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

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.

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/

Jerry L. Steering, Esq.

Steering Law is a California-based civil rights and criminal defense firm led by Jerry L. Steering, Esq. The firm focuses on police misconduct cases, including excessive force, false arrest, malicious prosecution, contempt of cop incidents, and 42 U.S.C. §1983 civil rights actions, while also handling serious criminal defense matters. Steering Law is dedicated to protecting clients’ constitutional rights and delivering justice for individuals who have been wronged by law enforcement.

steeringlaw.com/

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

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.

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/

Jerry L. Steering, Esq.

Steering Law is a California-based civil rights and criminal defense firm led by Jerry L. Steering, Esq. The firm focuses on police misconduct cases, including excessive force, false arrest, malicious prosecution, contempt of cop incidents, and 42 U.S.C. §1983 civil rights actions, while also handling serious criminal defense matters. Steering Law is dedicated to protecting clients’ constitutional rights and delivering justice for individuals who have been wronged by law enforcement.

steeringlaw.com/

Most 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

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.

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.

Jerry L. Steering, Esq.

Steering Law is a California-based civil rights and criminal defense firm led by Jerry L. Steering, Esq. The firm focuses on police misconduct cases, including excessive force, false arrest, malicious prosecution, contempt of cop incidents, and 42 U.S.C. §1983 civil rights actions, while also handling serious criminal defense matters. Steering Law is dedicated to protecting clients’ constitutional rights and delivering justice for individuals who have been wronged by law enforcement.

steeringlaw.com/

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

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.

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/

Jerry L. Steering, Esq.

Steering Law is a California-based civil rights and criminal defense firm led by Jerry L. Steering, Esq. The firm focuses on police misconduct cases, including excessive force, false arrest, malicious prosecution, contempt of cop incidents, and 42 U.S.C. §1983 civil rights actions, while also handling serious criminal defense matters. Steering Law is dedicated to protecting clients’ constitutional rights and delivering justice for individuals who have been wronged by law enforcement.

steeringlaw.com/

Most 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

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.

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

Jerry L. Steering, Esq.

Steering Law is a California-based civil rights and criminal defense firm led by Jerry L. Steering, Esq. The firm focuses on police misconduct cases, including excessive force, false arrest, malicious prosecution, contempt of cop incidents, and 42 U.S.C. §1983 civil rights actions, while also handling serious criminal defense matters. Steering Law is dedicated to protecting clients’ constitutional rights and delivering justice for individuals who have been wronged by law enforcement.

steeringlaw.com/

Most 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

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.

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.

Jerry L. Steering, Esq.

Steering Law is a California-based civil rights and criminal defense firm led by Jerry L. Steering, Esq. The firm focuses on police misconduct cases, including excessive force, false arrest, malicious prosecution, contempt of cop incidents, and 42 U.S.C. §1983 civil rights actions, while also handling serious criminal defense matters. Steering Law is dedicated to protecting clients’ constitutional rights and delivering justice for individuals who have been wronged by law enforcement.

steeringlaw.com/

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

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.

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/

Jerry L. Steering, Esq.

Steering Law is a California-based civil rights and criminal defense firm led by Jerry L. Steering, Esq. The firm focuses on police misconduct cases, including excessive force, false arrest, malicious prosecution, contempt of cop incidents, and 42 U.S.C. §1983 civil rights actions, while also handling serious criminal defense matters. Steering Law is dedicated to protecting clients’ constitutional rights and delivering justice for individuals who have been wronged by law enforcement.

steeringlaw.com/

What Counts as Excessive Force in California?

Under federal law, excessive force is force that is not “objectively reasonable” under the totality of the circumstances, analyzed through the three factors established in Graham v. Connor (1989). Under California law, Penal Code § 835a — as strengthened by AB 392 in 2019 — applies a stricter standard: deadly force is permitted only when “necessary,” and officers have an explicit statutory duty to de-escalate. The 2025 Supreme Court decision in Barnes v. Felix expanded the analysis to include officer conduct leading up to the use of force, not just the moment force was applied.

Free case evaluation: (949) 474-1849  |  Available 24 hours  |  jerry@steeringlaw.com

The Question I Get Asked Every Day

Every day, I speak with people who have been hurt by police. They show me bruises, taser burns, and X-rays of broken bones. And every day, they ask me the same question: was that legal?

The answer is not always simple. But the legal framework — the standard courts use to evaluate whether force was excessive — is specific and well-developed. It is built on forty years of federal constitutional law, most recently updated by the Supreme Court in 2025, and supplemented by California state law that in some respects is stricter than the federal standard.

Understanding that framework is the first step in understanding whether you have a case. I have been litigating excessive force claims in federal and state courts throughout Southern California since 1984 — Los Angeles County, Orange County, Riverside County, San Bernardino County, San Diego County, and beyond. See when they are pursued by someone who has been doing this for forty years.

“Not all force is illegal. But force that is disproportionate, unnecessary, or continues after a suspect is already subdued is illegal. And the law — both federal and California — gives us the tools to prove it.”

The Federal Standard — Graham v. Connor and the Objective Reasonableness Test

The foundation of every excessive force civil rights claim is the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which guarantees the right to be free from “unreasonable seizures.” Ingraham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989), the Supreme Court established that all excessive force claims arising from an arrest or detention must be evaluated under the Fourth Amendment’s objective reasonableness standard. This remains the foundational test.

