Most people who have been beaten by police, falsely arrested, or subjected to a constitutional violation believe they have one option: sue under federal law. They have heard of Section 1983. They know it exists. They may even know it is difficult.
What very few know is that California gives them a second path — one that, in many respects, is stronger than the federal route. It is called the Tom Bane Civil Rights Act. And as of 2026, two significant legal developments have changed what that law can do for victims of police misconduct in California.
If you have been the victim of police abuse in Southern California, you need to understand both.
What Is the Tom Bane Civil Rights Act?
The Tom Bane Civil Rights Act — codified at California Civil Code § 52.1 and commonly called the Bane Act — is California’s primary state-level civil rights law. Enacted in 1987 and named after State Senator Tom Bane, it was originally designed to combat hate crimes. Over time it became a critical tool for police misconduct victims seeking accountability in California courts.
In plain terms, the Bane Act allows you to sue anyone — including law enforcement officers and the agencies that employ them — who interferes with your constitutional or statutory rights through threats, intimidation, or coercion.
The real power of the Bane Act lies in three things: what it protects, what it removes, and what it adds. All three differ meaningfully from a federal § 1983 claim.
How the Bane Act Differs From a Federal § 1983 Claim
Federal law gives police misconduct victims a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. You can sue a police officer in federal court for violating your constitutional rights. Most people assume that is the only option. It is not — and it is not always the best one.
Here is how the Bane Act compares:
- No qualified immunity. This is the most important distinction. In federal court, an officer can invoke qualified immunity — a legal shield that blocks civil liability unless the violated right was “clearly established.” That standard is notoriously hard to overcome and has let officers who committed obvious violations walk away without accountability. Under SB 2, effective January 1, 2022, that defense is unavailable in Bane Act cases. The shield is gone.
- Treble damages. A successful Bane Act plaintiff can recover up to three times actual damages. This is not available under § 1983 and can be decisive in cases where economic losses are hard to quantify.
- Enhanced attorney’s fees. The Bane Act authorizes fee multipliers beyond what § 1983 allows. Because these cases are expensive to litigate, this matters to a victim’s ability to find qualified representation willing to take the case.
- Broader rights coverage. The Bane Act covers rights under both the California Constitution and California state law — not just the federal Constitution — giving victims additional legal footing.
- Wrongful death standing. SB 2 expanded the Bane Act to allow wrongful death claims, so family members can pursue cases when a loved one is killed by police.
For California victims, pairing a Bane Act claim with a § 1983 claim opens more recovery options and faces fewer officer defenses.
What SB 2 Changed — and Why It Matters Now
Senate Bill 2, signed September 30, 2021 and effective January 1, 2022, was the most significant reform to California police accountability law in a generation. Its effects on the Bane Act are substantial and still not widely understood by victims.
Before SB 2, officers sued under the Bane Act could invoke several government immunity provisions that effectively blocked claims before they reached a jury. SB 2 eliminated those shields. Government Code sections 821.6, 844.6, and 845.6 — previously used to protect officers from malicious prosecution and prisoner injury claims — no longer apply to Bane Act suits against peace officers or their employing agencies.
What that means in practice:
- Malicious prosecution claims — being charged with a crime officers knew you did not commit — can now be brought under the Bane Act against both the officer and the employing agency.
- Injuries to prisoners in custody, including excessive force behind bars, can now form the basis of a Bane Act claim.
- The intent standard was clarified: courts now focus on whether the officer acted with reckless disregard for your constitutional rights — a more achievable standard than requiring proof that the officer consciously intended to violate the law.
SB 2 also created California’s first statewide officer decertification process, giving the Peace Officer Standards and Training Commission authority to permanently revoke a bad officer’s certification — changing the accountability landscape for civil litigation.
The November 2025 California Supreme Court Ruling — A Second Shift
The second major development came November 10, 2025, when the California Supreme Court issued its 6-1 ruling in Los Angeles Police Protective League v. City of Los Angeles, striking down California Penal Code § 148.6(a) as unconstitutional.
For decades, California law required anyone filing a formal police misconduct complaint to sign an advisory — in some departments, printed in bold, all-capital letters — warning that filing a knowingly false complaint is a criminal offense. The LAPD’s version read: “IT IS AGAINST THE LAW TO MAKE A COMPLAINT THAT YOU KNOW TO BE FALSE. IF YOU MAKE A COMPLAINT AGAINST AN OFFICER KNOWING THAT IT IS FALSE, YOU CAN BE PROSECUTED ON A MISDEMEANOR CHARGE.”
The court found this unconstitutionally chilled protected speech. The statute was designed to deter false complaints. In practice, it deterred truthful ones — because frightened victims, reading that all-caps criminal warning, chose silence over risk.
Writing for the majority, Associate Justice Joshua Groban found that the statute “burdens substantially more speech than necessary to further the government’s legitimate interests.” Law enforcement agencies across California can no longer require complainants to sign criminal warnings when filing misconduct complaints. Why does this matter to a potential plaintiff? Because an internal affairs complaint — properly filed and documented — creates an official record. That record can become critical evidence in a civil rights lawsuit. The barrier that kept many victims from creating that record has been removed.
