cases involving excessive force, police shootings, unlawful arrests, unconstitutional searches, jail misconduct, custodial deaths, discriminatory policing, retaliation, and other abuses of government authority.

We investigate the incident independently, preserve critical evidence, identify every responsible officer and public entity, and pursue accountability under federal and California law.

​​

WHAT IS A CIVIL-RIGHTS CLAIM?

Federal law allows a person to pursue a civil action when someone acting under color of state law deprives that person of rights protected by the United States Constitution or federal law. These cases are commonly brought under 42 U.S.C. section 1983. Section 1983 may apply when a police officer, sheriff’s deputy, jail employee, correctional officer, probation officer, school police officer, public official, or other government actor violates a federally protected right while exercising government authority.

​

Civil-rights claims may involve violations of:

• The Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures

• The First Amendment right to speak, assemble, protest, petition, and record matters of public concern

• The Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process and equal protection

• The Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment for convicted persons

• Federal statutes protecting civil rights

• Rights protected by the California Constitution and California statutes

A civil-rights case is separate from any internal investigation, criminal prosecution, civilian complaint, or disciplinary proceeding. An officer does not need to be criminally charged or disciplined before an injured person may pursue a civil claim.

​​

EXCESSIVE FORCE

Law enforcement officers may use only force that is legally justified under the circumstances. Whether force was excessive generally depends on the totality of the circumstances known to the officer at the time. Relevant considerations may include:

• The severity of the suspected offense

• Whether the person presented an immediate threat

• Whether the person was actively resisting

• Whether the person was attempting to flee

• The amount and type of force used

• Whether the person was armed

• Whether the officer gave warnings

• Whether the officer had time to use de-escalation techniques

• Whether less dangerous alternatives were reasonably available

• The number of officers present

• The person’s age, size, physical condition, disability, or mental-health condition

• Whether the person was already restrained or under control

• The conduct of the officers leading up to the use of force

• The duration of the force

• Whether officers continued using force after any threat had ended

An arrest or detention does not give officers unlimited authority to inflict pain or injury. Excessive-force cases may involve:

• Punching, kicking, or striking

• Baton strikes

• Takedowns and body slams

• Knee strikes

• Head strikes

• Tasers and electronic-control devices

• Pepper spray and chemical agents

• Beanbag rounds and other less-lethal projectiles

• Police dogs

• Carotid restraints, chokeholds, or neck restraints

• Pressure applied to the back, chest, or neck

• Prolonged prone restraint

• Handcuffs applied excessively tightly

• Force used against a restrained person

• Force used against a person who has surrendered

• Force used against a person experiencing a medical or mental-health crisis

• Deadly force

The fact that an officer was permitted to make an arrest does not automatically establish that the manner in which the arrest was carried out was reasonable.

​​

POLICE SHOOTINGS AND DEADLY FORCE

Deadly force includes force that creates a substantial risk of causing death or serious bodily injury. Firearms are the most obvious example, but other forms of force may also become deadly depending on how they are used. California law recognizes that every person has the right to be free from excessive force by officers acting under color of law. An officer generally may use deadly force only when the officer reasonably believes it is necessary:

• To defend against an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury; or

• In specified circumstances, to apprehend a fleeing person whom the officer reasonably believes will cause death or serious bodily injury unless immediately apprehended.

When feasible, officers generally should identify themselves and warn that deadly force may be used before shooting a fleeing person.

Deadly force ordinarily cannot be justified merely because:

• A person is running away

• A person refuses to follow a command

• A person possesses an object that does not create an imminent threat

• An officer fears possible future harm

• A person poses a danger only to themselves

• A person committed a nonviolent offense

• An officer created or unnecessarily escalated the confrontation

Police-shooting cases require immediate preservation of body-camera footage, surveillance video, dispatch recordings, firearm evidence, scene photographs, medical records, autopsy evidence, witness statements, training materials, and prior complaints involving the officers.

​​

TASERS AND ELECTRONIC-CONTROL DEVICES

A Taser is not harmless. Electronic-control devices can cause falls, burns, cardiac complications, neurological injuries, secondary trauma, and death.

