What Counts as Excessive Force in California?
Under federal law, excessive force is force that is not “objectively reasonable” under the totality of the circumstances, analyzed through the three factors established in Graham v. Connor (1989). Under California law, Penal Code § 835a — as strengthened by AB 392 in 2019 — applies a stricter standard: deadly force is permitted only when “necessary,” and officers have an explicit statutory duty to de-escalate. The 2025 Supreme Court decision in Barnes v. Felix expanded the analysis to include officer conduct leading up to the use of force, not just the moment force was applied.
Free case evaluation: (949) 474-1849 | Available 24 hours | jerry@steeringlaw.com
The Question I Get Asked Every Day
Every day, I speak with people who have been hurt by police. They show me bruises, taser burns, and X-rays of broken bones. And every day, they ask me the same question: was that legal?
The answer is not always simple. But the legal framework — the standard courts use to evaluate whether force was excessive — is specific and well-developed. It is built on forty years of federal constitutional law, most recently updated by the Supreme Court in 2025, and supplemented by California state law that in some respects is stricter than the federal standard.
Understanding that framework is the first step in understanding whether you have a case. I have been litigating excessive force claims in federal and state courts throughout Southern California since 1984 — Los Angeles County, Orange County, Riverside County, San Bernardino County, San Diego County, and beyond. See when they are pursued by someone who has been doing this for forty years.
“Not all force is illegal. But force that is disproportionate, unnecessary, or continues after a suspect is already subdued is illegal. And the law — both federal and California — gives us the tools to prove it.”
The Federal Standard — Graham v. Connor and the Objective Reasonableness Test
The foundation of every excessive force civil rights claim is the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which guarantees the right to be free from “unreasonable seizures.” Ingraham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989), the Supreme Court established that all excessive force claims arising from an arrest or detention must be evaluated under the Fourth Amendment’s objective reasonableness standard. This remains the foundational test.
What objective reasonableness means in practice:
- The question is whether the officer’s actions were objectively reasonable in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them — not whether the officer had bad intentions.
- The evaluation is made from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene at the moment force was employed — not from the comfortable hindsight of a judge’s chambers.
- Courts must account for the reality that officers are often forced to make split-second judgments in tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving circumstances.
- Not every push or shove, even if it later seems unnecessary, rises to a Fourth Amendment violation.
The Three Graham Factors
To determine whether force was reasonable, courts analyze three specific factors. These are not a checklist — they are guideposts for a totality-of-the-circumstances evaluation. How they weigh against each other depends on the specific facts of the case.
| Graham factor | The question courts ask | What this means in practice |
| Severity of the offense | How serious was the crime the officer believed was occurring or had occurred? | Minor offenses — jaywalking, traffic violations, misdemeanors — justify very little force. The more serious the alleged crime, the more force may be reasonable. |
| Immediate threat to safety | Did the suspect pose an immediate physical threat to officers or others at the moment force was used? | This is the most heavily weighted factor. Courts scrutinize whether the threat was actual and immediate — or whether officers created, exaggerated, or fabricated it. |
| Active resistance or flight | Was the suspect actively resisting arrest or attempting to flee? | Passive resistance — standing still, not complying verbally — justifies far less force than active physical resistance. Flight alone, without other threat factors, has limits. |
| The Most Important Graham Factor In my forty years of excessive force litigation, the second factor — immediate threat to safety — is almost always the decisive one. Officers know this. Their reports are written to establish that they perceived an immediate threat, because that perception is the primary justification for serious force. This is why independent evidence — witness testimony, security camera footage, medical records inconsistent with the claimed threat — is so critical. The officer’s perception of threat must be objectively reasonable, not just subjectively claimed. |
The 2025 Supreme Court Update — Barnes v. Felix Expands the Analysis
in Barnes v. Felix, 602 U.S. ___ (2025), the Supreme Court unanimously clarified that the objective reasonableness analysis is not limited to the precise moment force was applied. Courts must consider the totality of circumstances — including the officer’s own conduct leading up to the use of force.
This is a significant expansion of the Graham framework. Before Barnes, defendants often successfully argued that courts should evaluate only the split-second moment of the trigger pull or the taser deployment — isolating that moment from everything that preceded it. Barnes rejected that approach.
