For decades, challenging racial bias in a criminal case meant proving that someone meant to discriminate. Under the federal standard set in McCleskey v. Kemp (1987), statistical evidence of stark disparities was not enough. You had to show purposeful discrimination in your own case, which was close to impossible.

California changed that. If race, ethnicity, or national origin played a role in how you were charged, convicted, or sentenced, there is now a state law process for raising it.

What the law does

The California Racial Justice Act was enacted by AB 2542 in 2020 and is codified at Penal Code section 745. AB 256, passed in 2022, extended it to past convictions on a phased schedule.

The core provision is direct. The state may not seek or obtain a criminal conviction, or seek, obtain, or impose a sentence, on the basis of race, ethnicity, or national origin. Crucially, a violation can be shown without proving intentional discrimination, and the standard of proof is a preponderance of the evidence rather than anything higher.

The four ways a violation can be shown

Section 745(a) sets out four separate pathways.

Bias or animus by someone involved in the case

The judge, an attorney in the case, a law enforcement officer involved in the case, an expert witness, or a juror exhibited bias or animus toward the defendant based on race, ethnicity, or national origin. This covers conduct outside the courtroom, including things said on a recording, in a text message, or in a social media post.

Racially discriminatory language during the proceedings

During the trial proceedings, a judge, attorney, law enforcement officer, expert witness, or juror used racially discriminatory language about the defendant’s race, ethnicity, or national origin, or otherwise exhibited bias, whether or not it was purposeful.

Charging disparities

The defendant was charged with or convicted of a more serious offense than defendants of other races, ethnicities, or national origins who engaged in similar conduct and are similarly situated, and prosecutors more frequently sought that more serious charge against people who share the defendant’s race, ethnicity, or national origin in the county where the case was filed.

Sentencing disparities

A longer or more severe sentence was imposed than on similarly situated people of other races, ethnicities, or national origins, or a longer or more severe sentence was more frequently imposed on people who share the defendant’s background, or on defendants in cases with victims of a particular background, in the county where the sentence was imposed.

The third and fourth pathways are why this law is different from anything that came before. They are proved with data, not with a confession of prejudice.

Who can use it and when

AB 256 phased in retroactivity over four years:

• January 1, 2023. People sentenced to death, and people facing immigration consequences such as deportation as a result of the conviction.
• January 1, 2024. People currently serving a sentence in state prison, in county jail on a felony, or committed to the Division of Juvenile Justice.
• January 1, 2025. People no longer incarcerated whose felony conviction or juvenile commitment was entered after January 1, 2015.
• January 1, 2026. Everyone else with a felony conviction or juvenile commitment, regardless of when it was entered.

That final step has now arrived. As of this year the Act reaches felony convictions without regard to their date.

For a case that has not yet concluded, the claim is raised by motion in the trial court. For a case that is already final, it is generally raised through a petition for writ of habeas corpus or a motion under Penal Code section 1473, depending on custody status and posture.

The discovery provision people overlook

Section 745(d) allows a defendant who shows good cause to obtain discovery of records in the possession of the state or an agency that are relevant to a potential violation. In practice that can mean charging data, plea offer data, and sentencing data from the district attorney’s office in that county.

This provision is why the Act works. Without access to comparative data, the charging and sentencing pathways would be theoretical. With it, a defense team can test whether the pattern in a county matches what happened to one person.

Where police conduct fits in

The first two pathways expressly reach law enforcement officers involved in the case. That connects the Act directly to the records this firm works with regularly.

Under Penal Code section 832.7, as amended by SB 1421 and SB 16, sustained findings of dishonesty and of unreasonable force in an officer’s file are public records. Under the Racial and Identity Profiling Act, Government Code section 12525.5, agencies report stop data to the state, including the stated reason for each stop required by California’s reason for the stop law. Body camera audio captures what officers actually said.

A statement made on a recording during an arrest is exactly the kind of evidence the first two pathways were written to reach.

What relief looks like

Remedies depend on the stage of the case. Before judgment, a court may declare a mistrial, discharge the jury and empanel a new one, dismiss enhancements or special circumstances, or reduce charges. After conviction, a court may vacate the conviction or the sentence and order new proceedings.

Two things are worth saying plainly. A Racial Justice Act claim is fact intensive and evidence driven, and no lawyer can tell you at a first meeting how a court will rule. What a lawyer can do is tell you whether the record contains the kind of evidence the statute reaches.

Frequently asked questions

About the Author

Jerry L. Steering has defended criminal cases and litigated civil rights claims since 1984. He graduated from the University of Georgia School of Law in 1984 and has been licensed in California since 1986 (State Bar No. 122509). His Newport Beach practice covers criminal defense, police misconduct, and civil rights throughout Orange, Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, Ventura, Santa Barbara, and Kern counties.

This article is general legal information, not legal advice about your situation. Reading it does not create an attorney client relationship.

