Author: 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.

What’s the Difference Between a Wrongful Death and an Excessive Force Claim After a Police Shooting?

Posted by Jerry L. Steering, Esq. on

They are two different claims that often arise from the same shooting. An excessive force claim is the constitutional claim, brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, that the officer used unreasonable deadly force. A wrongful death claim is the state-law claim that lets surviving family members recover for the loss of their loved one. After a fatal shooting, a family usually pursues both at once.

I have handled these cases for decades, and families are almost always told the wrong thing first. They are told to wait for the “investigation.” They are told the officer was cleared, so there is nothing to do. That is how the clock runs out on people while they are still grieving. Let me explain how these claims actually work, because the distinction is not academic and the deadlines are unforgiving.

Who can file each claim in California?

The excessive force (§ 1983) claim belongs to the person who was killed and survives to their estate, usually pursued by a successor in interest. The wrongful death claim belongs to specific surviving relatives, generally the spouse, domestic partner, and children, and in some cases the parents. Because they recover different things, families typically file them together.

The constitutional claim is governed by deadly-force law. Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985), held that deadly force against a fleeing suspect is generally unreasonable unless the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious harm. (Cornell LII) Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989), supplies the broader reasonableness test. California’s Penal Code § 835a, strengthened by AB 392 in 2019, requires that deadly force be necessary and imposes a duty to consider de-escalation, a stricter standard than the federal floor. (California Legislative Information) And the 2025 decision in Barnes v. Felix directs courts to examine the officer’s conduct leading up to the shooting, not just the final instant.

The wrongful death claim itself is a creature of state statute, California Code of Civil Procedure § 377.60, which defines who may sue. (California Legislative Information) The survival claim, which carries the deceased’s own § 1983 cause of action forward, is governed by § 377.30.

How are the damages different?

The two claims recover different losses. The survival claim, the deceased’s own § 1983 claim, can recover for their pre-death harm and the violation of their rights, and can support punitive damages against an individual officer. The wrongful death claim compensates the family for their own loss: the support, the companionship, the relationship that was taken.

Bringing both is how you make a public entity take the case seriously. Punitive damages are aimed at the officer’s conduct and are not available against the public entity itself, but they change the temperature of a case. California has also done something most states have not: under the Tom Bane Civil Rights Act and Senate Bill 2, an officer cannot hide behind qualified immunity for a Bane Act claim the way they can in a pure federal case. (Shouse Law) That gives families a powerful state-law path that the federal immunity doctrine does not block, and it is one reason these cases are often stronger in California than elsewhere.

Excessive force / survival claimWrongful death claim
Legal basis42 U.S.C. § 1983; survival via Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 377.30Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 377.60
Whose claim it isThe deceased’s, carried by the estateSurviving family members
What it recoversPre-death harm, rights violation, punitive damages vs. officerFamily’s loss of support and companionship
Qualified immunityCan apply to the federal claimBane Act path (SB 2) blocks the QI defense

What is the deadline to file a claim after a fatal police shooting in California?

For claims against a California public entity, you generally must file a written government tort claim within six months of the death before you can bring most state-law claims, including wrongful death. The federal § 1983 claim has a longer window, but the six-month state deadline is the one that quietly ends cases.

This is where I see good families lose rights they did not know they had. The agency that just killed your loved one is not going to remind you about a six-month deadline. They benefit from your silence and your grief. By the time the internal review wraps up and tells you the shooting was “within policy,” the clock may already have run. The government tort claim is a formal written notice to the city or county, and the rules about what it must contain and where it must be filed are technical enough that families should not navigate them alone.

There are first steps that protect a case from the very beginning. Request and preserve everything: the autopsy and coroner’s report, body-worn and dash-camera footage, dispatch and radio traffic, and the names of every officer and witness on scene. Do not give a recorded statement to the agency’s investigators or its insurer without counsel. And talk to a civil rights lawyer early, while the evidence is fresh and the deadlines are still open, not after they have closed.

What do these cases actually recover in Southern California?

Wrongful death settlements and verdicts against local agencies regularly reach into the millions. Our firm’s published results include a $2,900,000 wrongful death resolution in Eliuth Penaloza Nava v. City of Anaheim (2020). Numbers like that are not a lottery ticket; they reflect a life, and what it takes to make a department change.

I keep the facts of any specific case to what is in the public record, and so should any lawyer who writes about results. But the larger point stands: when a family brings both the constitutional claim and the wrongful death claim, with the evidence preserved and the deadlines met, a public entity that expected the family to disappear has to reckon with a real case instead.

If you lost a family member to a police shooting anywhere in Southern California, please do not wait for the agency to tell you whether you have a case. There is a six-month government tort claim deadline lurking, and it does not pause for grief. Talk to a civil rights lawyer who has done this before, and do it early.

Huntington Park Police Department SWAT officers 2

Can You Sue the Police for Shooting You With a “Less-Lethal” Projectile in California?

Posted by Jerry L. Steering, Esq. on

Yes. A foam baton round, bean bag, or rubber bullet is still force, and when an officer fires one at someone who poses no immediate threat, that can be excessive force under the Fourth Amendment and California law. You can bring a civil rights claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law for your injuries and the violation of your rights.

I have been suing the police since 1984, and I will tell you what the agencies will not: the word “less-lethal” is a public-relations term, not a medical one. A 40-millimeter foam round to the face does not know it is supposed to be less lethal. It fractures eye sockets, blinds people in one eye, and shatters teeth. I have watched departments fire these things into crowds and then describe the people they hit as if they were the problem. The label is designed to make a dangerous weapon sound gentle, so that when it maims someone, the public shrugs.

What does California law say about police use of “less-lethal” force?

The standard comes from the Fourth Amendment and is the same one used for any force: was it objectively reasonable? Under Graham v. Connor, courts weigh the severity of the suspected crime, whether the person posed an immediate threat, and whether they were actively resisting or fleeing. California’s Penal Code § 835a adds that force must be necessary.

The U.S. Supreme Court set the framework in Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989), holding that police force is judged by what a reasonable officer would do, not by hindsight. (Cornell LII) The three Graham factors are not abstract. A person standing on a sidewalk recording the police, or walking away from a protest with their hands up, has committed no serious crime, poses no immediate threat, and is not resisting. Fire a hard round at that person and you have, in plain terms, used force that was not reasonable.

California then went further than the federal floor. Penal Code § 835a, as strengthened by Assembly Bill 392 in 2019, tells officers that deadly force must be necessary and that they have a duty to consider de-escalation. (California Legislative Information) And in 2025, the Supreme Court in Barnes v. Felix instructed courts to examine the whole encounter, including the officer’s own conduct in the moments leading up to the use of force, rather than freezing the analysis at the final second. That matters, because the officer who creates the chaos should not get to point at the chaos as his excuse.

When is a rubber bullet or bean bag round considered excessive force?

It becomes excessive force when the person hit was not an immediate threat. Most agencies’ own policies forbid firing these rounds at someone’s head, neck, or groin, and forbid firing indiscriminately into a crowd. When officers break their own rules and strike a peaceful or retreating person, that is strong evidence the force was unreasonable.

Here is the part the police do not advertise: their own training and written policy already tell a jury most of what it needs to know. Less-lethal launchers are supposed to be aimed at the lower body, used against a specific person who is an active threat, and never sprayed into a crowd of people who are standing, recording, or walking away. When a department violates the very policy it wrote, the “officer’s safety” justification starts to collapse. I have cross-examined enough officers to know that the policy manual they were trained on is often the best witness against them.

Southern California has produced a steady stream of these cases. In April 2026, a federal jury awarded $11.8 million to a man permanently blinded in one eye by an LAPD less-lethal munition fired into a crowd. (Davis Vanguard) Earlier in 2026, residents who were shot in the head and face during protests against federal immigration enforcement filed civil rights suits against the City and County of Los Angeles, alleging the agencies fired indiscriminately and without dispersal warnings. (Davis Vanguard) These are not freak accidents. They are the predictable result of treating a dangerous weapon as if it were harmless.

What should you do if you were hit by a police projectile?

Get medical care and document the injury, photograph the wounds, save your clothing unwashed, write down the date, time, location, and agency, identify witnesses, preserve any video, and call a civil rights attorney before giving any statement. The first hours and days matter more than people realize.

Take these steps as soon as you safely can:

  1. Get medical care and make sure the injury is documented in the records.
  2. Photograph every wound, and keep photographing as it heals.
  3. Save your clothing unwashed and in a bag.
  4. Write down the date, time, location, and agency while it is fresh.
  5. Identify witnesses and preserve any video, including livestreams.
  6. Call a civil rights attorney before giving any statement.

Let me be blunt about evidence, because it wins these cases. The projectile itself, the bruise pattern, and the medical imaging often tell the story better than any officer’s report ever will. Body-worn camera footage and the agency’s own use-of-force logs are gold, but they have a way of disappearing if no one demands them in time. The sooner a lawyer sends a litigation hold and a preservation letter, the better your odds of seeing the footage that the department would rather you never see.

There is also a deadline trap that catches good people. If your case involves a city, county, or other public entity in California, you generally must file a written government tort claim within six months of the incident before you can sue for many state-law damages. Miss that window and you can lose otherwise strong claims. Do not let that clock run out while you are recovering.