The ruling is particularly powerful in California because it aligns directly with what our state law —California Penal Code § 835a — has required since AB 392 was enacted in 2019: consideration of both the conduct of the officer and the subject leading up to the force. Barnes brought federal law into alignment with what California already required.
| What Barnes v. Felix Means for California Excessive Force Cases Before Barnes: Officers could argue that whatever happened before the moment of force was irrelevant — all that mattered was whether the threat was real at the instant force was used. After Barnes: If an officer’s reckless or unreasonable actions created the dangerous situation that ultimately required force, that conduct is part of the reasonableness analysis. An officer who created the confrontation cannot fully insulate themselves from scrutiny by pointing only to the moment they pulled the trigger. In practice: cases where officers rushed in without de-escalation, where officers misidentified a situation, or where officers were the primary aggressor in an escalation become significantly more viable under the Barnes framework. |
California’s Framework — Penal Code § 835a and AB 392
California has its own use-of-force law that in several respects is stricter than the federal constitutional minimum. Penal Code § 835a, significantly strengthened by Assembly Bill 392 in 2019, establishes the California standard:
| Federal standard | California standard (often stricter) | |
| Governing authority | Fourth Amendment — U.S. Constitution | California Penal Code § 835a (as amended by AB 392, 2019) |
| Core standard | “Objectively reasonable” force under the totality of circumstances — Graham v. Connor (1989) | Force “necessary in defense of human life” — a stricter standard than the federal constitutional minimum |
| Scope of analysis | Originally: circumstances at the moment of force. Updated by Barnes v. Felix (2025): full officer conduct leading up to use of force | Explicitly requires consideration of “the totality of the circumstances, including both the conduct of the peace officer and the subject leading up to the use of force” |
| Deadly force standard | Reasonable belief of imminent threat to life or serious bodily injury | Deadly force permitted only when “necessary” — a stricter “necessity” standard that limits officer discretion compared to federal law |
| De-escalation duty | No explicit federal de-escalation requirement under the Fourth Amendment | Officers have a statutory duty to de-escalate whenever possible and to avoid creating the need for force |
| Intervention duty | Evolving federal case law on duty to intervene — not uniformly established | Officers have a statutory duty to intervene when they witness another officer using excessive force |
| Post-restraint conduct | Addressed through the totality-of-circumstances analysis | Continuing force after a subject is restrained — including prone restraint after handcuffing — is explicitly addressed as potentially excessive |
The practical significance of the California standard: in federal court, an officer must have acted unreasonably to face civil liability. In California state court proceedings, an officer who used deadly force must show that force was not merely reasonable but necessary — a stricter standard that limits the circumstances in which lethal force is legally justified.
The duty to de-escalate and the duty to intervene are particularly important. An officer who charged into a situation that verbal commands, time, or a crisis intervention team could have resolved — and who used force instead — may have violated § 835a even if the force itself was technically reasonable once the confrontation was already underway. The law requires looking at the full picture.
What Excessive Force Looks Like — Real California Cases
Legal standards are abstractions. Cases are what they look like in practice. Here are three cases from my practice area — including two with 2025 jury verdicts — that illustrate how the excessive force standard is applied to real facts.
| Case 1 — Tasing a Restrained Person: Leroy Stephenson (Riverside, $5 Million — 2025) The facts: In January 2019, Leroy Stephenson, 48, was walking on the 91 Freeway in Riverside during a mental health crisis. CHP Officer Dane Norem deployed his Taser twice. Stephenson fell forward. Then, as Stephenson lay chest-down on the ground — not resisting, not trying to get up — the officer Tased him three more times. Officers then held Stephenson in prone restraint (face-down, with weight on his back) for approximately six minutes. He stopped breathing and later died. The outcome: In September 2025, a jury awarded Stephenson’s three sons $5 million, finding excessive force, battery, and negligence. Expert witnesses testified that continuing to hold him in prone position with his chest pressed into the pavement after he was handcuffed and not resisting violated basic police training and safety standards. The legal principle: Force that continues after a subject is subdued, restrained, and no longer posing a threat is not “necessary” under California § 835a and not “objectively reasonable” under Graham. The prone restraint-after-handcuffing pattern is a recurring fact pattern in California excessive force litigation. |