Sources

• California Penal Code section 745 (California Racial Justice Act of 2020)
• AB 2542 (2019 to 2020 Regular Session), Racial Justice Act of 2020
• AB 256 (2021 to 2022 Regular Session), Criminal procedure: discrimination
• California Penal Code section 1473
• McCleskey v. Kemp, 481 U.S. 279 (1987)
• Office of the State Public Defender, “AB 256 Racial Justice Act Retroactivity,” February 2023
• Judge J. Richard Couzens, “California Racial Justice Act of 2020,” April 2024
• California Penal Code section 832.7, as amended by SB 1421 and SB 16
• California Government Code section 12525.5

Jerry L. Steering, Esq.

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.

steeringlaw.com/

Most families in this situation made the call themselves.

Someone was in crisis, or off their medication, or talking about hurting themselves, and the family did what they were told to do. They called for help. What arrived was armed. Minutes later someone they love was injured, or gone.

If that is your family, the guilt you are carrying is not yours to carry. You asked for help for a person in medical distress. What happened next was a set of choices made by people who are trained, paid, and equipped to make them differently.

This article explains what California law actually allows in these cases. It is general information, not advice about your situation.

Three claims that work together

The federal excessive force claim

Under 42 U.S.C. section 1983, force by an officer is judged against the Fourth Amendment’s objective reasonableness standard from Graham v. Connor (1989). Courts weigh the severity of the offense, whether the person posed an immediate threat, and whether they were actively resisting or fleeing.

An important change arrived recently. In Barnes v. Felix, 145 S. Ct. 1353 (2025), a unanimous Supreme Court rejected the “moment of threat” approach, under which some courts looked only at the final seconds before force was used. The Court held that reasonableness is judged on the totality of the circumstances, which includes what led up to the encounter.

For crisis cases that holding matters enormously, because so much of what goes wrong happens in the minutes before anyone is touched.

The California negligence claim

California law has been ahead of federal law on this point for years. In Hayes v. County of San Diego (2013) 57 Cal.4th 622, the California Supreme Court held that an officer’s pre-shooting tactical conduct and decisions are part of the totality of circumstances a jury may consider in a negligence claim.

Put plainly: under California law a jury can be asked whether it was reasonable to approach the way they did, to shout competing commands, to close distance quickly, to skip a request for a crisis team, or to escalate when time and cover were available. That is often the strongest claim a family has.

The disability discrimination claim

Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. section 12132, applies to police arrests in the Ninth Circuit. Two theories are recognized.

The first is wrongful arrest, where officers mistake the effects of a disability for criminal conduct. The second is failure to accommodate, where officers arrest or detain someone lawfully but fail to reasonably accommodate a known disability during the encounter.

Sheehan v. City and County of San Francisco (9th Cir. 2014) established that Title II reaches arrests, and Vos v. City of Newport Beach (9th Cir. 2018) applied it in a case involving a man in psychiatric crisis. Courts have generally treated the reasonableness of an accommodation as a question of fact, which means these claims often survive to a jury rather than being resolved on paper.

What “accommodation” looks like in practice

Families sometimes hear the word accommodation and picture something abstract. In these cases it is concrete and it is usually about time and distance.

• Slowing the encounter down when there is no immediate threat to anyone else.
• Using one officer as the single communicator rather than several people shouting at once.
• Keeping cover and distance rather than closing on a person who is frightened.
• Requesting a crisis intervention trained officer, a mental health clinician, or a mobile crisis team.
• Actually using the information the family gave the dispatcher about the diagnosis, the medication, the triggers, and what has worked before.

That last point is where many of these cases begin. The family told the dispatcher exactly what was happening. Whether that information reached the responding officers, and what they did with it, is one of the first things to investigate.

None of this requires an officer to walk into danger. Courts have consistently recognized that officers may protect themselves and others, and that they often have to decide quickly with incomplete information. The question in these cases is narrower and fairer than it is sometimes made out to be. When there was time, cover, distance, and a trained resource available, were those things used, and if not, why not?

What to do in the days after

These are practical steps, and there is a clock on some of them.

• Send a written preservation demand to the agency for all body worn camera and dash camera video, the 911 audio, the computer aided dispatch logs, and the radio traffic. The dispatch record is often the single most important document.
• Request the critical incident video. If an officer fired a weapon, or force caused death or great bodily injury, Government Code section 7923.625 generally requires release within 45 days, with limited grounds for delay. Our guide on how to obtain body camera footage explains the process.
• Request the officers’ conduct records under Penal Code section 832.7, as amended by SB 1421 and SB 16.
• Get an independent autopsy if a death occurred and the family is able to. Coroner findings can be contested.
• Watch the six month deadline. A claim against a California public entity generally must be presented in writing within six months under Government Code section 911.2. Federal claims have a longer window, but the state claim deadline arrives fast and it is strict.