I represent people across Southern California who were hurt this way, from Los Angeles to Orange County and beyond. If the police shot you with one of these rounds and you were not a threat, you may have a real case, and you should not have to face a city attorney’s office alone. Call my office for a free, confidential evaluation.

Kern County Sheriff's Deputy siccing dog on man 2

Police Dog (K-9) Attacks – When a Canine Mauling Is a Civil Rights Violation

Posted by Jerry L. Steering, Esq. on

Most people think of a police dog bite as an unfortunate but legally uncomplicated outcome of a police encounter. The dog caught the suspect. That is what dogs are for.

That assumption is wrong in more cases than the public realizes. A police K-9 is not a passive tool. It is a weapon — powerful, unpredictable, and often devastating — that courts recognize as among the most severe uses of force available to law enforcement short of a firearm. When that weapon is deployed without justification, against someone who has surrendered, against an innocent bystander, or for longer than the situation requires, it is a Fourth Amendment violation. And it is something you can sue for.

K-9 attack cases are among the most underreported categories of police misconduct in California. Many victims do not know they have a civil rights claim. They assume that because police were authorized to make an arrest, the dog was authorized to bite. That is not how the law works.

Police Dogs Are a Use of Force — And the Law Treats Them That Way

Under Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989), all uses of force by police — deadly or not — must be objectively reasonable under the circumstances. The Supreme Court established a three-factor balancing test applied to every excessive force claim: the severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect posed an immediate threat to safety, and whether the suspect was actively resisting or attempting to flee.

Police dogs fall squarely within this framework. The Ninth Circuit has consistently recognized K-9 deployment as a significant use of force — ranging from severe to intermediate depending on when the dog was released, how long the bite continued, whether the suspect had surrendered, and whether the handler maintained appropriate command.

This matters because a K-9 bite is not comparable to other intermediate force tools. A trained police dog bites with enough pressure to puncture light sheet metal, causing torn muscles, nerve damage, bone fractures, severe lacerations, permanent scarring, and in some cases death. The injuries K-9s inflict are frequently more severe than those caused by a baton, pepper spray, or Taser — making the threshold for justified deployment correspondingly higher.

When a K-9 Deployment Becomes Excessive Force

The deployment of a police dog is not automatically excessive force. Police have the authority to use K-9 units to locate concealed suspects, track individuals who have fled, and assist in the apprehension of people who pose a genuine danger. Courts have upheld K-9 deployments in cases involving dangerous felony suspects who were actively hiding and who had not surrendered.

The constitutional violations in K-9 cases typically arise in one of five ways:

1. Deployment against a suspect who has surrendered or poses no threat. The most clearly established rule in K-9 civil rights law: an officer cannot release a dog on a suspect who has fully surrendered and is under control. The Ninth Circuit stated it plainly in Watkins v. City of Oakland, 145 F.3d 1087 (9th Cir. 1998): “No particularized case law is necessary for a deputy to know that excessive force has been used when a deputy sics a canine on a handcuffed arrestee who has fully surrendered and is completely under control.” Officers who violate this rule cannot hide behind qualified immunity.

2. Prolonged biting after surrender. Even if the initial deployment was justified, the bite must stop once the suspect is no longer a threat. In Rosenbaum v. City of San Jose, 107 F.4th 919 (9th Cir. 2024), the Ninth Circuit held that permitting a police dog to hold a bite for 20 seconds after full surrender and officer control presented a triable jury question. A handler who allows biting to continue — or encourages the dog to rebite — after compliance has been achieved has committed an unconstitutional act. Unlike a baton strike, a K-9 attack continues independently of the suspect’s compliance until the handler commands release. That gap between surrender and release is where many of the worst violations occur.

3. Deployment against unarmed individuals for minor offenses. The Graham factors require courts to weigh the severity of the crime. Releasing a police dog on someone suspected of a non-violent misdemeanor — shoplifting, a traffic violation, trespassing — rarely withstands constitutional scrutiny. The ACLU reviewed 37 California police agencies and found that only San Jose’s policy limited K-9 deployment to situations involving a threat of serious injury. Many agencies permit deployment in circumstances where the force is grossly disproportionate to the offense.

4. Deployment against innocent bystanders. Police dogs occasionally injure people who were not the target — bystanders, family members, people in the wrong place. In those cases, the governmental interest that might otherwise justify force is entirely absent, and the constitutional violation is particularly clear.

5. Failures of training and department policy. When a department’s K-9 policy permits deployment in constitutionally unreasonable circumstances — or when the department fails to adequately train handlers — the department itself may face liability under the Monell doctrine. This avenue matters in cases where the individual officer’s conduct, while clearly wrong, might otherwise be shielded by qualified immunity.

California’s Legal Framework for K-9 Attack Cases

K-9 attack cases in California can be pursued on multiple legal tracks.

Federal civil rights claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 are the primary vehicle for constitutional excessive force claims against the individual officer and agency. Where the right violated was clearly established — as it is in cases involving biting a surrendered suspect — qualified immunity is unavailable.

California Bane Act claims (Civil Code § 52.1) add the no-qualified-immunity standard effective since SB 2 in 2022, treble damages, and enhanced attorney’s fees. For K-9 cases involving severe injuries, these multipliers can be decisive.

California’s dog bite statute (Civil Code § 3342) imposes strict liability on dog owners when their dog bites someone in a public place. It includes a law enforcement exemption for dogs used in apprehension or investigation — but that exemption does not apply when the dog attacked an innocent bystander or the department lacked a properly written K-9 use policy. Even where the exemption applies, the constitutional excessive force claim under § 1983 and the Bane Act remains fully available.

What K-9 Attack Cases Have Produced in California

California courts and agencies have paid significant sums to resolve K-9 attack cases. San Jose agreed to a $1.6 million settlement after a police dog attacked a man already on the ground, biting him in the throat. A San Mateo County case produced a $1.1 million jury verdict. Vallejo settled a case in which a police dog bit a driver through his car window for 23 seconds during a pursuit. These outcomes reflect both the severity of K-9 injuries and the legal vulnerability of agencies whose policies and training do not meet constitutional standards.

No national database tracks police K-9 deployments or injuries — which itself tells part of the story. Without systematic data, patterns of unconstitutional use go undetected, and accountability arrives only when individual victims pursue civil rights claims. That makes the decision to sue consequential not just for the victim but for everyone in communities where these dogs are deployed.

Frequently Asked Questions About Police K-9 Attack Cases

Yes. The lawfulness of an arrest is separate from the lawfulness of the force used to make it. An officer can have probable cause to arrest you and still deploy a K-9 in a constitutionally unreasonable manner. The question is not whether the arrest was justified but whether the specific use of the dog — when released, how long the bite lasted, whether the situation warranted it — was objectively reasonable under the Graham factors.

This is one of the most well-established excessive force scenarios in K-9 civil rights law. The Ninth Circuit has held that excessive bite duration is itself a constitutional violation, and that a handler who permits biting to continue after surrender cannot hide behind qualified immunity. Document everything — your words, your physical actions, the moment you surrendered, how long the bite continued.

Warnings are a factor, not a shield. An officer can give proper warnings and still commit excessive force if the deployment itself was unjustified given the circumstances. Warnings are not a checkbox that legalizes whatever follows. A dog released against an unarmed, compliant person after proper warnings is still an unconstitutional use of force.

If you were injured by a police K-9 during an enforcement operation you were not involved in, you may have the strongest case of all. The governmental interest that might justify deploying a dog on a fleeing suspect does not apply to you. Depending on the facts, California’s dog bite statute may also apply without the law enforcement exemption, creating an additional avenue for recovery.

The same as all California police misconduct cases: you must file a government tort claim with the responsible agency within six months of the incident before pursuing California state law claims, and the federal § 1983 statute of limitations is two years. As covered in Blog #3, missing the six-month government claim deadline permanently destroys your state law claims. Call an attorney immediately after the incident.

K-9 Injuries Are Serious. The Legal Fight Is Real. Do Not Face It Alone.

A police dog attack can require surgery, leave permanent scarring, cause lasting nerve damage, and generate psychological trauma that outlasts the physical wounds by years. The legal case that follows is not simple. K-9 excessive force cases require careful analysis of the Graham factors, the department’s written K-9 policy, the officer’s training record, the handler’s commands during the encounter, and the body camera footage that captures what the police report often omits.

The Law Offices of Jerry L. Steering has handled canine mauling cases in Southern California as part of a civil rights practice that has been holding police accountable since 1984. We know this area of law, we know where violations most commonly occur, and we know how to build the case that gives you the best chance at justice.