Potentially excessive Taser use may include:

• Tasing a person who poses no immediate threat

• Tasing a person who is already restrained

• Repeatedly activating a Taser after the person is under control

• Tasing a person who is unable to comply

• Tasing a person experiencing a seizure or medical emergency

• Tasing a person near traffic, water, a ledge, or another fall hazard

• Tasing a person covered with flammable material

• Using a Taser as punishment

• Using a Taser solely to obtain faster compliance

• Failing to provide medical evaluation after deployment

An officer’s description of a Taser as “less lethal” does not resolve whether its use was reasonable under the circumstances.

​​

POLICE DOG ATTACKS

Police dogs can cause severe puncture wounds, muscle damage, nerve injuries, disfigurement, infection, permanent disability, and death. A civil-rights claim may arise when officers:

• Deploy a police dog without sufficient justification

• Fail to provide an adequate warning before deployment

• Release a dog against a person who does not pose an immediate threat

• Allow a dog to continue biting after the person is under control

• Use a dog against a person who has surrendered

• Deploy a dog against a child, bystander, or mistaken suspect

• Fail to promptly command the dog to release

• Use a dog as punishment or intimidation

• Fail to provide prompt medical care after the attack

The length of the bite, the commands given, the officer’s control over the dog, and the person’s conduct during the encounter may be important evidence.

​

FAILURE TO INTERVENE

An officer who witnesses another officer using clearly unlawful force may have a duty to intervene when the officer has a realistic opportunity to do so. Failure-to-intervene claims may arise when an officer:

• Watches another officer repeatedly strike a restrained person

• Fails to stop force after the person has surrendered

• Allows a police dog to continue biting

• Permits prolonged pressure on a person’s back, neck, or chest

• Allows force to continue after a person becomes unconscious

• Fails to stop sexual misconduct by another officer

• Participates in concealing or misrepresenting the misconduct

• Discourages another officer from reporting what occurred

An officer may be responsible even when that officer did not personally deliver the blow, fire the weapon, or initiate the misconduct.

​​

UNLAWFUL STOPS AND DETENTIONS

The Fourth Amendment protects individuals from unreasonable government seizures. Police generally need an objective, legally sufficient basis to detain a person. A stop cannot ordinarily be based solely on a hunch, stereotype, protected activity, or refusal to answer voluntary questions. An unlawful detention may involve:

• Stopping a person without reasonable suspicion

• Prolonging a traffic stop without legal justification

• Detaining a person because of race, ethnicity, religion, gender, or appearance

• Detaining someone for recording police activity

• Using handcuffs or placing a person in a patrol vehicle without adequate justification

• Continuing a detention after its lawful purpose has ended

• Detaining a witness as though the witness were a suspect

• Conducting an investigative stop as a pretext for harassment

• Detaining an individual based on knowingly false information

A brief encounter may become an unlawful detention when, considering the circumstances, a reasonable person would not feel free to leave or terminate the encounter.

​​

FALSE ARREST AND FALSE IMPRISONMENT

Police generally need probable cause to make an arrest. False-arrest claims may arise when officers:

• Arrest a person without probable cause

• Arrest the wrong person

• Rely on information they know is false

• Ignore readily available evidence showing innocence

• Arrest a person for conduct protected by the Constitution

• Manufacture an offense after an encounter begins

• Misrepresent statements or observations to justify an arrest

• Continue holding a person after officers learn that the basis for detention is invalid

• Detain a person longer than legally permitted

The fact that charges were filed does not automatically establish that the arrest was lawful. Likewise, dismissal of criminal charges does not automatically prove that the arrest was unlawful.

The entire factual record must be examined.

​​

UNLAWFUL SEARCHES AND SEIZURES

The Constitution protects people, homes, vehicles, electronic devices, and personal property from unreasonable searches and seizures. Potential violations include:

• Entering a home without a warrant or valid exception

• Searching a person without legal justification

• Conducting an unlawful vehicle search

• Searching a cellphone without lawful authority

• Seizing property without probable cause

• Obtaining a warrant through false or misleading statements

• Omitting material information from a warrant application

• Exceeding the scope of a warrant

• Conducting an unnecessarily destructive search

• Retaining seized property without justification

• Using probation or parole status as a pretext to search other persons or property

• Conducting an invasive search without sufficient justification

A signed warrant does not automatically insulate officers from liability when the warrant was obtained through intentional or reckless misrepresentations or material omissions.