A note on getting help

If you or someone you love is in crisis right now, the 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline is available by call or text, and many California counties operate mobile crisis teams that respond without police. Families sometimes tell us they did not know a non police option existed in their county. It is worth finding out what yours offers before you need it.

Frequently asked questions

About the Author

Jerry L. Steering has represented people injured by law enforcement, and the families of people killed by law enforcement, since 1984. He graduated from the University of Georgia School of Law in 1984 and has been licensed in California since 1986 (State Bar No. 122509). His Newport Beach practice covers police misconduct, civil rights, and criminal defense throughout Orange, Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, Ventura, Santa Barbara, and Kern counties.

This article is general legal information, not legal advice about your situation. Reading it does not create an attorney client relationship.

Sources

• Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989)
• Barnes v. Felix, 145 S. Ct. 1353 (2025)
• Hayes v. County of San Diego (2013) 57 Cal.4th 622
• Sheehan v. City and County of San Francisco, 743 F.3d 1211 (9th Cir. 2014)
• Vos v. City of Newport Beach, 892 F.3d 1024 (9th Cir. 2018)
• 42 U.S.C. section 12132 (Title II, Americans with Disabilities Act)
• 42 U.S.C. section 1983
• California Government Code sections 911.2 and 7923.625
• California Penal Code section 832.7, as amended by SB 1421 and SB 16
• Advocate Magazine, “Understanding disability rights litigation in police misconduct and jail detention cases,” June 2024
• 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline

Jerry L. Steering, Esq.

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.

steeringlaw.com/

People are often surprised to learn that suing the officer and suing the department are two different lawsuits with two different sets of rules.

If a deputy broke your arm during an arrest, the claim against that deputy is one thing. The claim against the county that trained him, supervised him, reviewed his prior uses of force, and cleared him each time is something else. Understanding the difference explains why some cases name a single officer and others name a city, a police chief, and a department all at once.

The rule that starts everything

In Monell v. Department of Social Services of the City of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (1978), the Supreme Court held that municipalities are “persons” who can be sued under section 1983. In the same decision it closed a door. A city cannot be held liable simply because it employs someone who violated your rights.

The legal shorthand is that there is no respondeat superior liability under section 1983. In ordinary employment law, an employer is generally responsible for what an employee does on the job. Section 1983 does not work that way. To reach the entity, you have to show the entity itself did something.

The four routes to entity liability

Courts generally recognize four ways to get there.

An official policy

The most direct route, and the rarest. A written policy, ordinance, or regulation that itself causes the constitutional violation. Departments rarely write down anything this useful, but policies on things like when to deploy a police dog, when to use a carotid restraint, or how long to hold someone before arraignment sometimes do the work.

A longstanding custom or practice

More common, and harder to prove. Here the argument is that a practice is so widespread and settled that it has the force of policy even though nobody wrote it down. This is built from patterns: repeated incidents of the same kind, complaints that were consistently dismissed, uses of force that were consistently found to be within policy.

Failure to train or supervise

Under City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378 (1989), a failure to train can be a basis for liability where that failure amounts to deliberate indifference to the rights of people the officers encounter. The Supreme Court set a demanding standard in Connick v. Thompson, 563 U.S. 51 (2011), generally requiring a pattern of similar violations that put the entity on notice, with a narrow exception for situations where the need for training is patently obvious.

Ratification by a final policymaker

Under Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469 (1986), a single decision by an official with final policymaking authority can bind the entity. In police cases this often takes the shape of a ratification argument: a chief or sheriff reviewed a use of force, knew the facts, and approved both the conduct and the reasoning behind it.

Why this matters when qualified immunity is in the case

Qualified immunity shields an individual officer from damages unless the right violated was clearly established at the time. It is the single most frustrating doctrine in this area of law, and we have written about it at length in our discussion of qualified immunity and SB 2.

Here is the part that gets overlooked. Qualified immunity is a personal defense. Municipalities do not get it. An entity cannot argue that its policy was not clearly established as unconstitutional in the way an individual officer can argue about their own conduct.

That does not make entity claims easy. The causation and deliberate indifference showings are genuinely difficult. But it does mean the entity claim can survive in cases where the individual claim is at its weakest, and that is not a small thing.

The evidence these cases are built from

Monell claims are won with records, and a striking amount of the relevant material is public or obtainable.

• Peace officer conduct records. Penal Code section 832.7, as amended by SB 1421 and SB 16, makes several categories public, including sustained findings of dishonesty and of unreasonable force, and records of uses of force causing death or great bodily injury.
• Critical incident video. Government Code section 7923.625 requires release of video from shootings and serious force incidents within 45 days, subject to limited delays.
• Stop data. Agencies report stop information to the California Department of Justice under the Racial and Identity Profiling Act.
• Training materials, policy manuals, and use of force reviews, obtained in discovery once a case is filed.
• Prior complaints and prior lawsuits against the same agency and the same officers.
• Audits, consent decrees, grand jury reports, and inspector general findings where they exist.