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

  1. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) — U.S. Supreme Court establishing objective reasonableness standard for all Fourth Amendment excessive force claims. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/490/386/
  2. Watkins v. City of Oakland, 145 F.3d 1087 (9th Cir. 1998) — Ninth Circuit holding that excessive bite duration is a constitutional violation; no particularized case law needed to establish that biting a handcuffed, surrendered suspect is unconstitutional.
  3. Chew v. Gates, 27 F.3d 1432 (9th Cir. 1994) — Ninth Circuit identifying two types of K-9 excessive force claims; reversing summary judgment on unreasonable dog bite.
  4. Rosenbaum v. City of San Jose, 107 F.4th 919 (9th Cir. 2024) — Ninth Circuit holding that permitting a police dog to hold a bite for 20 seconds after full surrender and officer control presents a triable jury question.
  5. Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985) — Deadly force against a fleeing suspect who poses no danger is unconstitutional; foundational excessive force precedent.
  6. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 — Federal civil rights cause of action for constitutional violations under color of state law.
  7. California Civil Code § 52.1 — Tom Bane Civil Rights Act; no qualified immunity for Bane Act claims post-SB 2 (effective January 1, 2022).
  8. California Civil Code § 3342 — Dog bite strict liability statute; law enforcement exemption and its limits.
  9. Ninth Circuit Model Jury Instructions § 9.27 — Excessive force; K-9 deployment classified as severe to intermediate force depending on circumstances. https://www.ce9.uscourts.gov/jury-instructions/node/163
  10. ACLU — Policy brief on California K-9 use; analysis of 37 California police agency policies. Referenced in V&Z Law Firm analysis. https://www.vzlawfirm.com/after-numerous-excessive-force-lawsuits-will-california-limit-its-use-of-canine-units-during-police-encounters/
  11. Fund Capital America — “$1.6M San José K-9 Settlement,” July 2025. https://fundcapitalamerica.com/san-jose-pays-1-6m-in-k-9-dog-bite-settlement/
  12. Law360 — “Too Often, Use of K-9 Units Is Cruel and Unusual Punishment,” citing Koistra v. County of San Diego (S.D. Cal. 2018) — qualified immunity denied where officer allowed bite to continue 30+ seconds after clear surrender. https://www.law360.com/articles/1696645/too-often-use-of-k-9-units-is-cruel-and-unusual-punishment
Rancho Santa Margarita Civic Center and Sheriff's Department station

Qualified Immunity vs. the Bane Act – Why Suing Police in California Is Different in 2026

Posted by Jerry L. Steering, Esq. on

If you have been the victim of police misconduct in California and you are researching your legal options, you have almost certainly encountered two things: the phrase “qualified immunity” and a sinking feeling that the law is not on your side.

That feeling is not entirely wrong — at least not in federal court. Qualified immunity is a judge-made doctrine that has shielded police officers from accountability for decades. For a victim suing under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, qualified immunity is often the first obstacle, the highest obstacle, and the one most likely to end the case before it reaches a jury.

But California is not just any state. Since 2022, California has given police misconduct victims a legal path that federal law does not — one that strips officers of the qualified immunity defense entirely. Understanding the difference between these two routes is not a legal technicality. It is the difference between a case that gets dismissed and a case that gets tried.

What Qualified Immunity Actually Is — And Where It Came From

Qualified immunity is not in the Constitution. It is not in the text of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal civil rights statute giving citizens the right to sue government officials for constitutional violations. The Supreme Court created it, largely in its current form in Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982), by reading a “good faith” defense into § 1983 that Congress never wrote.

The doctrine works like this: even if an officer violated your constitutional rights, they cannot be held personally liable for money damages unless the right they violated was “clearly established” at the time of the incident. A right is “clearly established” only when prior court decisions have found nearly identical conduct unconstitutional — putting every reasonable officer on notice that what they were doing was unlawful.

In practice, it has become a formidable barrier to accountability. Courts generally require a prior case with nearly identical facts. Not just similar — nearly identical. The Sixth Circuit once granted qualified immunity to an officer who allowed his police dog to bite a surrendered suspect — because prior case law had found that conduct unconstitutional only when the suspect surrendered by lying down, not by sitting with hands raised. Different posture. Different outcome. Officer protected.

This is not an anomaly. It is the doctrine operating as designed. Critics call it an Escherian stairwell: to overcome qualified immunity you need a case with nearly identical facts, but the first litigant to bring a case under any given set of facts will almost certainly lose — because no prior case established the right. No precedent, no clearly established law. No clearly established law, no liability.

As of 2026, Congress has not eliminated qualified immunity despite repeated attempts. The Ending Qualified Immunity Act has been reintroduced in the 119th Congress as H.R. 3602 and S. 1913 — but it has not passed. At the federal level, the shield remains.

What California Did — And Why It Matters

California did not wait for Congress. Beginning January 1, 2022, Senate Bill 2 amended the Tom Bane Civil Rights Act — California Civil Code § 52.1 — to eliminate qualified immunity as a defense in Bane Act claims against peace officers and custodial officers.

This is a significant shift. In a Bane Act lawsuit — whether filed in state or federal court — a police officer cannot raise qualified immunity to get the case dismissed before trial. The “clearly established” standard that kills so many § 1983 claims simply does not apply. If an officer violated your constitutional rights through threats, intimidation, or coercion, the case proceeds on the merits.

The practical consequences are substantial:

Cases that would die in federal court can survive in California. An officer who used force in a way that was arguably wrong but not addressed in a prior “nearly identical” case would be shielded by qualified immunity in a § 1983 lawsuit. Under the Bane Act, that shield is gone. The question becomes not whether the right was clearly established, but whether the officer actually violated it.

The financial stakes are higher on the Bane Act side. Successful Bane Act plaintiffs can recover treble damages — up to three times actual damages — plus enhanced attorney’s fees. Neither is available under § 1983. For victims with significant injuries, lost wages, and emotional trauma, this difference matters.

Malicious prosecution and prisoner injury claims are now viable. SB 2 removed specific governmental immunity provisions — Government Code sections 821.6, 844.6, and 845.6 — that previously blocked these claims. Officers who charged their victims with bogus crimes to cover up misconduct can now be sued under the Bane Act in ways that were not possible before 2022.

How Federal and California Law Work Together

The most important thing to understand is that this comparison is not either/or. In most California police misconduct cases, an experienced attorney brings both claims simultaneously — a § 1983 federal claim and a Bane Act state claim, typically filed together in federal court under supplemental jurisdiction.

The § 1983 claim covers the broadest range of constitutional violations, enables federal court access with its discovery tools and available injunctive relief, and allows claims against agencies under the Monell doctrine for systemic policy failures — where qualified immunity does not apply at all.

The Bane Act claim adds the no-qualified-immunity standard, treble damages, and enhanced attorney’s fees — along with the expanded categories of conduct now actionable under SB 2. It creates a parallel track that does not depend on navigating the “clearly established” maze.

Together, the two claims provide more angles of attack, more potential recovery, and more leverage in settlement negotiations. Losing qualified immunity on the § 1983 claim does not end the case if the Bane Act claim survives. And the prospect of treble damages on the Bane Act side creates real financial exposure for the officer and the agency — exposure that moves cases toward resolution.

What Qualified Immunity Does Not Protect

Even within the federal § 1983 framework, qualified immunity has real limits.

It protects individual officers from money damages — nothing more. It does not protect government agencies from § 1983 claims under the Monell doctrine, where the constitutional violation resulted from an official policy, custom, or failure to train. It does not prevent injunctions requiring policy changes. It does not apply to § 1983 claims seeking only injunctive relief rather than damages.

Some of the most consequential civil rights victories against police agencies have come through Monell claims against departments rather than individual officer liability — forcing changes to use-of-force policies, training programs, and oversight structures.

Qualified immunity also does not bar criminal prosecution of officers, internal disciplinary proceedings, or officer decertification under California’s SB 2 process — though those remedies operate outside civil litigation.

Frequently Asked Questions About Qualified Immunity and the Bane Act

Yes — for several reasons. Many § 1983 claims succeed because the violated right was clearly established. Courts have found many types of police conduct clearly unconstitutional — excessive force, false arrest without probable cause, retaliatory arrests for First Amendment activity, warrantless home entries. § 1983 claims against agencies under Monell require no qualified immunity analysis at all. And bringing both § 1983 and Bane Act claims together gives your attorney the most complete legal toolkit available.

Yes. When a Bane Act claim is filed alongside a § 1983 claim in federal court under supplemental jurisdiction, the federal court applies California law to the Bane Act claim — including SB 2’s elimination of qualified immunity. The shield that might protect the officer on the § 1983 side does not carry over to the Bane Act side.

The Bane Act requires that the interference with your constitutional rights was accomplished through threats, intimidation, or coercion. In police misconduct cases involving use of force or arrest, courts have found that the force or arrest itself constitutes the coercive act. The element is generally satisfied in excessive force, false arrest, and retaliatory arrest cases — the most common categories in police misconduct litigation.

Yes. In Leon v. County of Riverside (2023), the California Supreme Court reaffirmed that state law does not provide immunity for police misconduct under state tort law. Courts continued developing the post-SB 2 standards in 2024 and 2025, and this area of law continues to evolve — which is precisely why experience with current California civil rights law matters when selecting an attorney.

Potentially yes, if your Bane Act claim survives. A federal judge might grant qualified immunity on the § 1983 claim while allowing the Bane Act claim to proceed to trial. The Bane Act provides independent grounds for recovery — including treble damages — that exist regardless of the outcome on the federal qualified immunity question.

Why the Law You Choose Changes Everything

The legal framework you bring to a police misconduct case shapes every aspect of it: what the officer can argue, what evidence matters, what remedies are available, and what the agency faces in settlement negotiations. In California in 2026, victims have legal tools that did not exist four years ago — tools specifically designed to address the accountability gap that qualified immunity created.