What objective reasonableness means in practice:

• The question is whether the officer’s actions were objectively reasonable in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them — not whether the officer had bad intentions.
• The evaluation is made from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene at the moment force was employed — not from the comfortable hindsight of a judge’s chambers.
• Courts must account for the reality that officers are often forced to make split-second judgments in tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving circumstances.
• Not every push or shove, even if it later seems unnecessary, rises to a Fourth Amendment violation.

The Three Graham Factors

To determine whether force was reasonable, courts analyze three specific factors. These are not a checklist — they are guideposts for a totality-of-the-circumstances evaluation. How they weigh against each other depends on the specific facts of the case.

The 2025 Supreme Court Update — Barnes v. Felix Expands the Analysis

in Barnes v. Felix, 602 U.S. ___ (2025), the Supreme Court unanimously clarified that the objective reasonableness analysis is not limited to the precise moment force was applied. Courts must consider the totality of circumstances — including the officer’s own conduct leading up to the use of force.

This is a significant expansion of the Graham framework. Before Barnes, defendants often successfully argued that courts should evaluate only the split-second moment of the trigger pull or the taser deployment — isolating that moment from everything that preceded it. Barnes rejected that approach.

The ruling is particularly powerful in California because it aligns directly with what our state law —California Penal Code § 835a — has required since AB 392 was enacted in 2019: consideration of both the conduct of the officer and the subject leading up to the force. Barnes brought federal law into alignment with what California already required.

California’s Framework — Penal Code § 835a and AB 392

California has its own use-of-force law that in several respects is stricter than the federal constitutional minimum. Penal Code § 835a, significantly strengthened by Assembly Bill 392 in 2019, establishes the California standard:

The practical significance of the California standard: in federal court, an officer must have acted unreasonably to face civil liability. In California state court proceedings, an officer who used deadly force must show that force was not merely reasonable but necessary — a stricter standard that limits the circumstances in which lethal force is legally justified.

The duty to de-escalate and the duty to intervene are particularly important. An officer who charged into a situation that verbal commands, time, or a crisis intervention team could have resolved — and who used force instead — may have violated § 835a even if the force itself was technically reasonable once the confrontation was already underway. The law requires looking at the full picture.

What Excessive Force Looks Like — Real California Cases

Legal standards are abstractions. Cases are what they look like in practice. Here are three cases from my practice area — including two with 2025 jury verdicts — that illustrate how the excessive force standard is applied to real facts.

When Force Is NOT Excessive — Understanding Both Sides of the Standard

Honest analysis of excessive force requires understanding when force is legally justified — not just when it is not. The standard is not whether force was used. It is whether the force used was reasonable under the circumstances. Here is a real case that illustrates the line.

The difference between Stephenson and Velasco is the difference between excessive force and appropriate force. One was subdued, restrained, and not resisting. The other was actively fighting officers and attempting to take their weapons. The law recognizes that distinction clearly.

How We Build Excessive Force Cases — What I Look For

When someone comes to my office with an excessive force claim, here are the specific issues I analyze. Each one is both a legal argument and a factual investigation.

1. Violation of Department Policy

Most law enforcement agencies have use-of-force policies that are more restrictive than the constitutional minimum. If an officer violated their own department’s policy, that violation is strong evidence of unreasonableness — not just legally, but practically, because it demonstrates that even the department itself drew the line where the officer crossed it.

In the Stephenson case, experts testified that the prone restraint after handcuffing violated basic police training standards. That testimony did not require the jury to apply constitutional doctrine — it just required them to conclude that the officer did something his own training prohibited.

2. Disproportionate Force

Force must be proportionate to the threat. Using a Taser on someone who is not actively resisting, striking someone with a baton for a minor infraction, or continuing to apply physical pressure after someone is handcuffed — these are all examples of disproportionate force under the first and third Graham factors.

In California, this analysis is particularly important in “Contempt of Cop” cases — where the excessive force is used against someone who did nothing more than assert their constitutional rights, question an order, or decline to consent to a search.

3. Failure to De-Escalate

California Penal Code § 835a imposes an explicit duty to de-escalate. If officers had time — even a few minutes — to use verbal commands, call for a crisis team, or allow a volatile situation to stabilize, and instead rushed in and used force, that failure is cognizable under California law.

De-escalation failures are particularly common in mental health crisis cases, where the standard police response often produces the confrontation that force is then used to resolve. California law now requires officers to consider whether the situation is a mental health crisis and to respond accordingly.

4. Blind or Reckless Shooting

The Gold case is the textbook example: firing 28 rounds through a wall without knowing what was on the other side is not objectively reasonable police work. Under Barnes v. Felix, the officer’s decision to fire blindly — the conduct leading up to the shots — is part of the reasonableness analysis. Reckless endangerment dressed up as law enforcement does not survive Fourth Amendment scrutiny.

5. Creating the Danger

Under the Barnes framework, if an officer’s reckless or unreasonable conduct created the dangerous situation that force was then used to address, that conduct weighs against the reasonableness of the force. An officer who corners someone unnecessarily, who escalates a verbal situation into a physical one, or who creates the confrontation that ultimately requires force cannot fully immunize the force by pointing only at the final moment.