The picture that emerges from those records is either a department that identified a problem and corrected it, or a department that saw the same thing happen repeatedly and did nothing. That contrast is the heart of a Monell case.

California adds a second track

Federal law is not the only option. Under California’s Tom Bane Civil Rights Act, Civil Code section 52.1, public entities can be vicariously liable for their employees’ conduct under state law principles, which is a meaningfully different structure from Monell. Many cases plead both, and our article on qualified immunity versus the Bane Act walks through why.

There is a deadline that comes with the state law track. A claim against a California public entity generally must be presented in writing within six months under Government Code section 911.2. Federal section 1983 claims in California borrow the state’s two year personal injury limitations period, but the six month claim requirement is the one that catches people.

One more development worth knowing

In Barnes v. Felix, 145 S. Ct. 1353 (2025), a unanimous Supreme Court rejected the “moment of threat” approach that some courts had used to evaluate police force by looking only at the final seconds before it was used. Courts must consider the totality of the circumstances, including what led up to the encounter.

That matters for entity claims, because tactics, training, and decisions made minutes earlier are now squarely part of the analysis rather than something a court can wave away.

Frequently asked questions

About the Author

Jerry L. Steering has represented people injured by law enforcement since 1984. He graduated from the University of Georgia School of Law in 1984 and has been licensed in California since 1986 (State Bar No. 122509). His Newport Beach practice covers police misconduct, civil rights, and criminal defense throughout Orange, Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, Ventura, Santa Barbara, and Kern counties.

This article is general legal information, not legal advice about your situation. Reading it does not create an attorney client relationship.

Sources

• Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978)
• City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378 (1989)
• Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469 (1986)
• Connick v. Thompson, 563 U.S. 51 (2011)
• Barnes v. Felix, 145 S. Ct. 1353 (2025)
• 42 U.S.C. section 1983
• California Civil Code section 52.1 (Tom Bane Civil Rights Act)
• California Government Code section 911.2
• California Code of Civil Procedure section 335.1
• California Penal Code section 832.7, as amended by SB 1421 and SB 16
• California Government Code sections 7923.625 and 12525.5

Jerry L. Steering, Esq.

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.

steeringlaw.com/

Almost everyone who has been pulled over in California has had the same experience. The lights come on, the officer walks up, and the first words out of their mouth are a question. Where are you coming from. Do you know why I stopped you. Is there anything in the car I should know about.

Since the beginning of 2024, that opening is backwards under California law. Here is what the statute actually requires, what it does not do, and why the answer an officer gives at your window can matter a great deal later.

What the law says

AB 2773 took effect on January 1, 2024. It added section 2806.5 to the Vehicle Code and it does two things.

First, an officer making a traffic or pedestrian stop must state the reason for the stop before asking any question related to a criminal investigation or a traffic violation.

Second, the officer must document that stated reason on any citation issued and in any report resulting from the stop.

There is one exception. An officer may withhold the reason if they reasonably believe that withholding it is necessary to protect life or property from an imminent threat, and the statute gives terrorism and kidnapping as the kind of circumstances contemplated. That is a narrow carve out, not a general escape hatch for an officer who would rather ask questions first.

The same legislation also requires agencies to report the stated reason for each stop to the California Department of Justice as part of the data collected under the Racial and Identity Profiling Act, found at Government Code section 12525.5.

What a “pretextual stop” actually means

A pretextual stop is a stop where the officer uses a minor, technically valid reason as the entry point for an investigation into something else entirely. A cracked taillight becomes a conversation about where you are going. A slow roll at a stop sign becomes a request to search the trunk.

Under federal law, the Supreme Court held in Whren v. United States (1996) that an officer’s actual motive does not invalidate a stop that is objectively supported by probable cause of a traffic violation. That remains the constitutional baseline, and it is why “he only pulled me over because of how I look” is difficult to litigate as a Fourth Amendment claim standing alone.

Vehicle Code section 2806.5 does not overrule Whren. What it does is create a paper record. The officer has to say a reason out loud, at the roadside, before hearing anything from you. Then they have to write that same reason down. Then the agency has to report it to the state.

Why the paper record matters

Cases involving traffic stops usually turn on a mismatch, and the mismatch is easier to find now.

• The stated reason and the written reason are different. An officer who says “you were weaving” at the window and writes “expired registration” in the report has a problem, and so does the credibility of everything else in that report.
• The stated reason does not match the video. Body camera and dash camera footage captures the first words spoken. If the officer began with questions instead of a reason, that is on the recording. Our guide on how to get the body camera video of your arrest covers how to request it.
• The stated reason does not appear anywhere. No reason on the citation, no reason in the report, no reason on the video. In a case that later involves a search, an arrest, or a resisting charge, that absence is worth a great deal.
• The pattern is documented. Because agencies now report stated reasons to the Attorney General, one person’s questionable stop can be placed against the department’s own stop data. That is how an individual complaint becomes evidence of a practice.