​​

FABRICATED EVIDENCE AND FALSE POLICE REPORTS

Government officials may not deliberately fabricate evidence or use false information to deprive a person of liberty. Misconduct may include:

• Falsifying a police report

• Claiming a person possessed a weapon when no weapon existed

• Planting drugs, weapons, or other evidence

• Altering body-camera or surveillance evidence

• Concealing favorable evidence

• Pressuring witnesses to provide false statements

• Misrepresenting witness identifications

• Omitting facts that contradict the officer’s account

• Falsely claiming that a person resisted arrest

• Coordinating reports to conceal excessive force

• Providing false testimony

• Destroying or failing to preserve evidence

Official reports should be compared against video, audio, forensic evidence, medical records, dispatch data, witness testimony, and the officers’ prior statements.​

MALICIOUS PROSECUTION AND WRONGFUL CRIMINAL CHARGES

A civil-rights claim may arise when officers or other officials cause criminal proceedings to be initiated or continued without probable cause and for an improper purpose. Potential misconduct may include:

• Submitting fabricated evidence to prosecutors

• Concealing evidence that supports innocence

• Making deliberately false statements

• Pressuring prosecutors to file unsupported charges

• Continuing to pursue charges after learning that the evidence is false

• Charging a person in retaliation for protected speech or a complaint against police

• Manufacturing probable cause to justify earlier misconduct

Malicious-prosecution claims are fact-specific and may depend on how the criminal case ended, the role of each official, and whether independent prosecutorial judgment was improperly influenced.

​​

RETALIATION FOR SPEECH, PROTEST, OR RECORDING POLICE

The First Amendment protects many forms of speech and expressive activity. Police and government officials generally may not arrest, threaten, use force against, or otherwise retaliate against someone because that person:

• Criticized an officer

• Filed a complaint

• Recorded police activity from a lawful location

• Participated in a protest

• Spoke to the media

• Reported government misconduct

• Requested public records

• Refused to stop protected speech

• Supported another person’s civil-rights complaint

• Petitioned a government agency

• Served as a witness against an officer

Protected speech does not give a person the right to obstruct lawful police activity. However, officers cannot transform criticism, disagreement, or documentation of police conduct into a criminal offense merely because they dislike the message.

​​

DISCRIMINATORY POLICING

The law prohibits intentional discrimination by government officials. Discriminatory policing may involve:

• Racial profiling

• Selective traffic stops

• Discriminatory searches

• Unequal enforcement of laws

• Harassment based on race, ethnicity, religion, disability, gender, sexual orientation, or another protected characteristic

• Using slurs or discriminatory statements as part of unlawful conduct

• Treating similarly situated persons differently based on protected status

• Targeting a neighborhood or community without lawful justification

• Failing to protect a person because of prejudice

• Retaliating against individuals who report discrimination

Evidence may include officer statements, body-camera recordings, department data, prior complaints, enforcement statistics, internal communications, and the treatment of similarly situated persons.

​​

MENTAL-HEALTH AND DISABILITY-RELATED ENCOUNTERS

Individuals experiencing a mental-health crisis, developmental disability, neurological condition, hearing impairment, or other disability may have difficulty understanding commands or responding in the manner officers expect. A failure to immediately comply does not always mean that a person is resisting. Potential civil-rights violations may involve:

• Escalating an encounter with a person known to be in crisis

• Misinterpreting disability-related conduct as aggression

• Failing to use reasonably available de-escalation techniques

• Shouting conflicting commands

• Using force against a person unable to understand or comply

• Failing to request trained crisis personnel

• Failing to provide reasonable accommodations when required

• Using deadly force against a person who poses a danger only to themselves

• Punishing involuntary movements or disability-related behavior

• Failing to summon medical assistance

Dispatch information, prior calls, witness statements, medical history known to officers, and department crisis-response policies may be important.​