6. Force Against Vulnerable Populations

California courts have increasingly scrutinized the use of standard force protocols against people in mental health crisis, people who are elderly or infirm, or people whose apparent non-compliance is the result of disability, intoxication, or confusion rather than willful resistance. The reasonable officer standard applies — but what is reasonable against someone in mental health crisis differs from what is reasonable against someone who is coherent and deliberately resisting.

What to Do If You Have Been Subjected to Excessive Force

The practical steps are the same as in any police misconduct case, but they carry specific urgency in excessive force situations because injuries are immediate evidence and evidence disappears fast.

• Get medical attention today. Not tomorrow. Not when you feel better. Today. Adrenaline masks injuries. Fractures, internal bleeding, and traumatic brain injuries frequently present hours after the incident. Every symptom you report to a doctor becomes a dated medical record linking your injuries to the incident.
• Photograph every injury immediately. Then photograph again at 24 hours and 48 hours. Bruising typically peaks and darkens in the 24-48 hours after impact. The photographs you take three days later will show something the hospital photos did not.
• Do not tell officers or investigators you are fine. “Are you okay?” from an officer at the scene is not a welfare check. Any minimization of your injuries will appear in the police report and will be used by defense counsel at trial.
• Secure witness contact information and third-party video. Ask nearby businesses, homeowners, and bystanders to preserve security footage immediately. Video is overwritten on automated schedules — often within 24 to 72 hours. Once it is gone, it is gone.
• Do not give a statement to Internal Affairs without your attorney. IA investigators work for the department. Anything you say can be used against you in any criminal proceeding.
• Contact a civil rights attorney immediately. Read our complete step-by-step guide to the first 72 hours after police misconduct.

Serving Excessive Force Victims Throughout Southern California

My firm has obtained significant recoveries for excessive force victims throughout Southern California — from Los Angeles County and Orange County to Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, Ventura, and Kern Counties. See.

Results include a $2.9 million settlement against the City of Anaheim for a police shooting, a $1.3 million settlement against Riverside County, and an $800,000 jury verdict against the City of Garden Grove. Every one of those cases required the same thing: early action, preserved evidence, and an attorney who understood the constitutional framework well enough to argue it in federal court.

Frequently Asked Questions — Excessive Force in California

The Line Between Policing and Excessive Force

Excessive force is not defined by how many times someone was shot, tased, or beaten. It is defined by whether a reasonable officer, facing the same circumstances at the same moment, would have believed that level of force was necessary.

In California, thanks to AB 392 and the Barnes v. Felix decision, we can now look at the full picture — not just the moment of force, but everything that led up to it. Did the officer create the danger? Did they have time to de-escalate? Was the force proportional to the actual threat? Did the force continue after it was no longer necessary?

If the answers to those questions are no — if what happened was not policing, but excessive force — then you have the right to hold the officer and the department accountable. I have been doing exactly that since 1984.

About the Author — Jerry L. Steering

Jerry L. Steering is a civil rights attorney and police misconduct specialist who has been suing the police in California since 1984. He has litigated excessive force cases in federal and state courts throughout Los Angeles County, Orange County, Riverside County, San Bernardino County, San Diego County, and the rest of Southern California. Notable results include a $2.9 million settlement against the City of Anaheim for a police shooting, a $1.3 million settlement against Riverside County for excessive force and malicious prosecution, and an $800,000 jury verdict against Garden Grove for false arrest. He has appeared on NBC Dateline with Lester Holt and ABC Good Morning America with Diane Sawyer, and has been featured in the Los Angeles Times, The Washington Post, and People Magazine. View

Law Offices of Jerry L. Steering  |  4063 Birch Street, Suite 100, Newport Beach, CA 92660  |  (949) 474-1849  |  Available 24 Hours  |  jerry@steeringlaw.com

Legal citations and primary sources:

• California Penal Code § 835a (as amended by AB 392, 2019) — California use of force standard  |  leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
• 42 U.S.C. § 1983 — Federal civil rights statute  |  law.cornell.edu
• California Government Code § 911.2 — Government tort claim deadline  |  leginfo.legislature.ca.gov

Jerry L. Steering, Esq.

Steering Law is a California-based civil rights and criminal defense firm led by Jerry L. Steering, Esq. The firm focuses on police misconduct cases, including excessive force, false arrest, malicious prosecution, contempt of cop incidents, and 42 U.S.C. §1983 civil rights actions, while also handling serious criminal defense matters. Steering Law is dedicated to protecting clients’ constitutional rights and delivering justice for individuals who have been wronged by law enforcement.

steeringlaw.com/

What Is “Contempt of Cop”?

“Contempt of Cop” is the street term for what happens when a police officer arrests someone not because they committed a crime, but because they challenged, questioned, or otherwise bruised the officer’s ego. It is not in the California Penal Code. Disrespecting an officer is not a crime. But officers routinely respond to protected conduct — asserting your rights, recording police, declining a search — by charging innocent people under California Penal Code § 148(a)(1) or § 69. Those charges are the legal mechanism that converts the victim into a defendant.

Free case evaluation: (949) 474-1849  |  Available 24 hours  |  jerry@steeringlaw.com

The Most Common Reason Innocent People Get Arrested in California

I have spent over forty years defending the rights of citizens against police misconduct in Southern California. In that time, I have seen a pattern so consistent it has its own name.