What the statute does not do

This is where honest expectations matter.

Section 2806.5 does not say that evidence gets suppressed if an officer skips the required statement. It does not create a right to sue for money damages by itself. It does not make a stop unlawful that was otherwise supported by reasonable suspicion or probable cause. And it does not give you the right to refuse to identify yourself or to drive away.

What it does is give you and your lawyer a concrete, statutory expectation that the officer’s own conduct can be measured against. In practice it functions less like a shield at the roadside and more like a lever afterward, in a criminal defense motion, in a civil rights case, or in a complaint to the agency.

What to do at the stop itself

The roadside is not the place to litigate. It is the place to stay safe and preserve the record.

• Pull over promptly, stay in the car, keep your hands visible, and turn on the interior light at night.
• You may ask, calmly and once, “Officer, what is the reason for the stop?” Asking is not resisting.
• You are required to provide your license, registration, and proof of insurance when driving.
• You do not have to answer investigative questions. You can say that you prefer not to answer questions and would like to go on your way.
• You do not have to consent to a search. Saying “I do not consent to a search” clearly and once is not obstruction. Physically interfering would be.
• Do not argue about whether the stop was legal. That argument is won later, in a courtroom, with the footage.

Refusing consent or declining to answer is not, by itself, a lawful basis for an arrest. When an officer responds to a polite refusal by escalating, that escalation frequently produces a charge under Penal Code section 148 or section 69. Our article on passive versus active resistance explains where courts have drawn that line.

When a stop turns into something worse

Many of the cases this firm handles started as a routine stop. Someone asked a question, or did not move fast enough, or reached for a phone to record, and within a minute they were on the pavement facing charges for resisting an officer.

If that happened to you, write down everything you remember while it is fresh, photograph any injuries the same day and again as bruising develops, get medical care, and preserve any video you or your passengers took. Then act quickly, because a claim against a California city, county, or state agency generally requires a written government claim within six months.

Frequently asked questions

About the Author

Jerry L. Steering has represented people injured or falsely arrested by law enforcement since 1984. He graduated from the University of Georgia School of Law in 1984 and has been licensed in California since 1986 (State Bar No. 122509). His Newport Beach practice covers police misconduct, civil rights, and criminal defense throughout Orange, Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, Ventura, Santa Barbara, and Kern counties.

This article is general legal information, not legal advice about your situation. Reading it does not create an attorney client relationship.

Sources

• California Vehicle Code section 2806.5, added by AB 2773 (2021 to 2022 Regular Session), effective January 1, 2024
• California Government Code section 12525.5 (Racial and Identity Profiling Act reporting)
• Liebert Cassidy Whitmore, “AB 2773 Imposes Procedural Requirements For Police Stops”
• Criminal Legal News, “California AB 2773 Requires Police to State Reason for Traffic Stops Before Questioning,” May 2024
• Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (1996)
• California Penal Code sections 148 and 69
• California Government Code section 911.2

Jerry L. Steering, Esq.

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.

steeringlaw.com/

Getting body cam footage after a California arrest comes down to two tracks. If it’s a shooting or a use of force causing death or great bodily injury, the agency has a hard 45-day deadline under AB 748. For every other arrest, a rough takedown, a bad handcuffing, a search you think was illegal, there’s no fixed deadline, so you file a CPRA request, send a preservation letter the same day, and push. Departments routinely purge “non-evidentiary” footage on short retention cycles, sometimes within weeks, which is why speed matters more than the paperwork itself. Pair the video request with a separate request for the officer’s personnel and misconduct history under SB 1421/SB 16, that’s the request most people forget, and it’s often the one that actually moves a case.

Keypoints:

• Preservation demand goes out first, same day, this stops routine deletion before you’ve even filed anything
• Critical incidents (shootings, force causing death/great bodily injury) get a 45-day release deadline under Gov. Code § 7923.625
• Ordinary arrests have no fixed deadline, agencies can and do deny CPRA requests citing “investigatory records” exemptions
• Body cam footage is not automatically a public record for every arrest; access depends on the incident type and any active investigation
• A separate SB 1421/SB 16 request for the officer’s misconduct history is often more valuable than the video itself
• Private footage, doorbell cams, business surveillance, bystander video, can overwrite in days, so it needs collecting fast, separately from the official request

The video exists. That is the part most people get right. What surprises them is how quickly it can stop existing, and how differently the rules treat a routine arrest compared to a shooting.

If you were beaten, tased, bitten by a police dog, or arrested on charges you know are false, the body camera and dash camera recordings are often the difference between your word against an officer’s and a case that resolves itself the moment a judge or a jury watches sixty seconds of footage. Here is how to go after it. Whether you know exactly how to get body cam footage already or you’re starting from zero, the process below works the same way. 

Step one, and do it today: send a preservation letter

Before you request anything, demand that the agency keep it.