Using those tools effectively requires an attorney who has litigated California police misconduct cases in both state and federal court, who understands how the Bane Act interacts with § 1983, and who has the experience to build a case that survives the defenses the government will inevitably raise.

The Law Offices of Jerry L. Steering has been litigating these cases in Southern California federal courts since 1984 — long before qualified immunity became the obstacle it is today, and long enough to have watched it evolve, pushed back against it, and now, in California, finally seen it limited where it counts.

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

  1. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 — Civil Rights Act of 1871; federal civil rights cause of action against state actors. https://uscode.house.gov
  2. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982) — U.S. Supreme Court establishing modern qualified immunity standard.
  3. Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) — Courts may rule on clearly established prong first; qualified immunity analysis.
  4. City of Tahlequah v. Bond, 595 U.S. 9 (2021) — Supreme Court reaffirming that nearly identical prior cases are required for clearly established law.
  5. California Senate Bill 2 (SB 2), effective January 1, 2022 — Elimination of specific governmental immunities in Bane Act cases; officer decertification process. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
  6. California Civil Code § 52.1 — Tom Bane Civil Rights Act; no qualified immunity for Bane Act claims post-SB 2.
  7. Leon v. County of Riverside (2023) — California Supreme Court reaffirming no state tort immunity for police misconduct during investigations.
  8. H.R. 3602 / S. 1913, 119th Congress (2025–2026) — Ending Qualified Immunity Act, reintroduced March 2026. https://www.congress.gov
  9. Dirigo Safety — “Police Law in a Nutshell: Qualified Immunity for Law Enforcement,” updated March 2026. https://dirigosafety.com/police-law-in-a-nutshell-qualified-immunity-for-law-enforcement/
  10. Police1 — “Qualified Immunity: A State-by-State Review,” updated May 2025. https://www.police1.com/legal/qualified-immunity-a-state-by-state-review
  11. Cornell Law School — “Qualified Immunity,” Wex Legal Dictionary. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/qualified_immunity
  12. Shouse Law Group — “Section 1983 Lawsuits in California,” updated May 2025. https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/blog/section-1983-lawsuits-in-california/
Palm Springs police officer with AR-15 - 2

What to Do in the First 72 Hours After Police Misconduct – A Step-by-Step Guide

Posted by Jerry L. Steering, Esq. on

The hours immediately following a police misconduct incident are the most important hours of your civil rights case. Not the day you file. Not the day of trial. Right now — while the memory is fresh, the injuries are visible, the witnesses are reachable, and the evidence still exists.

Most people spend those hours in shock. Some spend them in jail. Some are consumed by the criminal case that has just been opened against them. Almost none of them are taking the steps that will determine whether their civil rights case succeeds or fails.

This guide is what your attorney would tell you to do if they were standing next to you when it happened. Follow it as closely as your circumstances allow — and then call an attorney as fast as you possibly can.

Step 1: Get Medical Attention — Even If You Think You Are Fine

If you have been subjected to excessive force, go to a hospital or urgent care facility. Do this before anything else.

This is not just about your health. It is about evidence. Medical records documenting your injuries — made close in time to the incident — are among the most important pieces of evidence in any police misconduct case. They establish what was done to you, when it was done, and the severity of the harm. They are far more credible than photographs alone.

Ask the treating physician to document every injury in detail. Photograph your injuries before treatment when possible, and again after. If symptoms emerge in the following days — headaches, pain, bruising that develops over time — return and get those documented as well.

Medical records also create a timeline. If the incident happened at 10 p.m. and you arrived at the emergency room at 10:45 p.m. with injuries consistent with the force you described, that record becomes part of the factual foundation of your case.

Step 2: Write Everything Down — Immediately and In Detail

Memory degrades fast. Details that feel unforgettable right now will blur within days. The police report — written by the officer who harmed you and shaped to justify what they did — exists in permanent written form from day one. Your account needs to exist in permanent written form too.

As soon as you are physically able, document everything you remember:

  • The exact date, time, and location of the incident
  • The names, badge numbers, and physical descriptions of all officers involved
  • The agency and patrol unit if known; the patrol car number if visible
  • Everything that was said — by you, by the officers, and by anyone present — as close to verbatim as you can recall
  • The precise sequence of events: what happened first, what triggered each escalation
  • Exactly what force was used, by whom, and to what part of your body
  • Whether officers wore body cameras and whether those cameras appeared activated
  • Whether any bystanders were present and what they witnessed

Do not edit for tone. Write what happened. Sign and date the document. A contemporaneous written account carries significant evidentiary weight — precisely because it was made while the events were fresh.

Step 3: Identify and Secure Witnesses

Witnesses are perishable evidence. People move, lose their phones, forget what they saw, and become unreachable. The window to capture witness information is short.

If there were bystanders who witnessed the incident, get their names and contact information immediately — before leaving the scene if possible. If you cannot do it yourself, ask a family member or friend to do it on your behalf.

If someone filmed the encounter — a bystander, a passing driver, or a business surveillance camera — that footage needs to be secured without delay. Ask the person who filmed to save the original, unedited file and not post it publicly before speaking with an attorney. For surveillance footage, contact the business immediately. Most commercial systems overwrite footage on a rolling basis — typically within 30 to 90 days, sometimes less. Once gone, it cannot be recovered.

Your attorney can send a litigation hold letter demanding preservation of surveillance footage, dispatch logs, and body camera recordings — but only if you have identified those sources promptly.

Step 4: Preserve Physical Evidence

Physical evidence from the incident is evidence. Do not destroy it, wash it, or throw it away.

This includes:

  • Clothing worn during the incident — bag it in a paper bag (not plastic, which traps moisture), label it with the date, and store it. Torn fabric, blood stains, and soil transfer can all become significant evidence.
  • Any personal property that was damaged or seized — document the condition with photographs and preserve everything you still have.
  • Photographs of your injuries — taken as soon after the incident as possible, and again over the following days as bruising develops and changes. Use your phone. Timestamp is automatic.
  • Any items connected to the incident — receipts, parking tickets, phone records showing your location, anything that places you where you say you were at the time you say you were there.

Step 5: Request Body Camera and Surveillance Footage

California law gives you the right to request police body camera footage. Under Senate Bill 1421 and Assembly Bill 748, footage of incidents involving use of force resulting in injury is subject to public disclosure under the California Public Records Act (CPRA). An agency must acknowledge your request within 10 calendar days and release critical incident footage generally within 45 days.

Make your CPRA request in writing — certified mail or email with delivery confirmation. Keep copies. If the agency claims footage was lost, overwritten, or never recorded despite a camera activation policy, that failure itself can support your civil rights claim.

Submit the request early. Your attorney will pursue the footage through formal legal channels, but your written request creates a paper trail showing you acted promptly.

Step 6: Do Not Talk to Police About the Incident

If the same officers — or others from the same agency — contact you after the incident to take a statement, ask follow-up questions, or explain their version of events, do not engage without an attorney present. Everything you say will be used to support the official account. It will not be used to help you.

This applies even if the officer seems sympathetic or suggests that cooperating will make things easier. It will not. Your right to remain silent exists. Use it.

Step 7: Be Careful on Social Media

Do not post about the incident on social media. Not a description, not photographs, not your frustration, not your account of events.

Anything posted publicly can be used by the defense — taken out of context, used to challenge your credibility, or contradict aspects of your account in ways that are difficult to explain even when the explanation is straightforward.

If you have already posted about the incident, do not delete anything. Deletion of evidence can itself become a problem. Contact an attorney before taking any further action on any social media account connected to the incident.

Step 8: Contact a Civil Rights Attorney — Today

Everything in this guide is preliminary. It protects your evidence and your position while you get proper legal counsel. It does not substitute for that counsel.

The six-month government claim deadline begins running the day the incident occurs. Evidence degrades every day. Witnesses become harder to reach with every week that passes.

An experienced civil rights attorney will take over evidence preservation, send litigation hold letters, file the government claim on your behalf, and advise you on whether the criminal case and civil rights case need to be managed together. All of that happens in the early stages — none of it effectively without a prompt call.

Frequently Asked Questions About the Immediate Aftermath of Police Misconduct

Not too late to start — but act immediately. Get medical attention if you have not already, write down everything you remember now, and call a civil rights attorney today. The six-month government claim deadline is already running.

Not necessarily. Agencies are required to retain footage for a minimum period — typically 60 to 90 days for routine encounters, longer for use-of-force incidents. But footage can be overwritten, misfiled, or improperly deleted. A written CPRA request followed by a litigation hold letter from your attorney creates legal preservation obligations. Do not assume the footage will be available without taking action.

Discuss this with your attorney first. Timing and content of the complaint can have implications for your civil rights case. The November 2025 California Supreme Court ruling eliminated the intimidating warning that previously discouraged people from filing. When and how to file is a strategic decision, not a mechanical one.

Yes. Officers can be identified through patrol assignment records, dispatch logs, body camera footage, and agency records. Your attorney has legal tools to identify the officers even without that information. Note every physical description, vehicle number, and unit identifier you observed — every detail helps.