A civilian says something — or doesn’t say something. They ask why they’re being ordered to the ground. They refuse a warrantless search. They pull out their phone to record. They tell an officer he doesn’t have the right to come into their home. None of these things are crimes. Every single one of them is constitutionally protected. And yet, in my four decades of practice, I have watched police officers respond to each of them with the same tactic: arrest the person, charge them with a “resistance offense,” and shift the blame from the officer’s conduct to the civilian’s attitude.

The street term for this is “Contempt of Cop.” The more accurate legal description is: a bogus arrest, brought to punish protected conduct and — critically — to insulate the officer from a civil rights lawsuit.

I have a dedicated article on this phenomenon at steeringlaw.com. This blog covers the mechanics: what Contempt of Cop looks like, which statutes are used to execute it, what your defenses are, and what you can do about it.

“The verbal challenge is used after the fact to transform a victim into a defendant. That is not law enforcement. That is retaliation.”

What “Contempt of Cop” Actually Is

“Contempt of Cop” is not a formal legal term. You will not find it in the California Penal Code. It refers to the informal practice by which officers arrest civilians for conduct that offends the officer’s sense of authority rather than violating any law.

The “offense” can take any number of forms. I have represented clients whose only crime was one of the following:

• Asserting a constitutional right — telling an officer they do not have the right to enter your home without a warrant, or that you are exercising your right to remain silent
• Asking a question — “Why are you ordering me to do that?” is not obstruction. It is a question. Officers who treat it as a challenge are the problem, not the person asking.
• Declining to consent to a search — you have the absolute right to refuse consent to a search. Exercising that right is not evidence of guilt, and it is not obstruction.
• Recording police activity in a public place — this is a clearly established First Amendment right throughout the Ninth Circuit. An arrest for recording police is a First Amendment violation.
• Expressing displeasure, loudly — yelling at a police officer is not a crime. Calling an officer names is not a crime. Offensive speech directed at a government official is constitutionally protected.

Officers with fragile egos perceive all of these as challenges to their authority. And when that happens, the machinery of the criminal justice system gets used — not to enforce the law — but to punish the civilian for failing to comply without question.

How a Contempt of Cop Encounter Escalates — Step by Step

These incidents do not start with an officer walking up to someone and hitting them. They escalate. And the escalation follows a pattern I have seen hundreds of times.

The critical moment in this sequence is Step 3 — when the officer decides to interpret protected conduct as a challenge. Everything that follows is a consequence of that decision. The force, the arrest, the criminal charges — all of it flows from an officer choosing to treat a constitutional right as an insult.

The Two Statutes Officers Use — PC 148 and PC 69

When officers execute a Contempt of Cop arrest, they do not charge the civilian with “being disrespectful.” They reach for specific penal code sections that are vague enough to cover almost any interaction. These are the two most abused statutes in California police misconduct cases.

This is the workhorse of the Contempt of Cop toolkit — and the most abused statute in the California Penal Code. On my firm’s website, I call it “The It makes it a misdemeanor to “willfully resist, delay, or obstruct” an officer in the performance of their duties.

The problem is the word “obstruct.” Courts have interpreted it broadly enough that officers regularly use PC 148 to arrest people for conduct that is unambiguously constitutionally protected. Verbally questioning an order. Asking why. Failing to comply immediately. All of this has been charged under PC 148 against people who committed no crime.

Penalties for PC 148(a)(1): Misdemeanor. Up to one year in county jail and/or a fine up to $1,000.

PC 69 is the felony version — and I have written extensively about it atsteeringlaw.com. It applies when someone uses threats or force to deter an executive officer from performing their duties. Where PC 148 is a misdemeanor, PC 69 is a “wobbler” — it can be filed as a misdemeanor or a felony, and the charging decision is left to prosecutorial discretion.

In practice, PC 69 is deployed in the more serious Contempt of Cop cases — where the officer used substantial force and needs a felony charge to justify it, or where the department wants a more serious charge to give them more leverage in pressuring a plea.

Penalties for PC 69 — misdemeanor: Up to 1 year in county jail, fines up to $10,000.

Penalties for PC 69 — felony: 16 months, 2 years, or 3 years in state prison.

Note on charging disparities: In my experience, PC 69 is filed as a felony significantly more often in San Bernardino County than in Los Angeles or Orange County, under the same or similar facts. Prosecutorial culture varies by jurisdiction — which is one more reason why knowing your county matters.

Related Charges Often Stacked On Top

Contempt of Cop arrests rarely come with a single charge. Officers pile on to increase leverage:

• PC 240 / 241(c) — Assault on a peace officer
• PC 242 / 243(b) — Battery on a peace officer
• PC 148.9 — Providing false identification to an officer

The stacking strategy is not about justice. It is about pressure. The more charges there are, the more likely a civilian will accept a plea to one of the lesser offenses rather than fight them all. And a plea — even to a single misdemeanor PC 148 — has consequences that extend far beyond the case itself.

Contempt of Cop in Action — The Daniele Watts Incident

Why the Criminal Case and the Civil Case Are Inseparable

This is the piece that most people do not understand — and it is the most important thing in this entire blog.