JAIL AND CUSTODIAL MISCONDUCT

People do not lose their constitutional rights when they are arrested or confined. Civil-rights claims involving jails, detention facilities, or correctional institutions may arise from:

• Excessive force by deputies or correctional officers

• Assaults by other incarcerated persons

• Failure to protect against known threats

• Denial of necessary medical care

• Denial of necessary mental-health treatment

• Suicide-prevention failures

• Improper use of restraints

• Prolonged isolation

• Inhumane conditions

• Denial of food, water, medication, sanitation, or hygiene

• Sexual assault or harassment

• Retaliation for grievances or complaints

• Disability discrimination

• Failure to respond to medical emergencies

• Death in custody

The legal standard may depend on whether the person was a pretrial detainee or had already been convicted.

Custodial cases frequently require review of housing records, classification decisions, medical requests, medication logs, observation records, video, incident reports, staffing levels, prior threats, and written policies.​

DENIAL OF MEDICAL CARE

Officers, deputies, and custodial personnel may not deliberately disregard serious medical needs. Potential violations include:

• Ignoring complaints of chest pain, breathing difficulty, or severe pain

• Failing to respond to signs of a stroke, seizure, overdose, or diabetic emergency

• Delaying emergency medical assistance

• Failing to provide prescribed medication

• Ignoring visible injuries after force was used

• Assuming that a medical emergency is intoxication or noncompliance

• Failing to monitor a person after Taser use or chemical exposure

• Failing to provide mental-health treatment

• Ignoring suicide warnings or known suicide risk

• Withholding medical treatment as punishment

• Falsifying medical-observation records

• Transporting a seriously injured person to jail instead of a hospital

Medical records, jail records, dispatch communications, witness accounts, video, and expert review may establish when the need for treatment became apparent and how officials responded.

​​

SEXUAL MISCONDUCT BY LAW ENFORCEMENT

Sexual contact obtained through force, threats, coercion, detention authority, offers of leniency, or misuse of official power may support serious civil-rights and state-law claims. Misconduct may include:

• Sexual assault

• Sexual battery

• Invasive searches without lawful justification

• Coerced sexual conduct

• Demands for sexual activity in exchange for release or favorable treatment

• Sexual conduct while a person is detained or in custody

• Unnecessary exposure or forced nudity

• Sexually explicit photographs or recordings

• Threats involving arrest, immigration status, children, or criminal charges

• Retaliation after sexual misconduct is reported

• Concealment by supervisors or other officers

A department may bear responsibility when it ignored prior complaints, failed to investigate warning signs, inadequately supervised an officer, or maintained practices that allowed the misconduct to continue.​

DEATHS IN POLICE CUSTODY

A death in custody requires immediate, independent investigation. Custodial deaths may result from:

• Police shootings

• Prolonged restraint

• Positional or compression asphyxia

• Pressure applied to the neck, chest, or back

• Repeated Taser deployment

• Failure to provide medical assistance

• Drug intoxication combined with restraint

• Suicide-prevention failures

• Jail violence

• Untreated illness

• Delayed emergency response

• Dangerous transportation practices

• Failure to monitor an unconscious or unresponsive person

The fact that a coroner identifies a medical condition, intoxication, or other contributing factor does not necessarily eliminate potential liability. Force, restraint, delayed treatment, and official conduct may have caused or contributed to the death. Eligible family members may have wrongful-death claims. The decedent’s estate or successor in interest may also be able to pursue claims that belonged to the decedent before death.

​

THE CALIFORNIA BANE ACT

The Tom Bane Civil Rights Act provides a California civil remedy when a person interferes, or attempts to interfere, with constitutional or statutory rights through threats, intimidation, or coercion. A Bane Act claim may arise from:

• Intentional excessive force

• Coercive unlawful detention

• Threats used to prevent protected speech

• Deliberate interference with constitutional rights

• Sexual misconduct under color of authority

• Threats intended to prevent reporting of police misconduct

• Retaliatory use of government power

• Coercive conduct accompanying an unlawful search or arrest

Potential remedies may include damages, statutory relief, injunctive relief, attorney’s fees, and other relief authorized by law. The requirements of a Bane Act claim are distinct from those governing a federal section 1983 claim.