| Case 2 — Firing Through Walls Without Identifying the Target: Ari Gold (Salinas, $10 Million — 2025) The facts: In July 2019, Ari Gold — experiencing a mental health crisis and under the influence of methamphetamine — hid in his grandmother’s bathroom after leading police on a chase. CHP Officer Cho found him there. Cho fired 16 shots and missed every one — striking the ceiling, floor, Jacuzzi, and windows. Officer Weaver, hearing the shots and seeing Cho fall, fired 28 rounds through the bathroom wall without knowing what or who was on the other side. One round hit Gold in the shoulder and traveled to his spinal cord, rendering him a quadriplegic. Gold never fired his weapon. He died in January 2023. The outcome: In May 2025, a federal jury awarded Gold’s family $9.2 million, later settled for $10 million, finding excessive force, negligence, and assault. The jury assigned only 20% of the blame to Gold. The legal principle: Firing blindly — shooting through a wall without knowing what is on the other side — is the definition of objectively unreasonable force. Under Barnes v. Felix, the officer’s reckless conduct leading up to the shots is part of the reasonableness analysis. The Gold case also illustrates why mental health crisis situations require different tactical approaches than armed confrontations with cooperative subjects. |
| Case 3 — Batons for Minor Infractions: Scott Wright (San Jose) The facts: Scott Wright was fixing his emergency brake in a San Jose parking lot when police approached. He reached into his van to wash his hands. Officers said they feared he was reaching for a weapon. No weapon was found. Officers struck Wright with batons, breaking his arm, and deployed a Taser. Wright was charged with resisting arrest — the standard Contempt of Cop charge used to justify the force. The district attorney dismissed the case before trial. The legal principle: A Mercury News investigation of resisting arrest cases found that in 70% of cases reviewed, force was used by officers — often in encounters that began with minor infractions like jaywalking or missing bike lights. Using impact weapons against a non-resistant person suspected of a minor infraction is disproportionate force under the first Graham factor: the severity of the offense. The dismissed resistance charge is significant — it demonstrates the officer’s narrative was not sustainable. |
When Force Is NOT Excessive — Understanding Both Sides of the Standard
Honest analysis of excessive force requires understanding when force is legally justified — not just when it is not. The standard is not whether force was used. It is whether the force used was reasonable under the circumstances. Here is a real case that illustrates the line.
| Case 4 — Active Resistance With Weapons: Jose Velasco (Salinas, 2017) The facts: In June 2015, multiple 911 callers reported Jose Velasco acting erratically and dragging a woman — his mother — by her neck in Salinas. When officers arrived, they witnessed the assault. Velasco initially began to comply, then violently resisted — doing a push-up off the ground while two officers tried to restrain him and lunging at an officer, attempting to grab the officer’s Taser. Toxicology confirmed methamphetamine intoxication. Five officers, including two with batons, were required to arrest him. Velasco suffered a hairline fracture to his leg and cuts to his head. He later pled guilty to false imprisonment and resisting arrest and was sentenced to four years in prison. The legal principle: When a suspect is actively resisting, assaulting officers, attempting to take their weapons, and poses a documented danger to others — all three Graham factors weigh toward the officers. Significant force in these circumstances may be deemed reasonable. A use-of-force claim filed by Velasco’s attorney remains pending, and the facts will be litigated. But this case illustrates why context is everything: the same force used against Leroy Stephenson — who was handcuffed and prone — and against Jose Velasco — who was actively lunging and resisting — produces completely different legal outcomes. |
The difference between Stephenson and Velasco is the difference between excessive force and appropriate force. One was subdued, restrained, and not resisting. The other was actively fighting officers and attempting to take their weapons. The law recognizes that distinction clearly.
How We Build Excessive Force Cases — What I Look For
When someone comes to my office with an excessive force claim, here are the specific issues I analyze. Each one is both a legal argument and a factual investigation.
1. Violation of Department Policy
Most law enforcement agencies have use-of-force policies that are more restrictive than the constitutional minimum. If an officer violated their own department’s policy, that violation is strong evidence of unreasonableness — not just legally, but practically, because it demonstrates that even the department itself drew the line where the officer crossed it.
In the Stephenson case, experts testified that the prone restraint after handcuffing violated basic police training standards. That testimony did not require the jury to apply constitutional doctrine — it just required them to conclude that the officer did something his own training prohibited.
2. Disproportionate Force
Force must be proportionate to the threat. Using a Taser on someone who is not actively resisting, striking someone with a baton for a minor infraction, or continuing to apply physical pressure after someone is handcuffed — these are all examples of disproportionate force under the first and third Graham factors.
In California, this analysis is particularly important in “Contempt of Cop” cases — where the excessive force is used against someone who did nothing more than assert their constitutional rights, question an order, or decline to consent to a search.
3. Failure to De-Escalate
California Penal Code § 835a imposes an explicit duty to de-escalate. If officers had time — even a few minutes — to use verbal commands, call for a crisis team, or allow a volatile situation to stabilize, and instead rushed in and used force, that failure is cognizable under California law.
De-escalation failures are particularly common in mental health crisis cases, where the standard police response often produces the confrontation that force is then used to resolve. California law now requires officers to consider whether the situation is a mental health crisis and to respond accordingly.