Retention schedules vary by department, and video categorized as non evidentiary is frequently purged on a short cycle. A written preservation demand, sent to the agency’s records unit and its city attorney or county counsel, identifies the date, time, location, incident or report number, and the officers involved, and asks that all body worn camera, dash camera, station, and jail video be preserved along with the associated metadata and audit logs.

Two reasons this comes first. It stops the clock on routine deletion. And if a department destroys video after receiving a preservation demand, that destruction itself becomes an issue in the case. Even people who’ve never dealt with an agency before can figure out how to get bodycam footage once they understand this first step, the preservation letter is what buys you the time to do everything else properly. 

Step two: know which category your incident falls into

California treats two situations very differently.

Critical incidents: the 45 day rule

AB 748 took effect on July 1, 2019 and now appears at Government Code section 7923.625. It covers recordings of critical incidents, meaning an incident in which an officer discharged a firearm, or in which force by an officer caused death or great bodily injury.

For those recordings, the agency must make the video available under the Public Records Act within 45 days of the incident, or within 45 days of when it should reasonably have known about it.

An agency can delay release beyond 45 days only if disclosure would substantially interfere with an active criminal or administrative investigation, for example by endangering a witness or a confidential source. Even then it must notify the requester in writing and reassess every 30 days, and it cannot push past one year unless it can show by clear and convincing evidence that interference would still occur. Where privacy interests outweigh the public interest, the agency is expected to blur or redact rather than withhold, and it must still provide a copy to the people directly involved.

Everything else

Most arrests are not critical incidents. A takedown that leaves you with bruises and a resisting charge, a handcuffing that dislocates a shoulder, a search of your car after a stop, none of that triggers the 45 day clock.  Most arrests aren’t critical incidents. A takedown that leaves you bruised with a resisting charge, a handcuffing that dislocates a shoulder, a car search after a stop, none of that trips the 45-day clock, and none of it is automatically a public record the way critical-incident footage is. If the charges against you don’t match what you know happened, this is often where a false arrest claim starts taking shape. 

For those recordings the routes are a Public Records Act request, a criminal discovery request if charges were filed, and civil discovery once a lawsuit is on file. Agencies often deny records act requests for ordinary arrest video by citing the investigatory records exemption, and that denial is common enough that you should plan for it rather than be surprised by it.

Step three: file the Public Records Act request properly

A request that gets results is specific and dated. Include the incident date and approximate time, the location, the report or incident number if you have one, the names or badge numbers of the officers if you know them, and the categories you want: body worn camera video, in car video, station and booking area video, computer aided dispatch logs, radio traffic, and the use of force report.

Ask for the records in their native format with metadata intact. Ask separately for the retention policy and the audit log showing who viewed or exported the file. Agencies must respond within ten days as to whether they hold disclosable records, though the actual production commonly takes longer. Knowing how to request body camera footage the right way,not just what to ask for, but how to phrase it, is what separates a request that gets ignored from one that gets answered. 

Step four: request the personnel and misconduct records too

This is the request people forget, and it is often the more valuable one.

SB 1421, effective in 2019, and SB 16, which expanded it in 2022, opened categories of peace officer records that used to be sealed. Under Penal Code section 832.7 the public may obtain records relating to officer involved shootings, uses of force resulting in death or great bodily injury, sustained findings of dishonesty, sexual assault by an officer, and sustained findings of unreasonable force or unlawful arrests and searches.

That is a separate request from video, sent to the same agency. If the officer who arrested you has a sustained finding for dishonesty or unreasonable force, that record is a public record now, and it changes the shape of a case.

For anyone facing charges, criminal defense counsel has an additional tool in the Pitchess motion, which is a court process for obtaining complaint history from an officer’s confidential personnel file. Our article on Brady lists and Pitchess motions explains how those fit together.

What the video does and does not settle

Body camera footage is evidence, not a verdict. Cameras get switched on late, obstructed by an arm or a vest, or angled away from what matters. Audio often captures what the lens misses. Bystander video, business surveillance, and doorbell cameras frequently show what the officer’s camera does not, and private systems overwrite in days, so those need to be collected fast.

The point isn’t that video proves everything. The point is that the video, its metadata, the audit log, and the officer’s own report either line up or they don’t. Our breakdown of what evidence actually wins police misconduct cases goes deeper on how that gap becomes the case. 

Our article on body cameras and police accountability goes deeper on how footage actually functions in litigation. This is exactly the kind of fight a police misconduct attorney in California handles daily, agencies stall, cite exemptions, and hope requesters give up. If criminal charges are also on the table, pairing that request with a criminal defense lawyer in California ensures the same footage gets pulled through discovery too, not just the records act. 

Conclusion

Body cam footage doesn’t wait around for you to get organized, it can be gone before you’ve even decided who to call. The preservation letter goes out same day, the Public Records Act request follows right after, and if the incident involved a shooting or serious injury, the 45-day clock is already running whether you’ve filed anything or not.