​

WHEN CAN A CITY OR COUNTY BE HELD RESPONSIBLE?

A city, county, or other local government is not automatically liable under federal civil-rights law merely because it employed the officer involved. Municipal liability may arise when the constitutional violation was caused by:

• An official policy

• A longstanding custom or practice

• A decision by an authorized final policymaker

• Deliberately inadequate training

• Deliberately inadequate supervision or discipline

• Failure to investigate known misconduct

• Ratification of unconstitutional conduct

• Repeated tolerance of similar violations

• A code of silence

• A failure to track or address prior complaints

• Policies encouraging aggressive or unconstitutional enforcement

• Failure to implement necessary use-of-force safeguards

Relevant evidence may include:

• Prior complaints and lawsuits

• Internal-affairs records

• Discipline histories

• Officer training records

• Use-of-force reviews

• Department policies

• Civilian oversight findings

• Government reports

• Statistical patterns

• Communications between supervisors

• Prior incidents involving the same officers

• Evidence that supervisors approved or concealed the conduct

California law may also provide separate grounds for holding a public entity responsible for conduct committed by employees within the scope of their employment.

​​

DOES QUALIFIED IMMUNITY PREVENT EVERY CLAIM?

No. Government officials may raise qualified immunity as a defense to certain federal civil-rights claims. The defense generally concerns whether the official violated a federal right that was clearly established under the circumstances.

Qualified immunity does not mean that officers are automatically immune from accountability. The defense:

• Does not determine whether misconduct actually occurred

• Does not necessarily apply to every defendant

• Does not apply to municipalities in the same manner as individual officers

• Does not automatically bar California statutory or tort claims

• May depend heavily on the specific facts and existing legal precedent

Civil-rights cases should be evaluated based on the precise conduct, constitutional right, available evidence, and law in effect at the time.

​​

DOES AN INTERNAL-AFFAIRS FINDING CONTROL THE CIVIL CASE?

No. A police department may conclude that an officer acted within policy even when the conduct violated constitutional or statutory law. Internal investigations may be limited by:

• Incomplete witness interviews

• Reliance on officer-written reports

• Failure to obtain independent evidence

• Conflicts of interest

• Narrow department policies

• Credibility determinations favoring officers

• Delayed investigation

• Missing or overwritten evidence

• Failure to examine prior complaints

• A focus on policy rather than legal liability

A finding that a complaint was “unfounded,” “not sustained,” or “within policy” does not necessarily prevent a civil lawsuit.

Likewise, a prosecutor’s decision not to file criminal charges does not determine whether officers are civilly liable.

WHAT EVIDENCE SHOULD BE PRESERVED?

Important evidence may disappear quickly after a police encounter. Individuals and families should preserve all available:

• Photographs and videos

• Body-camera or dash-camera information

• Surveillance footage

• Social-media recordings

• Medical records

• Ambulance and fire-department records

• Clothing and damaged personal property

• Witness names and contact information

• Police reports and citation documents

• Jail release papers

• Criminal charging documents

• Court records

• Text messages, emails, and voicemails

• Location and cellphone data

• Photographs of the scene

• Photographs showing injuries over time

• Receipts for medical expenses and damaged property

• Employment records showing lost income

• Internal-affairs complaint documents

• Public-records requests and agency responses

A person should document injuries as soon as possible and continue photographing bruising, swelling, wounds, scarring, and other changes during recovery. Written notes should identify:

• The date, time, and location

• Officer names, badge numbers, and agencies

• Commands given

• Statements made by officers

• The sequence of events

• Force used

• Witnesses present

• Medical symptoms

• Requests for treatment

• Property searched or seized

• Criminal charges or citations

• Complaints made after the incident

Evidence should be preserved lawfully and without altering its original form.