4. Blind or Reckless Shooting
The Gold case is the textbook example: firing 28 rounds through a wall without knowing what was on the other side is not objectively reasonable police work. Under Barnes v. Felix, the officer’s decision to fire blindly — the conduct leading up to the shots — is part of the reasonableness analysis. Reckless endangerment dressed up as law enforcement does not survive Fourth Amendment scrutiny.
5. Creating the Danger
Under the Barnes framework, if an officer’s reckless or unreasonable conduct created the dangerous situation that force was then used to address, that conduct weighs against the reasonableness of the force. An officer who corners someone unnecessarily, who escalates a verbal situation into a physical one, or who creates the confrontation that ultimately requires force cannot fully immunize the force by pointing only at the final moment.
6. Force Against Vulnerable Populations
California courts have increasingly scrutinized the use of standard force protocols against people in mental health crisis, people who are elderly or infirm, or people whose apparent non-compliance is the result of disability, intoxication, or confusion rather than willful resistance. The reasonable officer standard applies — but what is reasonable against someone in mental health crisis differs from what is reasonable against someone who is coherent and deliberately resisting.
| Injured by Police Excessive Force in Southern California? (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 | 4063 Birch Street, Suite 100 | Newport Beach, CA 92660 Suing the Police in Southern California Since 1984 |
What to Do If You Have Been Subjected to Excessive Force
The practical steps are the same as in any police misconduct case, but they carry specific urgency in excessive force situations because injuries are immediate evidence and evidence disappears fast.
- Get medical attention today. Not tomorrow. Not when you feel better. Today. Adrenaline masks injuries. Fractures, internal bleeding, and traumatic brain injuries frequently present hours after the incident. Every symptom you report to a doctor becomes a dated medical record linking your injuries to the incident.
- Photograph every injury immediately. Then photograph again at 24 hours and 48 hours. Bruising typically peaks and darkens in the 24-48 hours after impact. The photographs you take three days later will show something the hospital photos did not.
- Do not tell officers or investigators you are fine. “Are you okay?” from an officer at the scene is not a welfare check. Any minimization of your injuries will appear in the police report and will be used by defense counsel at trial.
- Secure witness contact information and third-party video. Ask nearby businesses, homeowners, and bystanders to preserve security footage immediately. Video is overwritten on automated schedules — often within 24 to 72 hours. Once it is gone, it is gone.
- Do not give a statement to Internal Affairs without your attorney. IA investigators work for the department. Anything you say can be used against you in any criminal proceeding.
- Contact a civil rights attorney immediately. Read our complete step-by-step guide to the first 72 hours after police misconduct.
| The Six-Month Government Claim Deadline Before filing a civil lawsuit against a California city, county, or other government entity for excessive force, you must file a government tort claim under California Government Code § 911.2. This claim is typically due within six months of the incident. Miss this deadline and you lose the right to sue — permanently. No exceptions. No judicial discretion. This is the single most common reason strong excessive force cases cannot be pursued. The clock starts on the day of the incident — not when the criminal case resolves, not when you feel physically recovered, not when you decide you want to pursue it. Contact a civil rights attorney this week. |
Serving Excessive Force Victims Throughout Southern California
My firm has obtained significant recoveries for excessive force victims throughout Southern California — from Los Angeles County and Orange County to Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, Ventura, and Kern Counties. See.
Results include a $2.9 million settlement against the City of Anaheim for a police shooting, a $1.3 million settlement against Riverside County, and an $800,000 jury verdict against the City of Garden Grove. Every one of those cases required the same thing: early action, preserved evidence, and an attorney who understood the constitutional framework well enough to argue it in federal court.
Frequently Asked Questions — Excessive Force in California
The federal standard is “objective reasonableness” under the totality of the circumstances, established in Graham v. Connor (1989) and expanded in Barnes v. Felix (2025). California’s state standard under Penal Code § 835a (amended by AB 392, 2019) is stricter: deadly force is permitted only when “necessary” — not merely reasonable — and officers have explicit duties to de-escalate and to intervene when witnessing another officer’s excessive force. In California, you can pursue claims under both federal and state law.
The three factors from Graham v. Connor (1989) are: (1) the severity of the crime at issue; (2) whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of officers or others; and (3) whether the suspect is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight. These are not a checklist — they are guideposts for a totality-of-the-circumstances analysis. The immediate threat factor is typically the most heavily weighted.