The First 72 Hours Set the Course of What Comes Next

Civil rights cases are won or lost on evidence. The evidence that exists in the first 72 hours after a police misconduct incident — injuries, witnesses, footage, physical materials — is more complete and more credible than anything that can be assembled weeks or months later. The Law Offices of Jerry L. Steering has handled police misconduct cases in Southern California since 1984. We know what evidence matters, how to preserve it, and how to use it. If you or someone you know has been the victim of police misconduct, do not wait to call.

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

  1. California Penal Code § 832.7 — Police personnel records; officer misconduct disclosures; SB 1421 amendments. California Legislative Information. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
  2. California Senate Bill 1421 (Right to Know Act, effective January 1, 2019) — Public access to records of police use of force, sexual misconduct, and dishonesty. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
  3. California Assembly Bill 748 (effective July 1, 2019) — Public access to body camera and audio recordings of critical incidents. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
  4. California Public Records Act (CPRA), Government Code §§ 7920-7931 — Rights to inspect and copy government records; 10-day acknowledgment requirement. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
  5. California Government Code § 911.2(a) — Six-month deadline for government tort claims for personal injury. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
  6. ACLU of Southern California — “Access to California Police Records.” https://www.aclusocal.org/know-your-rights/access-ca-police-records/
  7. First Amendment Coalition — “Police Transparency Handbook: California Public Records Act and SB 1421/AB 748.” https://firstamendmentcoalition.org/handbook/police-transparency-handbook/
  8. Freedom of the Press Foundation — “Tips for Requesting Body-Worn Camera Footage,” June 2025. https://freedom.press/the-classifieds/tips-for-requesting-body-worn-camera-footage-from-the-la-protests/
  9. CalMatters — “California Police Misconduct Records Now Available in Public Database,” August 4, 2025. https://calmatters.org/justice/2025/08/police-misconduct-records-database/
  10. Law Offices of Jerry L. Steering — Practice areas and case results. https://steeringlaw.com/police-misconduct-and-other-civil-rights-case-results/
Riverside Police Officers arresting 2

False Arrest in California – What It Is, What It Isn’t, and How to Fight Back

Posted by Jerry L. Steering, Esq. on

Most people who have been falsely arrested do not know it happened. They know the arrest felt wrong. They know they did not do anything illegal. But they assume that if the police arrested them, some legal justification must exist — because otherwise, why would officers do it?

That assumption is wrong. Officers make false arrests every day in California. Some result from mistaken identity. Others are pretextual — manufactured to punish someone who questioned police authority, refused a search, or happened to be in the wrong place. And some are calculated: a way to shift legal liability away from an officer who used excessive force by charging the victim with a “resistance offense” that gives the arrest the appearance of legitimacy.

False arrest is not a legal technicality. It is a Fourth Amendment violation. And in California, it is something you can sue for.

What Is a False Arrest Under California and Federal Law?

A false arrest occurs when a law enforcement officer takes you into custody — physically detaining you and depriving you of your freedom of movement — without the legal justification required to do so.

Under both the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and California Penal Code § 836, a police officer making a warrantless arrest must have probable cause — facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonable person to believe that a crime has been committed and that the specific person being arrested committed it. An arrest made without that evidentiary foundation is constitutionally invalid. It is a false arrest regardless of what the officer’s report says, regardless of whether charges were filed, and regardless of whether those charges were later dropped.

Probable cause is not a gut feeling. It is not a hunch. It is not based on the neighborhood you were standing in, the way you looked at an officer, or the fact that someone who vaguely matched your description was seen nearby. Courts are clear on this: probable cause requires specific, articulable facts that, taken together, justify the conclusion that this person, right now, committed this crime.

When those facts do not exist and the arrest happens anyway, that is a civil rights violation — and you have the right to sue.

False Arrest vs. Unlawful Detention: The Distinction That Determines Your Case

California and federal law recognize that police encounters exist on a spectrum. At one end is a consensual encounter — an officer approaching you and asking questions you are free to decline. Your freedom has not been restricted. No constitutional standard applies.

In the middle is a Terry stop — a brief investigatory detention permitted by Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). An officer can temporarily detain you if they have reasonable suspicion: specific, articulable facts suggesting criminal activity. Reasonable suspicion is a lower standard than probable cause. It allows a brief investigative stop — nothing more.

At the far end is an arrest — a full custodial detention requiring probable cause. The moment an officer handcuffs you, places you in a patrol car, or makes clear you are not free to leave, the encounter has crossed from detention into arrest. And the legal standard jumps from reasonable suspicion to probable cause.

Why does this distinction matter in litigation? Because officers routinely blur the line — treating a situation as a “detention” to avoid scrutiny while exercising the kind of total physical control that only a lawful arrest authorizes. If what happened to you looked and felt like an arrest — handcuffs, patrol car, no freedom to leave — it was an arrest, regardless of what the officer called it. And it required probable cause.

Common Scenarios That Constitute False Arrest in California

Not every wrongful police encounter is a false arrest. But some of the most common situations that generate viable civil rights claims include:

Arrests based on fabricated police reports. Officers write reports after encounters. Those reports often characterize what happened in ways designed to justify the arrest retroactively. When the officer’s account is contradicted by body camera footage, bystander video, or witness testimony, a fabricated basis for arrest can itself be the foundation of a civil rights claim.

Arrests for exercising constitutional rights. As covered throughout this blog series, officers frequently arrest people for questioning their authority, refusing a warrantless search, filming an encounter, or verbally challenging an order. None of those things are crimes. Arresting someone for them — under the guise of a “resistance offense” — is a false arrest. It is also, as covered in Blog #1, a Contempt of Cop arrest.

Arrests based on mistaken identity. An officer receives a description of a suspect. The description matches you imperfectly. The officer makes the arrest anyway, without doing the additional investigative work necessary to establish actual probable cause as to you specifically. Misidentification-based arrests happen with disturbing regularity and are among the most straightforwardly actionable.

Arrests following unlawful Terry stops. If an officer stops you without reasonable suspicion — because you were in a “high-crime area,” because you are a certain race, because you were walking away — any arrest that flows from that stop is tainted. Evidence discovered during an unlawful stop can be suppressed in your criminal case. The unlawful stop itself, and the resulting arrest, can support a civil rights claim.

Arrests used to cover up excessive force. This is the pattern at the heart of most of Mr. Steering’s civil rights practice. An officer uses force. To justify the force and to insulate themselves from civil liability, they arrest the person they used force upon and charge them with a resistance offense. The arrest is the mechanism — not the consequence — of the misconduct.

What a False Arrest Can Cost You — Even If Charges Are Dropped

Most people assume that if charges are dropped or dismissed, the matter is over. It is not.

A false arrest produces lasting consequences: lost wages for time spent in custody or fighting charges, medical bills for injuries sustained during the arrest, damage to your reputation and employment record even without a conviction, the cost of criminal defense and bail, and serious emotional harm.

In a civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the California Bane Act, you can seek compensation for all of those consequences — plus punitive damages when the officer’s conduct was deliberately retaliatory or racially motivated. Under the Bane Act, successful plaintiffs can also recover treble damages and enhanced attorney’s fees unavailable in federal-only claims.

What you cannot do is accept a plea bargain in the criminal case and then try to sue. A conviction — including a guilty plea to a minor charge — almost always blocks the civil rights lawsuit. How the criminal case is handled is not a separate matter from the civil rights case. They are the same matter, and they must be managed together from day one.

Frequently Asked Questions About False Arrest in California

Dropped charges are significant evidence that probable cause was lacking, but they do not automatically establish a false arrest claim. Charges can be dropped for many reasons — insufficient evidence, prosecutorial discretion, witness unavailability. A civil rights lawsuit requires demonstrating that the officer lacked probable cause at the moment of arrest. That is a separate legal question requiring an experienced attorney to evaluate.

A general description — alone — is typically not sufficient. Courts require specific, articulable facts connecting you to a specific crime. A description broad enough to apply to thousands of people is not enough. If the officer escalated from a Terry stop to an arrest based on little more than a general match, the arrest may lack the required legal foundation.

Yes, in some circumstances. A warrant issued on a false or fabricated affidavit does not provide legal cover for the resulting arrest. An arrest made on a facially invalid warrant can still constitute a constitutional violation. This is a complex area requiring experienced civil rights counsel.

This is the most frequently misunderstood question in California civil rights law. A conviction for a resistance offense arising from the same encounter almost always bars a subsequent lawsuit under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) — which is exactly why officers charge their victims with resistance offenses. If you are facing such charges, contact a civil rights attorney immediately. Do not take a plea without counsel who understands both the criminal and civil dimensions.

The federal § 1983 claim has a two-year statute of limitations. But before suing for California state law violations — including Bane Act claims — you must file a government tort claim within six months of the incident. Missing that deadline permanently bars your state law claims. Call an attorney immediately after the arrest.

You Were Not Wrong to Think Something Was Wrong

If you were taken into custody and knew — felt in your bones — that you had not done anything to justify it, you were probably right. The law says officers must have facts. Not feelings. Not hunches. Not a desire to control the situation. Facts.

The Law Offices of Jerry L. Steering has been litigating false arrest cases in California federal courts since 1984. We know how these cases are built, which evidence matters, and what it takes to hold an officer and their department accountable. If you believe you were falsely arrested — whether charges were filed, dropped, or you were never charged at all — call us.