​​

BODY-CAMERA FOOTAGE AND POLICE RECORDS

Law-enforcement agencies may possess:

• Body-camera footage

• Dash-camera footage

• Dispatch recordings

• 911 calls

• Radio communications

• Use-of-force reports

• Photographs

• Scene diagrams

• Firearm records

• Taser activation data

• Police-dog deployment records

• Vehicle-location data

• Officer training records

• Internal-affairs documents

• Personnel complaints

• Disciplinary records

• Autopsy and coroner records

Some police records are publicly available under California law, including specified records concerning police shootings, force causing death or great bodily injury, sustained findings of excessive force, failures to intervene, sexual assault, dishonesty, discrimination, unlawful arrests, and unlawful searches. Other records may need to be obtained through formal discovery, court procedures, subpoenas, or evidence-preservation demands. Agencies should receive prompt written notice directing them to preserve video, audio, electronic data, reports, and physical evidence.

​​

WHAT COMPENSATION AND REMEDIES MAY BE AVAILABLE?

Available relief depends on the rights violated, defendants involved, injuries, evidence, and claims asserted.

Potential recovery may include:

• Medical expenses

• Future medical and rehabilitation expenses

• Lost wages

• Loss of future earning capacity

• Physical pain

• Emotional distress

• Anxiety, humiliation, and loss of dignity

• Disability

• Disfigurement and scarring

• Damage to personal property

• Loss of liberty

• Reputational harm when legally recoverable

• Wrongful-death damages

• Survival damages

• Punitive damages against individual defendants when legally supported

• Statutory damages or civil penalties

• Declaratory relief

• Injunctive relief

• Attorney’s fees and litigation costs when authorized by law

Punitive damages are generally not recoverable against a public entity, but they may be available against an individual officer whose conduct satisfies the applicable legal standard. 

​

HOW LONG DO YOU HAVE TO BRING A CIVIL-RIGHTS CLAIM?

Civil-rights cases are governed by strict deadlines. A federal section 1983 claim arising in California is generally subject to California’s two-year personal-injury limitations period. Federal law determines when the federal claim accrues, and tolling or specialized rules may affect the deadline.

California claims against a city, county, police department, sheriff’s department, or other public entity may require presentation of a written government claim before a lawsuit may be filed. Claims involving personal injury or death generally must be presented to the public entity within six months after accrual. If the public entity provides a proper written rejection, the claimant may have only six months from the date of the rejection notice to file suit on claims subject to the Government Claims Act.

A government claim is generally not required before filing a federal section 1983 claim, but it may be required for related California claims arising from the same incident. A person should not assume that any of the following extends the filing deadline:

• An internal-affairs investigation

• A civilian complaint

• A criminal investigation of the officers

• Pending criminal charges against the injured person

• A prosecutor’s review

• A public-records request

• Settlement discussions

• An agency promise to provide records

• A delay in receiving body-camera footage

When criminal charges remain pending, California law may temporarily restrict the filing of certain civil actions involving the same police conduct. That restriction does not necessarily extend the deadline for presenting a government claim.

Prompt legal review is essential.

​​

WHAT SHOULD YOU DO AFTER POLICE MISCONDUCT?

When circumstances permit:

• Obtain medical treatment immediately

• Tell medical providers how the injuries occurred

• Photograph all injuries

• Preserve clothing and damaged property

• Identify witnesses

• Save videos and electronic communications

• Request copies of medical records

• Obtain criminal-defense advice regarding pending charges

• Avoid posting detailed accounts on social media

• Do not alter, crop, or edit original recordings

• Do not provide a recorded statement to an insurer or government representative without legal advice

• Do not sign a release without understanding its effect

• Submit evidence-preservation demands promptly

• Calendar all government-claim and filing deadlines

An injured person should not physically resist officers or place themselves in additional danger merely to challenge unlawful conduct. The legality of the officers’ actions can be contested afterward through appropriate legal proceedings.

​

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

Can I bring a case if I was arrested?

Potentially. A person may have a civil-rights claim even when officers had authority to make an arrest. The manner of arrest, amount of force, search, length of detention, and officers’ conduct must be evaluated separately.