If you were arrested in a Contempt of Cop situation, you likely have two cases. A criminal case — the PC 148 or PC 69 charge — and a potential civil rights lawsuit for the false arrest, excessive force, or First Amendment violation. These two cases are directly connected, and a decision in one affects the other.

My firm handles both sides of these cases simultaneously — the criminal defense and the civil rights lawsuit. The criminal defense strategy is informed by the civil case we are building. The civil case is protected by the outcome of the criminal defense. That integrated approach is the only way to protect the full scope of what you are entitled to.

Your Legal Defenses to Contempt of Cop Charges

Defense 1 — The Officer Was Not Lawfully Performing Their Duties

This is the most fundamental and most powerful defense to a PC 148 charge. The prosecution must prove the officer was lawfully performing their duties at the time of the alleged resistance. If the officer was making an unlawful arrest, conducting an illegal search, or using excessive force at the moment the “resistance” occurred, you cannot be convicted of obstructing them.

California courts have consistently held that one has the right to resist an unlawful arrest — though physical resistance carries its own risks and I advise against it strongly. More importantly, the lawfulness of the officer’s conduct is the threshold question in the criminal case and the central issue in the civil case. A successful criminal defense on this ground creates the foundation for the civil claim.

Defense 2 — Your Conduct Was Constitutionally Protected Speech

Verbally challenging police — yelling, questioning authority, expressing displeasure, even cursing at an officer — is constitutionally protected First Amendment speech. It is not resisting. It is not obstructing. Officers are trained professionals who are expected to encounter verbal opposition and not make it personal.

If you were arrested solely for what you said — not for any physical conduct — your charges should be dismissed. A First Amendment retaliation claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 may also be available if the arrest was made specifically to punish your protected speech.

Defense 3 — You Did Not Act Willfully

PC 148 requires willful conduct — you acted on purpose, with awareness of what you were doing. Accidental, reflexive, or involuntary reactions do not satisfy this element. If you stumbled during a takedown, jerked away from a painful hold, or reflexively moved in response to pain or surprise, you lacked the required intent for a PC 148 conviction.

Defense 4 — The Pitchess Motion: Exposing the Officer’s History

A Pitchess motion — named for Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) — allows defense attorneys to petition the court for access to a police officer’s personnel file to review prior complaints of dishonesty, excessive force, or fabrication of evidence. I have written a more detailed breakdown of Pitchess motions and the related Brady list process at steeringlaw.com.

In Contempt of Cop cases, a Pitchess motion can be the difference between conviction and dismissal. If the officer has a documented history of filing false resisting-arrest charges, of excessive force complaints, or of misconduct findings, that history is directly relevant to your case — both as evidence of a pattern in the criminal proceeding and as support for a Monell civil rights claim against the department.

Your Civil Rights Claims — Suing for a Contempt of Cop False Arrest

The criminal case determines whether you are convicted. The civil case determines whether you are compensated for what was done to you. Both matter. Here is the civil side.

What You Can Sue For

• False arrest / unlawful seizure — Fourth Amendment violation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if the arrest lacked probable cause
• Excessive force — Fourth Amendment violation if force used during the arrest was objectively unreasonable. See our excessive force page for more.
• First Amendment retaliation — if the arrest was made in response to constitutionally protected speech or recording
• Malicious prosecution — if criminal charges were filed without probable cause and later resolved in your favor
• Monell claim against the city or county — if the Contempt of Cop conduct reflects a departmental policy, custom, or failure to train

Damages Available

• Compensatory damages: medical expenses, lost wages, emotional distress, damage to reputation
• Punitive damages: available against individual officers whose conduct was malicious or recklessly indifferent
• Attorneys’ fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988: a prevailing plaintiff can require the defendant to pay their legal fees — this is what makes civil rights litigation economically viable

What to Do If You Are Caught in a Contempt of Cop Encounter

This advice is specific to the Contempt of Cop dynamic — situations where the encounter is escalating over attitude rather than conduct, and where the officer appears to be moving toward an arrest that has nothing to do with a crime.

• Comply physically. Do not resist. I know how infuriating it is to be ordered to the ground for nothing. Comply anyway. Physical resistance is the one thing that will be used against you in every forum — criminal and civil. The fight happens in court, not on the street.
• Keep talking to a minimum. You can say: “I am exercising my right to remain silent.” You can say: “I do not consent to searches.” Beyond that, stop. Anything you say will appear in the police report, interpreted to your disadvantage.
• Record if you safely can. California law protects your right to record police in public. If you can record safely without escalating the situation, do it. But do not put yourself in danger to get footage.
• Do not post about the incident on social media. Anything you say publicly becomes evidence. Contradictions between your social media posts and your later legal claims will be exploited.
• Document everything immediately after. Injuries, officer names and badge numbers, witness contact information, nearby security cameras. Do it within hours while the details are fresh.
• Contact a civil rights attorney before making any decisions about the criminal case. Specifically: before accepting any plea. A guilty plea to PC 148 or PC 69 can eliminate your civil rights case. The two cases must be evaluated together.

Where We Handle Contempt of Cop Cases

My firm handles Contempt of Cop cases — both the criminal defense and the civil rights lawsuit — throughout Southern California. We have litigated these cases in Los Angeles County, Orange County, Riverside County, San Bernardino County, San Diego County, Ventura County, and Kern County.