At Steering Law, this is the exact fight Jerry L. Steering has been having with California law enforcement agencies since 1984, footage withheld, deadlines ignored, records “lost.” If your video request has already been denied, delayed, or you’re not sure where to even start, Steering Law can send the preservation demand and the records request on your behalf, and push back when an agency stonewalls.

Frequently asked questions

Sources

• California Government Code section 7923.625 (formerly Government Code section 6254(f)(4), added by AB 748, effective July 1, 2019)
• Best Best & Krieger, “AB 748: More Public Access to Body Camera Footage Under the Public Records Act”
• California Penal Code section 832.7, as amended by SB 1421 (2018) and SB 16 (2021)
• California Public Records Act, Government Code section 7920.000 and following
• California Evidence Code sections 1043 to 1047 (Pitchess procedure)
• First Amendment Coalition, Police Transparency Handbook

Jerry L. Steering, Esq.

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.

steeringlaw.com/

California’s SB 747, known as the No Kings Act, would let people sue federal agents, including ICE and Border Patrol, in state court for violating their constitutional rights. Authored by State Senator Scott Wiener, the bill closes a gap left by Supreme Court decisions that narrowed Bivens claims against individual federal officers, and it would not require the Federal Tort Claims Act’s administrative claims process first. The California Legislature passed SB 747 on August 27, 2026, and it is currently awaiting Governor Gavin Newsom’s signature, with a deadline at the end of September 2026. Until it is signed, most claims against federal agents in California still go through the Federal Tort Claims Act, which requires an administrative claim within two years of the incident. If signed, SB 747 would make California the first state with a direct state-court remedy against federal officers for constitutional violations.

Keypoints

• SB 747, the No Kings Act, would let people sue federal agents in California state court for constitutional violations.
• The bill passed the California Legislature on August 27, 2026, and awaits Governor Newsom’s signature by the end of September 2026.
• Today, most claims against federal agents go through the Federal Tort Claims Act, which requires an administrative claim within two years.
• SB 747 would skip that federal claims process and would not require proof of “threats, intimidation, or coercion” like the Bane Act does.
• Bivens claims against individual federal officers have been sharply narrowed by the Supreme Court, most notably in Egbert v. Boule (2022).
• As of this writing, SB 747 has not been signed and is not yet law.

If you were thrown to the ground during a workplace raid, hit with a projectile at a protest, or handcuffed by agents who never told you why, the first question is usually the same. Can I do anything about this?

You can. The honest answer is that the rules for holding a federal agent accountable are different, and in several ways harder, than the rules for holding a city police officer accountable. Knowing which set of rules applies to your situation matters more than almost anything else, because the deadlines are short and one of them is unforgiving.

Why federal agents are treated differently

When a Los Angeles police officer or an Orange County sheriff’s deputy violates your rights, you generally sue under 42 U.S.C. section 1983, the federal civil rights statute, and often under California’s Tom Bane Civil Rights Act as well. Those tools exist because the officer acts under state law. When city and county officers are involved alongside federal ones in the same incident, a best civil rights attorney in california can pursue both claims together instead of losing time figuring out which track applies. 

A federal agent does not act under state law. Section 1983 does not reach them. That single distinction is why cases involving Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Border Patrol, the FBI, the DEA, or the U.S. Marshals follow a separate track.

The Federal Tort Claims Act is the main road today

The Federal Tort Claims Act, found at 28 U.S.C. sections 1346 and 2671 through 2680, lets you seek money damages from the United States for harm caused by federal employees acting within the scope of their employment. You do not sue the individual agent. You sue the government that sent them.

The claim comes before the lawsuit

Before you can file anything in court, you must present an administrative claim to the agency involved. This is usually done on Standard Form 95. Under 28 U.S.C. section 2401(b) that claim has to be presented within two years of the injury, and it must state a “sum certain,” meaning a specific dollar figure. The agency then has six months to accept, deny, or sit on it. If it denies the claim or lets the six months run, you may file suit in federal district court.

Miss the two-year deadline and the case is over. Courts treat this requirement as jurisdictional, which means a judge has no power to excuse the delay no matter how sympathetic the facts are. Leave out the sum certain and courts have thrown out claims for that alone. This is the single most common way a strong case against federal agents dies before anyone looks at the merits.

The law enforcement proviso is what makes these cases possible

The Federal Tort Claims Act normally bars claims for intentional torts. There is a carve-out. Under 28 U.S.C. section 2680(h), when the conduct involves “investigative or law enforcement officers,” you may bring claims for assault, battery, false imprisonment, false arrest, abuse of process, and malicious prosecution. Immigration and customs agents fall squarely within that definition, which is why an excessive force case against ICE or Border Patrol is usually pleaded as assault and battery against the United States.

What happened to Bivens claims

For decades the companion remedy was a Bivens claim, named for a 1971 Supreme Court decision allowing a constitutional damages suit directly against an individual federal officer. The Supreme Court has narrowed that remedy repeatedly, most sharply in Egbert v. Boule (2022). What remains is a narrow Fourth Amendment lane and very little else. Courts now routinely decline to extend Bivens into any “new context.”