Can I bring a case if criminal charges are still pending?

Possibly, but the civil and criminal cases must be coordinated carefully. Statements in a civil case may affect the criminal matter. California law may also restrict when certain claims against officers or public entities may be filed while related charges remain pending. The government-claim deadline may continue running despite the pending criminal case.

Do charges need to be dismissed before I can sue?

Not for every type of claim. Some claims may proceed regardless of the outcome of the criminal case. Other claims may depend on whether the prosecution ended favorably or whether success would necessarily undermine an existing conviction.

What if the officer’s body camera was not activated?

Failure to activate a body camera does not eliminate a claim. Other evidence may include witness recordings, surveillance footage, dispatch communications, cellphone data, medical evidence, photographs, forensic evidence, and inconsistencies in police reports. The failure to activate or preserve video may itself be relevant.

What if the police report says I resisted?

A statement in a police report is not conclusive. The report should be compared against recordings, injuries, witness testimony, medical records, dispatch evidence, and other objective information. “Resisting” language is sometimes used to justify force after the fact.

What if I did not obey every command?

Failure to comply does not automatically authorize unlimited force. Courts evaluate the nature of the command, whether the person heard and understood it, whether compliance was possible, the threat presented, and the amount of force used.

Can I sue if I was not seriously injured?

Potentially. A constitutional violation may occur without a catastrophic physical injury. Damages may include emotional distress, loss of liberty, humiliation, property damage, and other legally recognized harm. The extent of injury may nevertheless affect the value and practical viability of the case.

Can I sue an individual officer?

Potentially. Officers may be sued in their individual capacities for constitutional violations and certain state-law claims. The public entity may also have indemnification or defense obligations depending on the circumstances.

Can I sue the police department?

The proper defendant may be the city, county, individual officers, supervisors, or another legally recognized entity. Some police departments and sheriff’s departments may not be separate entities capable of being sued. The correct defendants must be determined before filing.

What if the department cleared the officer?

An internal finding does not control the civil case. Department policy, constitutional law, and California civil liability are separate issues.

Can undocumented individuals bring civil-rights claims?

Immigration status does not generally give officers authority to use excessive force, make unlawful arrests, or violate constitutional rights. Immigration-related issues should be handled carefully and confidentially with qualified counsel.

Can a family bring a case when police misconduct causes death?

Potentially. Eligible heirs may have wrongful-death claims, and the estate or successor in interest may have survival and civil-rights claims.Standing, estate procedures, damages, and government-claim requirements should be evaluated immediately.

​​

HOW THE WESTMORELAND LAW FIRM CAN HELP

Civil-rights litigation requires a prompt investigation, careful constitutional analysis, aggressive evidence preservation, and the ability to challenge official accounts.

The Westmoreland Law Firm can:

• Investigate the police encounter independently

• Identify the officers, supervisors, agencies, and public entities involved

• Preserve body-camera footage, dispatch recordings, surveillance video, and electronic data

• Obtain police reports, medical records, autopsy records, and public records

• Interview witnesses

• Analyze use-of-force evidence

• Compare officer reports against video and forensic evidence

• Investigate prior complaints and similar incidents

• Evaluate unlawful-arrest, search, retaliation, discrimination, and excessive-force claims

• Analyze municipal policies, training, supervision, and discipline

• Prepare and present government claims

• Coordinate civil claims with related criminal proceedings

• Retain medical, police-practices, forensic, economic, and other experts when appropriate

• Pursue wrongful-death and survival claims

• Seek compensatory, punitive, statutory, declaratory, and injunctive relief when available

• Litigate claims in state or federal court

• Prepare the case for settlement, mediation, or trial

Civil-rights cases often concern more than compensation. They may expose unconstitutional practices, preserve evidence of misconduct, deter future violations, and require public agencies to answer for abuses of government power.

This page provides general information concerning federal and California law and is not legal advice. Reading this page does not create an attorney-client relationship. Civil-rights claims, immunities, government-claim requirements, filing deadlines, available defendants, and remedies depend on the specific facts of each matter.