See our case results for what Contempt of Cop and false arrest cases look like when pursued to conclusion.

Frequently Asked Questions — Contempt of Cop and False Arrests in California

Fight Back. You Have Rights.

“Contempt of Cop” is not a law. Questioning authority is not obstruction. Recording police is not resisting. Asserting your rights is not a crime.

But the system will try to treat all of them as crimes — through PC 148, PC 69, and every related charge the DA’s office can stack on. The goal is a plea. A plea that closes the criminal case, exposes you to a record that follows you for years, and eliminates the civil rights lawsuit you would otherwise have.

Do not accept that plea without understanding what you are giving up. Do not give a statement to Internal Affairs. Do not assume the police report tells the truth. And do not wait — the six-month government claim deadline is running right now.

Fight back. Vindication is the goal.

About the Author — Jerry L. Steering

Jerry L. Steering is a civil rights attorney and police misconduct specialist who has been suing the police in California since 1984. His practice covers both sides of Contempt of Cop cases: criminal defense of bogus PC 148 and PC 69 charges, and civil rights lawsuits against the officers and municipalities responsible. He has handled hundreds of police misconduct cases in federal and state courts throughout Los Angeles County, Orange County, Riverside County, San Bernardino County, San Diego County, and the rest of Southern California. Notable results include a $2.9 million settlement against the City of Anaheim, an $800,000 jury verdict against Garden Grove, and a $750,000 settlement against the City of Torrance. He has appeared on NBC Dateline with Lester Holt and ABC Good Morning America with Diane Sawyer. View

Law Offices of Jerry L. Steering  |  4063 Birch Street, Suite 100, Newport Beach, CA 92660  |  (949) 474-1849  |  Available 24 Hours  |  jerry@steeringlaw.com

Legal citations and primary sources:

• California Penal Code § 148(a)(1) — Resisting, Delaying, or Obstructing  |  leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
• California Penal Code § 69 — Resisting an Executive Officer  |  steeringlaw.com
• 42 U.S.C. § 1983 — Federal civil rights statute  |  Cornell Law School LII
• California Government Code § 911.2 — Government tort claim deadline  |  leginfo.legislature.ca.gov

Jerry L. Steering, Esq.

Steering Law is a California-based civil rights and criminal defense firm led by Jerry L. Steering, Esq. The firm focuses on police misconduct cases, including excessive force, false arrest, malicious prosecution, contempt of cop incidents, and 42 U.S.C. §1983 civil rights actions, while also handling serious criminal defense matters. Steering Law is dedicated to protecting clients’ constitutional rights and delivering justice for individuals who have been wronged by law enforcement.

steeringlaw.com/

What Happens If You’re Charged After Police Use Force?

It happens constantly in California – the officer uses excessive force, then charges you with resisting arrest (PC 148), resisting with force (PC 69), or battery on a peace officer to justify what they did and protect themselves from a civil rights lawsuit. The criminal case and the civil rights case are inseparable. A guilty plea or conviction can permanently bar your civil lawsuit under the Heck v. Humphrey doctrine. The criminal defense must be handled with the civil case in mind, from day one, by counsel who understands both.

Free case evaluation: (949) 474-1849  |  Available 24 hours  |  jerry@steeringlaw.com

You Were the Victim – And Then the Handcuffs Went on You

The scenario plays out far too often: Someone is beaten, tased, or brutalized by police. They are the victim – injured, traumatized, clearly harmed. And then the handcuffs go on them. They are taken to jail, charged with resisting arrest, assault on an officer, or obstruction.

It seems backward. It feels unjust. And yet it happens every day in California.

Victims of police misconduct frequently find themselves transformed into criminal defendants. I have seen this in Los Angeles County, Orange County, Riverside County, San Bernardino County, and San Diego County courts for forty years. Understanding why this happens – and how to fight both the criminal charges and the civil case at the same time – is essential to protecting your rights and getting justice.

Here is what you need to know if you have been charged after police used force against you. For the complete guide to what to do in the immediate aftermath, see our step-by-step guide.

“The criminal charge is not the end of the abuse. It is the continuation of it, by other means.”

Why Officers Charge Their Victims – The Three Reasons

Reason 1: Cover-Up

The most cynical – and most common – reason victims are charged is straightforward cover-up. When officers use excessive force, they need the use of force documented as justified. The easiest justification: claim the victim was resisting, assaultive, or noncompliant. File the charges. Control the narrative.

Officers reach for three statutes. Penal Code Section 148(a)(1) – resisting, delaying, or obstructing an officer – is the misdemeanor catch-all. Penal Code Section 69 – resisting an executive officer with force or threats – is the felony version. Penal Code Section 243(b)/(c) – battery on a peace officer – is added when the officer claims physical contact. These charges serve multiple purposes simultaneously: they make the victim look like the aggressor, they provide retroactive probable cause for the arrest, and – most critically – they create the legal mechanism that can permanently bar the civil rights lawsuit.

I have written extensively about each of these statutes. See my analysis of PC 148(a)(1) and PC 69.

Reason 2: The Contempt of Cop Mechanism

Officers with fragile egos often perceive legitimate assertions of rights as challenges to their authority. When a citizen asks ‘Why are you stopping me?’ or declines to consent to a search or records the encounter, some officers respond by escalating and then charging the citizen with obstruction. This is what I call the Contempt of Cop mechanism.