In Barnes v. Felix, 602 U.S. ___ (2025), the Supreme Court unanimously clarified that the objective reasonableness analysis must consider the officer’s full conduct leading up to the use of force — not just the moment force was applied. This means that if an officer’s reckless actions created the dangerous situation that force was then used to address, that conduct is part of the reasonableness evaluation. Barnes aligns federal law with what California Penal Code § 835a had already required since AB 392 in 2019.
Yes — if the Taser use was not objectively reasonable under the circumstances. Tasing a person who is not actively resisting, who is already subdued, who poses no immediate threat, or who is in a mental health crisis can constitute excessive force under both the Graham standard and California Penal Code § 835a. The Stephenson case — a $5 million verdict in 2025 involving repeated Tasing of a prone, non-resisting individual — illustrates what unreasonable Taser use looks like in a California court. See our dedicated Taser victim attorney page.
Excessive force and wrongful death are not mutually exclusive — when excessive force causes death, the legal claims overlap. A wrongful death claim compensates the surviving family members for the loss of a loved one, in addition to any excessive force claims for the constitutional violation itself. California has specific procedural rules for survival actions (claims on behalf of the deceased) and wrongful death claims (claims on behalf of surviving family). See our wrongful death page for more.
Qualified immunity protects officers from civil liability unless they violated a “clearly established” constitutional right — meaning prior Ninth Circuit or Supreme Court precedent specifically addressed the type of force used in similar circumstances. In excessive force cases, qualified immunity is raised in virtually every case but is not always successful. The more closely the facts of a case match prior case law finding the conduct unconstitutional, the weaker the qualified immunity defense. I have written about qualified immunity in depth at steeringlaw.com.
Before filing a lawsuit against a California city or county for excessive force, you must file a government tort claim under California Government Code § 911.2 — typically within six months of the incident. Missing this deadline permanently eliminates the right to sue. Federal § 1983 claims have a two-year statute of limitations under California Code of Civil Procedure § 335.1. The six-month government claim requirement for state entities is the deadline that most often destroys otherwise viable cases. Contact a civil rights attorney immediately after a use-of-force incident.
Police reports are written to justify the officer’s conduct, not to accurately record what happened. “Resisting” is often the claim that transforms a use-of-force incident into a justified response. Independent evidence — witness testimony, security camera footage, medical records inconsistent with the claimed resistance, and the officer’s own prior history of similar claims — is what we use to challenge that narrative. The resistance charge does not end the excessive force analysis. If the officer was the aggressor, the resistance may have been lawful self-defense under CALCRIM No. 2672.
The Line Between Policing and Excessive Force
Excessive force is not defined by how many times someone was shot, tased, or beaten. It is defined by whether a reasonable officer, facing the same circumstances at the same moment, would have believed that level of force was necessary.
In California, thanks to AB 392 and the Barnes v. Felix decision, we can now look at the full picture — not just the moment of force, but everything that led up to it. Did the officer create the danger? Did they have time to de-escalate? Was the force proportional to the actual threat? Did the force continue after it was no longer necessary?
If the answers to those questions are no — if what happened was not policing, but excessive force — then you have the right to hold the officer and the department accountable. I have been doing exactly that since 1984.
| Call for a Free Case Evaluation — Available 24 Hours (949) 474-1849 jerry@steeringlaw.com | steeringlaw.com/free-case-evaluation Law Offices of Jerry L. Steering 4063 Birch Street, Suite 100, Newport Beach, CA 92660 Suing the Police in Southern California Since 1984 |
About the Author — Jerry L. Steering
Jerry L. Steering is a civil rights attorney and police misconduct specialist who has been suing the police in California since 1984. He has litigated excessive force cases in federal and state courts throughout Los Angeles County, Orange County, Riverside County, San Bernardino County, San Diego County, and the rest of Southern California. Notable results include a $2.9 million settlement against the City of Anaheim for a police shooting, a $1.3 million settlement against Riverside County for excessive force and malicious prosecution, and an $800,000 jury verdict against Garden Grove for false arrest. He has appeared on NBC Dateline with Lester Holt and ABC Good Morning America with Diane Sawyer, and has been featured in the Los Angeles Times, The Washington Post, and People Magazine. View
Law Offices of Jerry L. Steering | 4063 Birch Street, Suite 100, Newport Beach, CA 92660 | (949) 474-1849 | Available 24 Hours | jerry@steeringlaw.com
Legal citations and primary sources:
- California Penal Code § 835a (as amended by AB 392, 2019) — California use of force standard | leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
- 42 U.S.C. § 1983 — Federal civil rights statute | law.cornell.edu
- California Government Code § 911.2 — Government tort claim deadline | leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
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.