That is the practical reason the Federal Tort Claims Act carries most of the weight in these cases, and the practical reason California legislators went looking for another answer.

SB 747, the No Kings Act

Senate Bill 747, authored by Senator Scott Wiener and known as the No Kings Act, would create a cause of action in California state court against federal officers who violate constitutional rights, including excessive force and false arrest. If you’re asking what is the no kings act in plain terms: it’s a state-law workaround for a federal accountability gap that Bivens claims can no longer reliably fill. 

Three features matter to someone who has been hurt:

• It would allow the case to be filed in state court rather than requiring federal court.
• It would not require the Federal Tort Claims Act administrative claim process first.
• It would not require proof of “threats, intimidation, or coercion,” which is the additional element the Bane Act demands.

 The bill’s official text and vote history are tracked on the California Legislative Information site, which is the most reliable way to confirm SB 747’s status before relying on anything written about it, including this article.

The Assembly passed SB 747 by a vote of 57 to 19 and the Senate by 30 to 10. It reached the Governor on August 27, 2026, and reporting at the time indicated he must act on it by September 30, 2026, with the law taking effect immediately if signed.

 Advocacy hasn’t stopped at the Legislature. Immigration rights groups and civil rights organizations have publicly pressed Governor Newsom to sign the bill without delay, arguing it’s the first real accountability tool of its kind aimed at federal officers. KRON4’s coverage of that push includes the case of a U.S. citizen and Army veteran who says he was wrongfully detained by ICE and plans to be among the first to file suit if the bill becomes law. 

Two cautions belong in the same breath. First, as of the date of this article the bill has not been signed, so it is not law and nothing here should be read as saying otherwise. Second, legislative staff and law enforcement groups have both said publicly that a state law reaching federal officers is likely to draw a federal court challenge. Nobody can responsibly predict how that turns out.

What to do now, whichever way SB 747 goes

The steps that protect a case do not depend on pending legislation.

• Write down what happened while it is fresh, including agency names, vehicle markings, badge or unit numbers, and the names of everyone present.
• Photograph injuries the same day and again several days later as bruising develops, and get medical treatment even if you feel able to tough it out.
• Save clothing, and do not wash it.
• Collect video. Ask bystanders, nearby businesses, and neighbors for footage right away, because most systems overwrite within days or weeks.
• Watch the calendar. The two-year federal administrative deadline is not the only clock. If any state or local officers took part in a joint operation, a separate six month California government claim deadline may apply to them, and it is much shorter.

Joint task forces are common in Southern California, and it is often unclear in the moment which agency an agent belongs to. That ambiguity is a reason to talk to a lawyer early rather than a reason to wait. As a police misconduct attorney, I’ve represented people harmed by federal, state, and local law enforcement since 1984, and if the same encounter also led to criminal charges against you, a criminal defense lawyer in california residents trust can handle that side of the case while any civil claim moves forward separately. KALW’s reporting on SB 747 confirms Governor Newsom has until the end of September to act, so check the bill’s status before assuming either outcome.

Conclusion

Right now, if a federal agent violates your rights in California, your realistic options run through the Federal Tort Claims Act, a narrow Bivens lane, or a two-year deadline that courts won’t bend for anyone. SB 747, the No Kings Act, is built to change that math by giving people a state-court path that doesn’t require the federal claims process first, but it’s still sitting on the Governor’s desk, not yet the law. Whichever way it goes, the steps that protect a case don’t wait for Sacramento: document everything, get the video before it disappears, and don’t guess at which deadline applies to your situation. Steering Law has spent four decades sorting out exactly that kind of ambiguity for people harmed by law enforcement at every level, federal, state, and local, and that experience doesn’t change based on what happens to a bill in September.

Frequently asked questions

This article is general legal information, not legal advice about your situation. Reading it does not create an attorney client relationship. Deadlines in these cases are short and unforgiving, so speak with a lawyer promptly.

Sources

• 28 U.S.C. sections 1346, 2401(b), 2675(a), 2680(h), Federal Tort Claims Act
• Egbert v. Boule, 596 U.S. 482 (2022)
• Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971)
• California SB 747 (2025 to 2026 Regular Session), Senator Scott Wiener
• Office of Senator Scott Wiener, “California Passes Senator Wiener’s Bill Allowing People to Sue ICE, Border Patrol For Violating Constitutional Rights,” sd11.senate.ca.gov
• KQED, “California Senate Approves Bill Making It Easier to Sue ICE Agents”
• Advocate Magazine, “The FTCA: Suing the federal government for civil rights violations,” June 2026
• California Civil Code section 52.1 (Tom Bane Civil Rights Act)
• California Government Code section 911.2

Jerry L. Steering, Esq.

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.

steeringlaw.com/