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

  1. U.S. Constitution, Amendment IV — Protection from unreasonable searches and seizures.
  2. California Penal Code § 836 — Standards for lawful warrantless arrest; probable cause requirement.
  3. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) — Established reasonable suspicion standard for investigatory stops; distinguished from probable cause required for arrest.
  4. Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429 (1991) — Standard for when a person is “seized” under the Fourth Amendment.
  5. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) — Conviction bars § 1983 civil rights claim arising from same conduct.
  6. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 — Federal civil rights statute for constitutional violations under color of state law.
  7. California Civil Code § 52.1 — Tom Bane Civil Rights Act; provides state civil rights remedies including treble damages.
  8. California Assembly Bill 93 (effective January 1, 2024) — Prohibits officers from requesting consent to search without first having reasonable suspicion.
  9. Law Offices of Jerry L. Steering — “False Arrest vs. Unlawful Detention in California — What’s the Difference, and Why It Matters for Your Civil Rights Case,” January 14, 2026. https://steeringlaw.com/false-arrest-vs-unlawful-detention-in-california-whats-the-difference-and-why-it-matters-for-your-civil-rights-case/
  10. Shouse Law Group — “I Was Falsely Arrested in California — What Can I Do About It?” Updated March 2026. https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/civil-rights/false-arrest/
  11. FindLaw — “The Fourth Amendment and Probable Cause.” https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment4/annotation04.html
  12. California 2024 Racial and Identity Profiling Act (RIPA) Annual Report — Individualized reasonable suspicion standards and statistical benchmarks.
San Gabriel Police Department canine officer 2

Filming the Police in California – Your Rights, Their Limits, and What Happens When They Retaliate

Posted by Jerry L. Steering, Esq. on

You pull out your phone. You start recording. The officer turns toward you and says, “Put that away.” Or maybe they say nothing — they just walk over, put their hand over the lens, and tell you to move along. Or they grab your arm, take you to the ground, and you wake up in a jail cell charged with obstructing a peace officer.

Here is what California law and federal constitutional law both say about every one of those scenarios: the officer was wrong.

Recording police officers performing their duties in public is a clearly established First Amendment right in California and throughout the Ninth Circuit. It has been for decades. Officers who retaliate against you for exercising that right — by arresting you, seizing your phone, deleting your footage, or using force — have violated your constitutional rights. And as of 2026, that area of law is more settled, more litigated, and more actively enforced than at any point in history.

This blog explains what your rights actually are, where the genuine limits lie, and what you can do when police cross the line.

The Constitutional Foundation: Why Filming Police Is a Protected Right

The First Amendment protects freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Federal courts have consistently interpreted those protections to include the right to gather information about public officials — and recording what law enforcement does in public is one of the most direct ways of doing exactly that.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals — which covers all of California — has held explicitly that there is a First Amendment right to record matters of public interest in public places, including “the right to record law enforcement officers engaged in the exercise of their official duties in public places.” Askins v. Department of Homeland Security, 899 F.3d 1035, 1044 (9th Cir. 2018). That ruling built on Fordyce v. City of Seattle, 55 F.3d 436 (9th Cir. 1995), where the court reversed summary judgment for an officer who assaulted a man and smashed his camera to stop him from filming a protest.

California state law reinforces this. California Penal Code § 148(g) is explicit: photographing, videotaping, or recording police activity in a public space is not, by itself, a violation of the law. Recording alone does not constitute obstruction, delay, or resistance under § 148(a)(1) — the statute officers most commonly invoke when they want to justify a retaliatory arrest.

The right is not limited to journalists. It belongs to everyone. Any person standing on a public sidewalk, watching a traffic stop, an arrest, or any other law enforcement activity has the constitutional right to record it.

What Officers Cannot Do When You Are Filming

When you are lawfully recording police activity in public, officers cannot:

  • Order you to stop recording simply because they do not want to be filmed. Personal discomfort with being documented is not a legal basis for any order or arrest.
  • Seize or search your phone without a warrant. The Fourth Amendment protects your device. Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014), held that police must obtain a warrant before searching a phone seized incident to arrest. Even if you are arrested, the officer cannot access your recordings.
  • Delete your footage under any circumstances. The government may never destroy your photographs or videos. Deletion is itself a constitutional violation that can anchor a civil rights lawsuit.
  • Arrest you for filming alone. An arrest motivated by the fact that you were recording — absent any other legitimate basis — is a First Amendment retaliation claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
  • Physically obstruct your recording. In Irizarry v. Yehia, the Tenth Circuit held that an officer who stood in front of a journalist and shone a flashlight into his camera violated the journalist’s First Amendment rights. Physical interference with lawful recording is itself a constitutional violation.

The Limits: Where the Right to Record Ends

The right to film police is real and broad. It is not unlimited. Understanding where the genuine legal limits fall helps you protect yourself during an encounter.

You cannot physically interfere with an arrest or investigation. Filming does not give you license to stand in the middle of a crime scene, grab an officer’s arm, or obstruct a lawful law enforcement action. If your recording is creating a physical obstacle to what officers are doing — not merely documenting it — you have crossed into territory that can support a legitimate obstruction charge.

You must comply with a lawful order to relocate. If officers establish a legitimate perimeter around a crime scene or active emergency situation, they may order bystanders — including those who are filming — to step back to a specific distance. That order must be based on a genuine law enforcement need, not on the fact that you are recording. If you are ordered to move and you can continue filming from the new position, compliance is your safest course. An officer cannot use a relocation order as a pretext to stop recording entirely.

You cannot use a concealed camera to record private conversations. California Penal Code § 632 requires the consent of all parties to record a private conversation. When police officers are performing their duties in public — a traffic stop, an arrest, a public confrontation — there is no reasonable expectation of privacy, and consent is not required. But recording private conversations between officers in a non-public setting without their knowledge is a different matter and can implicate wiretapping law.

You must maintain a safe distance. “Safe distance” is not a fixed number, and courts recognize that. The standard is whether your position is genuinely interfering with what officers are doing. Standing twenty feet away on a public sidewalk is not interference. Pressing your phone into an officer’s face during a use-of-force incident is.

What Is Happening Right Now: 2025–2026 Developments

The First Amendment right to record police has never been more actively litigated than in 2025 and 2026.

In April 2026, the Ninth Circuit upheld preliminary injunctive relief in L.A. Press Club v. Noem, finding that journalists, legal observers, and protesters subjected to retaliatory force by Department of Homeland Security agents while documenting immigration enforcement in Southern California were likely to succeed on their First Amendment retaliation claims. The court described “an avalanche” of evidence showing a pattern of retaliatory conduct against people exercising their constitutional right to document federal agents in public.

In March 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari in Villarreal v. Alaniz — a case involving a journalist arrested for questioning a public official in what Justice Sotomayor, dissenting, described as a “months-long effort by a police department and district attorney’s office to retaliate against her because they disliked much of her reporting.” The case illustrates how aggressively law enforcement will move against those who document them — and why experience in these cases is not optional.

At the local level, Southern California has seen a significant uptick in civil rights lawsuits arising from protests against federal immigration enforcement in 2025, with multiple plaintiffs alleging that LAPD and LASD officers fired less-lethal projectiles at journalists and bystanders who were recording public law enforcement activity.

The right exists. Officers keep violating it. Courts keep stepping in.

Frequently Asked Questions About Recording Police 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.

If They Retaliated Against You for Filming, That Is a Civil Rights Case

Knowing your rights is one thing. Enforcing them is another. If you were arrested, assaulted, had your phone seized, or had your footage deleted because you were recording police activity in California, you may have a viable civil rights claim under both federal and state law.

The Law Offices of Jerry L. Steering has handled First Amendment retaliation cases and police misconduct lawsuits since 1984. We know how these cases are built, what evidence matters, and what it takes to hold an officer accountable in federal court. If it happened to you, call us.

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

  1. U.S. Constitution, Amendment I — Freedom of speech, press, and assembly.
  2. Askins v. Department of Homeland Security, 899 F.3d 1035, 1044 (9th Cir. 2018) — First Amendment right to record law enforcement in public.
  3. Fordyce v. City of Seattle, 55 F.3d 436 (9th Cir. 1995) — Officer who assaulted man filming a protest violated § 1983.
  4. Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014) — Police must obtain a warrant before searching a phone seized incident to arrest.
  5. Irizarry v. Yehia, No. 21-1247, 2022 WL 2659462 (10th Cir. 2022) — Officer who obstructed journalist’s filming violated First Amendment.
  6. City of Houston v. Hill, 482 U.S. 451 (1987) — First Amendment protects verbal challenge of police; freedom to oppose police without risking arrest distinguishes free nation from police state.
  7. Villarreal v. Alaniz, U.S. Supreme Court, cert. denied March 23, 2026, with dissent by Justice Sotomayor — journalist arrested for questioning public official; First Amendment retaliation.
  8. California Penal Code § 148(g) — Recording police activity in public is not itself a violation of law.
  9. California Penal Code § 632 — Two-party consent for recording private conversations; does not apply to police performing public duties.
  10. ACLU — “Recording and Documenting Police and Federal Agents,” updated March 2026. https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/recording-and-documenting-police-and-federal-agents
  11. ACLU of Southern California — “Ninth Circuit Affirms Protesters, Journalists and Legal Observers Are Entitled to First Amendment Protections,” April 2026. https://www.aclusocal.org/press-releases/ninth-circuit-affirms-protesters-journalists-and-legal-observers-are-entitled-to-first-amendment-protections/
  12. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press — “Right to Record Government Officials in Public.” https://www.rcfp.org/reporters-recording-sections/right-to-record/

The 6-Month Government Claim Deadline – The Clock Is Already Ticking on Your Police Misconduct Case

Posted by Jerry L. Steering, Esq. on

Most people who have been beaten by police, falsely arrested, or subjected to misconduct spend the weeks that follow trying to recover. They talk to friends and family. They search online. They wonder if they have a case. Some eventually call an attorney.