The law is explicit: merely recording police, questioning them, or asserting your constitutional rights is not a crime. California Penal Code Section 148(g) states directly that recording a peace officer in a public place does not constitute obstruction and cannot legally justify detention or arrest. The 2023 amendment to Penal Code Section 69(b) extends the same protection to the felony statute. Officers who arrest people for these protected activities know the law. They are violating it anyway.

Reason 3: Civil Lawsuit Immunity

The third reason is the one most victims do not understand until it is too late: the criminal charge is specifically designed to immunize the officer from the civil rights lawsuit.

Under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), a civil rights claim under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 is barred if success in that civil claim would necessarily imply the invalidity of a prior criminal conviction. A conviction for resisting the arrest can be used to argue the arrest was lawful – which is the foundation of the false arrest civil claim. A conviction for battery on a peace officer can be used to argue the force the officer used was justified as a response to that battery.

The officers know this. The prosecutors who file these charges know this. The criminal case is not separate from the civil case. It is weaponized against it.

The Heck Doctrine – When a Criminal Conviction Bars Your Civil Rights Lawsuit

The most important legal concept for anyone in this situation is Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). The Supreme Court held that a Section 1983 civil rights claim is barred if success in the civil claim would ‘necessarily imply the invalidity’ of a prior criminal conviction or sentence.

What this means in practice: if you plead guilty to resisting arrest – even to a misdemeanor, even with no jail time – that plea can permanently eliminate your civil rights lawsuit for the underlying false arrest or excessive force. The connection between the two cases is legal and direct.

But the Heck analysis is not all-or-nothing. Courts have developed important nuances that determine when civil claims survive despite a criminal conviction – and when they do not. Here is the complete framework.

Six Criminal Defenses to Resistance Charges After Police Use Force

If you are facing criminal charges stemming from a use-of-force incident, aggressive defense is essential – not just to avoid jail time, but to preserve your right to pursue the civil case. Here are the six most powerful defenses.

Both PC 148(a)(1) and PC 69 require that the officer was engaged in the lawful performance of their duties at the time of the alleged resistance. This is the foundational defense – and the one that connects most directly to the civil case.

If the arrest lacked probable cause, the search was unlawful, or the stop was pretextual without reasonable suspicion, the officer was not lawfully performing their duties. You cannot be convicted of resisting an unlawful police action. This defense requires proving exactly what the civil case will also need to prove – which is why the criminal defense and the civil case must be built together.

Consider a situation I have encountered in various forms across Southern California: Police break down a door without a warrant, without exigent circumstances, and without knocking and announcing. An officer attempts to restrain the occupant. The occupant pulls back. The officer files PC 148. But the entire encounter was unlawful from the moment the door came down. There was no lawful police action to resist – and no conviction can stand.

California law recognizes the right to defend against excessive force by a police officer. CALCRIM No. 2672 – the standard jury instruction in PC 148 and PC 69 trials – explicitly states that if an officer uses unreasonable or excessive force, and the defendant uses only reasonable force in self-defense against that excessive force, the defendant is not guilty of the resistance charge.

To establish this defense, the evidence must show that you reasonably believed the officer was using excessive force, that your actions were necessary to prevent death or serious bodily injury, and that the force you used was proportional to the threat. This is an objective standard – what would a reasonable person in your position have believed and done?

In practice, this defense requires presenting the evidence of the officer’s force – medical records of your injuries, photographs, body camera footage, witness testimony – and arguing that what the prosecution is calling ‘battery on a peace officer’ was, in fact, constitutionally protected self-defense.

PC 148(a)(1) requires willful conduct – you acted on purpose, with awareness of what you were doing. Accidental, reflexive, or involuntary reactions do not satisfy this element.

• You stumbled during a takedown – police characterized it as resistance
• You jerked away from a painful hold – a reflexive response, not a deliberate act
• You were in a medical crisis – seizure, hypoglycemic episode, or other medical event that prevented conscious control of your movements
• You misheard or genuinely misunderstood an order in a chaotic situation

The prosecution must prove willfulness beyond a reasonable doubt. Evidence of chaos, noise, multiple officers, and the physical circumstances of the encounter can establish that your movements were not purposeful resistance but involuntary reactions to an overwhelming physical situation.

In People v. Gresham, B332270 (Cal. App. 2025), the California Court of Appeal confirmed that PC 148 requires proof that the defendant ‘knew or reasonably should have known’ they were resisting a peace officer performing their duties. This knowledge element creates defense opportunities in specific circumstances:

• The officer was in plain clothes and did not identify themselves before physical contact
• The interaction occurred at night, in a chaotic scene, or under conditions where identifying the people as officers was genuinely difficult
• The defendant was in a mental health crisis at the time of the encounter and lacked the cognitive capacity to process who was grabbing them
• Multiple people were involved and the defendant could not reasonably distinguish officers from others

Note: Gresham is a 2025 California Court of Appeal decision that is still being applied in trial courts. Its full scope is developing. It builds on established California law requiring knowledge for PC 148 convictions.