Frequently Asked Questions About the Bane Act
No. The Bane Act is used alongside federal claims, not instead of them. Most California police misconduct lawsuits include both a § 1983 federal claim and a Bane Act state claim — often filed together in federal court. The two theories cover overlapping ground but offer different remedies and face different defenses, giving your attorney more leverage and more pathways to recovery.
The Bane Act applies to interference with your constitutional rights through threats, intimidation, or coercion. An arrest involving excessive force — where the force itself is the coercive act — is exactly what the Bane Act addresses. Whether your specific facts support a claim is a question for an experienced civil rights attorney, not a checklist.
The Bane Act statute of limitations is generally two years from the date of the violation. However, before filing a lawsuit you must also file a government tort claim with the responsible agency within six months of the incident. Missing either deadline can permanently bar your claim. If you were the victim of police misconduct, the time to act is now.
It can. A documented complaint and any investigation findings can serve as evidence in a civil rights case. The November 2025 California Supreme Court ruling removed the warning that had kept many victims from filing in the first place. If you have not filed a complaint and are considering a lawsuit, discuss timing and strategy with your attorney first.
Yes. Since SB 2, family members who have lost a loved one to police violence can bring a wrongful death claim under the Bane Act. Prior standing requirements that blocked surviving family members from pursuing these claims have been removed.
What This Means If You Are a Victim of Police Misconduct in California
The landscape for police misconduct victims in California is meaningfully different in 2026 than it was five years ago. Qualified immunity is gone from Bane Act claims. The government immunities shielding officers from malicious prosecution and prisoner injury claims have been removed. The unconstitutional warning that kept victims from filing complaints has been struck down. Treble damages and enhanced attorney’s fees are available to prevailing plaintiffs.
None of that makes these cases easy. They are not. Federal civil rights cases remain among the most legally complex and difficult cases litigated in Southern California. Juries are skeptical. The gap between having a valid claim and winning at trial is real and significant.
That gap is closed by experience. Forty years of it, in Mr. Steering’s case.
You Have More Options Today Than You Think. Use Them.
The Law Offices of Jerry L. Steering has been suing the police since 1984 — through the years when the Bane Act was strong, through the years when courts weakened it, and now, in 2026, when the law has shifted back toward accountability. We know what tools are available, which combination of claims gives your case the best chance, and how to build a lawsuit that can actually survive the legal obstacles between you and justice.
If you were the victim of excessive force, a false arrest, a malicious prosecution, or any other act of police misconduct in Southern California, call us. The consultation is free. There is no obligation. And the law — right now — is more on your side than it has been in years.
| Call Jerry L. Steering, (949) 474-1849 — Available 24 Hours a Day Free Case Evaluation — No Fee Unless We Recover jerry@steeringlaw.com | steeringlaw.com/free-case-evaluation Law Offices of Jerry L. Steering | Newport Beach, California Serving Orange County, Los Angeles County, Riverside County, San Diego County, and throughout California |
Prior case results do not guarantee or predict similar outcomes in future matters. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The State Bar of California does not recognize a specialty in police misconduct.
Sources
- California Civil Code § 52.1 — Tom Bane Civil Rights Act. California Legislative Information. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
- California Senate Bill 2 (SB 2), signed September 30, 2021, effective January 1, 2022. California Legislative Information. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220SB2
- Los Angeles Police Protective League v. City of Los Angeles, California Supreme Court, November 10, 2025. Ruling striking down Cal. Penal Code § 148.6(a) as unconstitutional. https://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme-court/2025/s275272.html
- CalMatters — “California Supreme Court strikes down warning on LAPD citizen complaint forms,” November 10, 2025. https://calmatters.org/justice/2025/11/lapd-citizen-complaint-forms/
- Liebert Cassidy Whitmore — “Los Angeles Police Protective League v. City of Los Angeles: California Supreme Court Finds Statute Criminalizing Knowingly False Allegations of Police Misconduct Violates the First Amendment,” December 1, 2025. https://www.lcwlegal.com/news/los-angeles-police-protective-league-v-city-of-los-angeles/
- Iredale Law — “Using the Bane Act to Address Police Misconduct.” https://www.iredalelaw.com/article/using-bane-act-address-police-misconduct
- Liebert Cassidy Whitmore — “Governor Signs SB 2, Creating Police Decertification Process and Expanding Civil Liability Exposure.” https://www.lcwlegal.com/news/governor-signs-sb-2-creating-police-decertification-process-and-expanding-civil-liability-exposure/
- California Courts of Appeal — Reese v. County of Sacramento, 888 F.3d 1030 (9th Cir. 2018) — Bane Act specific intent standard.
Steering Law is a California-based civil rights and criminal defense firm led by Jerry L. Steering, Esq. The firm focuses on police misconduct cases, including excessive force, false arrest, malicious prosecution, contempt of cop incidents, and 42 U.S.C. §1983 civil rights actions, while also handling serious criminal defense matters. Steering Law is dedicated to protecting clients’ constitutional rights and delivering justice for individuals who have been wronged by law enforcement.