What most of them do not know is that while all of this is happening, a legal clock is running. And when it expires, the right to sue may be gone forever — not delayed, not complicated, but gone.

That clock is the six-month government claim deadline. It is the most critical procedural rule in California police misconduct law. It is also the one that kills more cases than any other.

What Is a Government Claim and Why Does It Exist?

Before you can file a lawsuit against a California city, county, or government agency — including a police department — you must first complete a separate, mandatory step called filing a government claim.

This requirement comes from the California Government Claims Act, codified at Government Code §§ 810–996.6 (formerly known as the California Tort Claims Act). The law exists because California, like every state, operates under the doctrine of sovereign immunity — the legal principle that you cannot sue the government unless the government permits it. The Government Claims Act is the mechanism through which California permits those lawsuits, subject to strict procedural rules.

Filing a government claim is not the same as filing a lawsuit. It is a written notice, submitted directly to the agency responsible for your injuries, that formally puts the government on notice of your claim. The agency then has 45 days to respond. They can accept the claim and offer a settlement, reject it outright, or simply do nothing. If the claim is rejected — which is by far the most common outcome — you then have the right to file a lawsuit in court.

Skip this step, or miss its deadline, and your right to sue for California state law violations is almost certainly extinguished. Not reduced. Not delayed. Extinguished.

The Six-Month Deadline: How It Works

Under California Government Code § 911.2(a), a government claim for personal injury must be filed within six months of the date the incident occurred. In a police misconduct case, that means six months from the day you were beaten, falsely arrested, or otherwise subjected to the officer’s unconstitutional conduct.

Six months sounds like enough time. It is not — not when you account for the reality of how these situations unfold.

Consider what typically happens in the months following a police misconduct incident:

  • The victim is dealing with injuries, medical appointments, and recovery
  • A criminal case has often been filed against the victim — requiring their focus and resources
  • The victim may be in jail awaiting trial, unable to focus on a civil claim
  • The victim does not know the six-month deadline exists
  • The victim is waiting to see how the criminal case resolves before taking any civil action
  • The victim is consulting attorneys who handle criminal defense but not civil rights

By the time most people realize they may have a civil rights claim, three, four, five months have already passed. And by the time they find a civil rights attorney, schedule a consultation, and discuss their case, they are often sitting at month five or six.

That is not a comfortable margin. It is a crisis.

What Happens If You Miss the Deadline

Miss the six-month window and you are barred from suing the agency — and usually the individual officers — for violations of California state law, including claims under the Tom Bane Civil Rights Act.

There is a narrow exception: you may apply for permission to file a late claim within one year of the incident. But the grounds are limited and hard to establish. California courts have been blunt — not knowing the deadline exists is not a valid excuse. Ignorance of the law does not constitute excusable neglect.

The recognized grounds for late-claim relief are:

  • Mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect — the standard for “excusable” is high
  • Mental or physical incapacity that prevented any action during the entire six-month period
  • Minority — the claimant was under 18 for the entire period

One important nuance: if you were in jail when the incident occurred, the six-month period generally begins running from the date of your release, not the date of the incident.

Outside these narrow exceptions, missing the deadline is fatal to your state law claims. A court will not be sympathetic. The government will not extend grace. The deadline is real, and it is ruthless.

What the Government Claim Must Include

A government claim is a formal document, not a casual letter. Under Government Code § 910, it must contain specific information. A defective claim — even one filed on time — can be rejected on technical grounds.

Your government claim must include:

  • Your full name, address, and contact information
  • The date, location, and circumstances of the incident
  • A general description of your injury or damage
  • The names of the public employees involved, if known
  • The amount claimed if $10,000 or less — or a statement that it exceeds $10,000 (California law prohibits listing a specific dollar amount above that threshold)

Where you file depends on which agency employed the officers involved:

  • City police departments — file with the city clerk
  • County sheriff’s departments — file with the county clerk or board of supervisors
  • State agencies — file with the California Department of General Services’ Government Claims Program

Most cities and counties provide their own claim forms online. Use the agency’s form when available. If none exists, a written letter meeting all § 910 requirements is acceptable.

Send the claim by certified mail and keep the receipt. If you hand-deliver it, get a date-stamped copy. The burden is on you to prove timely, proper filing.

The Relationship Between the Government Claim and Your Federal § 1983 Lawsuit

One critical nuance that trips up victims — and even some attorneys who do not regularly handle these cases — is that the government claim requirement applies to California state law claims, not federal ones.

A civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 does not require a prior government claim. Federal law has its own statute of limitations — two years in California — but no administrative claim prerequisite.

So if you miss the six-month deadline, you may still pursue a § 1983 federal claim. You have just lost your California state law claims alongside it — including the Bane Act claims with their no-qualified-immunity standard, treble damages, and enhanced attorney’s fees. Losing those is not a minor inconvenience. It is losing your strongest tools. The lesson is not that missing the government claim deadline is recoverable. It isn’t — not fully. The lesson is that you cannot afford to let it happen.

Frequently Asked Questions About the Government Claim Deadline

Possibly — if you are still within one year of the incident. An attorney can evaluate whether you qualify for late-claim relief under Government Code § 911.4. But these petitions are not routinely granted. The sooner you act, the better your position. Call an attorney today.

No. The deadline does not pause for a pending criminal case. You must file within six months of the incident regardless of what is happening on the criminal side. Filing a government claim does not commit you to suing — it preserves your right to do so. This is exactly the situation where you need an attorney who handles both criminal defense and civil rights simultaneously.

No. Federal § 1983 claims have a two-year statute of limitations and do not require a prior government claim. The six-month deadline applies to California state law claims — including Bane Act claims. Missing it does not eliminate your federal options, but it eliminates your most powerful state ones.

You may need to file separate government claims with each agency. Missing the deadline with any one agency can bar your claims against that agency and its officers entirely.

You can, but a defective or misdirected claim can be rejected on procedural grounds even if filed on time. Given that this filing is the single most important legal act in the immediate aftermath of a police misconduct incident, getting it right matters. A civil rights attorney will file it properly and begin building your case at the same time.

Six Months Is Not as Long as It Sounds

If there is one thing to take from this article, it is this: do not wait.

Not until the criminal case is resolved. Not until you feel better. Not until you have decided whether you definitely want to sue. The government claim does not commit you to anything — it preserves your options. Filing it is the minimum protective step every victim of police misconduct should take.

The Law Offices of Jerry L. Steering has been navigating these deadlines and procedural requirements since 1984. We know that a case that is factually strong can be procedurally dead if the government claim is missed. We handle both the criminal defense side and the civil rights side — because in California, the two cannot be managed separately.

If you were the victim of police misconduct in Southern California, call us. Today. Not next week. The clock started running the day it happened.

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

  1. California Government Code § 911.2(a) — Six-month deadline for personal injury claims against public entities. California Legislative Information. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
  2. California Government Code § 910 — Required contents of a government claim. California Legislative Information. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
  3. California Government Code § 911.4 — Application for leave to file a late claim. California Legislative Information. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
  4. California Government Code § 945.4 — No suit without prior claim. California Legislative Information. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
  5. California Government Code §§ 810–996.6 — Government Claims Act (formerly California Tort Claims Act). California Legislative Information. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
  6. Sacramento County Public Law Library — “Claims Against the Government.” https://saclaw.org/resource_library/claims-against-the-government/
  7. Nolo — “Bringing a Tort Claim Against the Government in California.” https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/making-injury-claim-under-the-california-tort-claims-act.html
  8. Helm Law Office — “Pre-Lawsuit Hurdle: The Government Claim.” https://www.helmlawoffice.com/police-misconduct/pre-lawsuit-hurdle-the-government-claim/
  9. Drummond v. County of Fresno (1987) 193 Cal.App.3d 1406 — Ignorance of filing deadline not excusable neglect.
  10. Ebersol v. Cowan (1983) 35 Cal.3d 427 — California Supreme Court on excusable neglect standard for late claims.
  11. Advocate Magazine — “Personal Injury Late-Claim Applications.” https://www.advocatemagazine.com/article/2024-may/personal-injury-late-claim-applications
Sierra Madre Police Department officers

California’s Tom Bane Civil Rights Act – What It Means for Police Misconduct Victims in 2026

Posted by Jerry L. Steering, Esq. on

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

  1. California Civil Code § 52.1 — Tom Bane Civil Rights Act. California Legislative Information. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. 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/
  5. 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/
  6. Iredale Law — “Using the Bane Act to Address Police Misconduct.” https://www.iredalelaw.com/article/using-bane-act-address-police-misconduct
  7. 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/
  8. California Courts of Appeal — Reese v. County of Sacramento, 888 F.3d 1030 (9th Cir. 2018) — Bane Act specific intent standard.

What Is “Contempt of Cop” – and Why It Gets Innocent People Arrested in California

Posted by Jerry L. Steering, Esq. on

You asked a question. You refused to let an officer search your car. You pulled out your phone and started recording. You raised your voice and told the officer he had no right to be there.

None of those things are crimes in California. Every single one of them is constitutionally protected conduct.

And yet, here you are — handcuffed, charged with “resisting arrest,” trying to figure out how a situation where you did nothing wrong turned into a criminal case against you.

There is a name for what happened to you. Police officers call it an attitude problem. Civil rights attorneys call it what it actually is: Contempt of Cop.

What “Contempt of Cop” Actually Means

“Contempt of Cop” is not a charge. You will not find it in the California Penal Code. It is the street term — and the legally accurate description — for what happens when a police officer arrests someone not because they committed a crime, but because they questioned, challenged, or otherwise bruised the officer’s ego.

The trigger can be almost anything:

  • Asking “Why am I being stopped?”
  • Telling an officer you know your rights
  • Refusing to consent to a warrantless search
  • Recording the encounter on your phone
  • Using language the officer does not like
  • Simply failing to comply fast enough

The officer perceives each of these as a challenge to authority. And when that perception kicks in, the encounter stops being about law enforcement. It becomes about control. The officer’s next move is almost always the same: manufacture a legal pretext to take you into custody and shift the blame from their conduct to yours.

That pretext has a formal name too. It is called a “resistance offense.”

The Resistance Offense: How Cops Turn Your Rights Into a Crime

California gives police officers a remarkably broad legal tool for this purpose. California Penal Code § 148(a)(1) makes it a crime to willfully resist, delay, or obstruct a peace officer in the performance of their duties. In practice, that statute is so vague and expansive that it can be applied to almost anything.

Ask a question at the wrong moment? Obstruction. Move your arm while being handcuffed? Resistance. Take a step back? Delay.

When an officer decides to make a Contempt of Cop arrest, they write a police report characterizing your constitutionally protected conduct as one of these offenses. That report goes to the District Attorney’s office or the City Attorney’s office. Prosecutors file charges without questioning whether what you actually did qualifies as a crime under the law.

You are now a defendant. The officer who violated your rights is now a complaining witness. The system that is supposed to protect you is now pointed at you.

For more serious cases, the police do not stop at § 148(a)(1). They reach for California Penal Code § 69 — the felony version — which covers resisting an executive officer by force or threat. A § 69 charge carries potential state prison time and is designed to make you desperate enough to take a plea deal. Once you take that deal, you forfeit — permanently — your right to sue the officer who abused you.

That is not a coincidence. It is the system working exactly as designed.

Why a Plea Bargain Can Destroy Your Civil Rights Case

This is the part most people do not understand until it is too late.

If you are convicted of a resistance offense — whether by jury verdict or by accepting a plea bargain — you have almost certainly lost your ability to sue the police for what they did to you.

For a conviction under § 148(a)(1) to stand, a court must find that the officer was performing lawful duties during the encounter. That finding becomes a settled legal fact under the doctrine of collateral estoppel. You cannot re-litigate it in a civil rights lawsuit. You cannot go to federal court and argue the officer violated your Fourth Amendment rights if a criminal court has already determined the officer was acting within the law. The case is blocked before it begins. (Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994).)

This is precisely why police routinely arrest their victims for resistance offenses. It is not sloppiness. It is a calculated legal strategy to insulate the officer from civil liability by converting you from a victim into a convicted defendant.

Taking a plea — even to a minor misdemeanor, even to get out of jail, even because you cannot afford to fight — can permanently close the door on justice.

What the Law Actually Protects

California and federal law are unambiguous on several points that Contempt of Cop arrests routinely violate:

  • You have the right to verbally challenge a police officer. Offensive speech directed at a government official — including police — is constitutionally protected under the First Amendment. City of Houston v. Hill, 482 U.S. 451 (1987). Calling an officer names is not a crime. Yelling is not obstruction.
  • You have the right to refuse consent to a search. The Fourth Amendment guarantees your right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. Exercising that right is not evidence of guilt and cannot legally form the basis for an arrest.
  • You have the right to record police activity in public. This is a clearly established First Amendment right throughout the Ninth Circuit. Fordyce v. City of Seattle, 55 F.3d 436 (9th Cir. 1995). An officer who arrests you for recording them has violated your constitutional rights.
  • An officer cannot lawfully arrest you for protected conduct. Because § 148(a)(1) requires that the officer be performing lawful duties, an officer who is violating your rights is not performing lawful duties. Under People v. Curtis, 70 Cal.2d 347 (1969), you cannot legally be convicted of resisting an officer who is acting unlawfully.

That last point is critical. The defense is built into the statute itself. But it takes an attorney who knows how to use it — and who understands that defending the criminal case and building the civil rights case must happen simultaneously.

Frequently Asked Questions About Contempt of Cop Arrests

The breadth of § 148(a)(1) is intentional. “Delay” under that statute can technically include almost any non-immediate compliance. Police exploit that vagueness to justify an arrest after the fact. Whether the charge survives legal scrutiny depends largely on whether the officer was acting lawfully in the first place and that question is exactly what a skilled civil rights attorney is trained to contest.

In most cases, no. A conviction — including one from a guilty plea — will bar a civil rights lawsuit arising from the same incident. There are narrow exceptions, but they are difficult to establish. This is the most important reason to consult a civil rights attorney before accepting any plea in a case involving alleged police misconduct.

It always is. Police are trained to write reports that justify their actions. That is why the first 24 to 72 hours after an incident matter so much. Surveillance footage, witness contact information, photographs of injuries, and medical records are all critical. The officer’s report is one account. The physical record is another.

No. Recording police in a public space is constitutionally protected throughout the Ninth Circuit. An arrest for recording police activity is itself a civil rights violation — grounds for a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Ask yourself one question: Did the arrest happen because you committed a crime, or because the officer did not like what you said, what you did, or how quickly you complied? If the honest answer is the second one, call an attorney. The law may be on your side — but only if you fight.

What to Do If You Believe You Were a Contempt of Cop Victim

Do not take a plea deal without talking to a civil rights attorney first. That cannot be said plainly enough. The offer may seem appealing — especially if you are sitting in jail facing a misdemeanor and the prosecutor is telling you it will all go away. What they are not telling you is what goes away with it.

Do not speak to the police about the incident without an attorney present. Anything you say will be used to support the officer’s version of events, not yours.

Document everything you remember while it is still fresh — the exact words exchanged, the sequence of events, badge numbers if you caught them, any witnesses present.

Seek medical attention if you were injured and preserve those records.

Then call an attorney who has spent decades doing exactly this.

You Have Rights. Enforcing Them Is the Only Thing That Makes Them Real.

The Law Offices of Jerry L. Steering has been suing the police and defending bogus resistance offense charges since 1984 — longer than most civil rights attorneys have been practicing law. We understand that a Contempt of Cop case is two cases at once: the criminal defense case and the civil rights lawsuit. How the criminal case is handled determines whether the civil rights case can ever be brought. We handle both.

If you were arrested for questioning police conduct, asserting your rights, or simply failing someone’s attitude test, call us. The consultation is free. The call is confidential. And the sooner you make it, the more options you will have.

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

The results of prior cases do not guarantee or predict similar results in future cases. 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

  1. California Penal Code § 148(a)(1) — Resisting, delaying, or obstructing a peace officer. California Legislative Information. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
  2. California Penal Code § 69 — Resisting executive officer. California Legislative Information. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
  3. People v. Curtis, 70 Cal.2d 347 (1969) — Officers acting unlawfully are not performing lawful duties; resistance offense requires lawful officer conduct.
  4. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) — Conviction bars § 1983 civil rights claim arising from same conduct. United States Supreme Court.
  5. City of Houston v. Hill, 482 U.S. 451 (1987) — First Amendment protects verbal challenges to police officers. United States Supreme Court.
  6. Fordyce v. City of Seattle, 55 F.3d 436 (9th Cir. 1995) — First Amendment right to record police activity in public. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
  7. California Judicial Council Criminal Jury Instructions (CALCRIM 2656, 2670) — Standard instructions for § 148(a)(1) and officer lawfulness. California Courts. https://www.courts.ca.gov
  8. Law Offices of Jerry L. Steering — “Contempt of Cop & Resisting Arrest Cases in California.” https://steeringlaw.com/criminal-defense/contempt-of-cop-resisting-arrest/
  9. Law Offices of Jerry L. Steering — “The Contempt of Cop Game: How Well Can You Play.” https://steeringlaw.com/police-misconduct-articles/the-contempt-of-cop-game-how-well-can-you-play/
  10. Law Offices of Jerry L. Steering — “Defending Bogus Resisting Arrest & Battery on Peace Officer Cases.” https://steeringlaw.com/defending-bogus-resisting-arrest-battery-on-peace-officer-cases/