Officers sometimes use resistance charges to cover up their own misconduct rather than because any resistance actually occurred. They may claim you pulled away, tensed your arms, or lunged at them when none of that happened. The police report is written to justify the charge, not to record what actually occurred.

Exposing fabrication requires the evidence I collect in every police misconduct case:

• Body camera footage that contradicts the officer’s account – if the footage shows you compliant when the report claims you were resisting, that contradiction is the case
• Third-party surveillance video – the bystander’s Ring doorbell camera or the gas station security camera across the street, which has no stake in the outcome
• Independent witness testimony – someone who saw what happened and will testify to it
• The officer’s Pitchess records – prior complaints of dishonesty, fabrication of evidence, or excessive force. See our dedicated Pitchess and Brady List article. An officer with five prior complaints of filing false resistance charges has their credibility destroyed before the jury

Even if you have a conviction, not all civil rights claims are barred by Heck. The Supreme Court noted in a Heck footnote that Fourth Amendment unreasonable search or seizure claims may survive a conviction because of doctrines like independent source, inevitable discovery, and harmless error – a successful Section 1983 action for unlawful search or seizure does not necessarily imply the invalidity of a conviction. The Eleventh Circuit confirmed this in Hughes v. Lott, 350 F.3d 1157 (11th Cir. 2003).

In practical terms: even if your resistance conviction bars the false arrest claim, an excessive force claim based on what the officer did to you after the initial contact may survive. Claims based on conduct temporally separate from the conduct underlying the conviction require their own analysis – and some will survive Heck even when others do not.

This is why the Heck analysis is not a simple yes-or-no question. It requires identifying each specific civil claim, analyzing exactly what the conviction necessarily implies, and determining which claims survive and which are barred.

How My Firm Handles Both Cases Simultaneously

When a client comes to me after a use-of-force incident where they were also charged with a resistance offense, I handle both cases – and I handle them as one integrated strategy, not as two separate matters.

Here is specifically what that means in practice:

• The spoliation letter goes out immediately. Body-worn camera footage, dashcam footage, 911 calls, CAD records, and all police reports are preserved before routine deletion schedules destroy them. This serves both the criminal defense and the civil case.
• The Pitchess motion is filed in the criminal case. The officer’s prior misconduct record – complaints of dishonesty, excessive force, fabricated resistance charges – is directly relevant to the criminal defense and is admissible to impeach. The same record establishes the Monell pattern for the civil case.
• The criminal defense strategy is designed around Heck. Before any plea is discussed, I analyze what each possible disposition means for the civil claims. A plea that preserves the civil case is different from one that destroys it. My client cannot make that decision without understanding both dimensions.
• No statements are given to Internal Affairs or investigators without me present. Anything said in an IA interview can be used in the criminal case. The right to remain silent protects both cases.
• The civil case is filed when the timing is right. In cases where the criminal charges are pending, the civil case may need to be filed and then stayed while the criminal case resolves – to preserve the statute of limitations. Or the civil case may be structured to assert only the claims that survive regardless of the criminal outcome. These decisions require experienced judgment in both areas of law.

Real Cases – What This Looks Like in Practice

Example 1: The Unlawful Arrest Defense

Consider a pattern I have seen repeatedly in Southern California: Officers respond to an address without a valid warrant. They force entry without knocking and announcing as required by California Penal Code Section 844. An occupant, startled and with no warning that the people breaking in are police, physically pulls back from being grabbed.

The officer files PC 148. But from the moment of unlawful entry, the officer was not engaged in the lawful performance of their duties. There was no lawful police action to resist. The conviction cannot stand – and the unlawful entry and the subsequent force are the foundation of both the criminal defense and the civil rights lawsuit.

Example 2: Self-Defense That Saves the Civil Case

A client in Orange County was stopped on a traffic infraction. Before any handcuffing process began, the officer slammed the client’s head into the hood of the car and began striking him. The client reflexively pushed back. The officer filed PC 69 – felony resisting.

We filed a Pitchess motion. The officer had three prior complaints of exactly this pattern – excessive force followed by resistance charges. The criminal case was dismissed. The civil case proceeded. The result was a six-figure settlement.

The key: no plea was accepted. Every option was evaluated for its Heck implications before any criminal disposition was discussed. The civil case was protected.

Example 3: The Tinsley Analysis – When Some Claims Survive

In Tinsley v. Town of Framingham (Mass. SJC 2020), the plaintiff was convicted of offenses related to conduct inside his vehicle during a traffic stop. His civil claims based on events inside the vehicle were barred by Heck. But the court allowed claims based on conduct after officers removed him from the vehicle to proceed – because those events occurred after, and were factually separate from, the conduct underlying the conviction.

This case illustrates the most important nuance in Heck analysis: the bar is event-specific, not case-wide. A conviction based on events in the vehicle does not necessarily bar a claim based on what happened after the officer got you out of the vehicle. Each claim must be analyzed individually against what the conviction necessarily implies.

This is why the Heck analysis is not a simple question with a binary answer. It requires experienced judgment about what each specific civil claim asserts and what the criminal conviction necessarily establishes.

What to Do Right Now

If you are facing criminal charges after police used force against you, every decision you make from this moment forward affects both the criminal case and the civil case.

• Invoke your right to remain silent immediately. Do not make statements to police, prosecutors, IA investigators, or anyone else without an attorney present. Anything you say can be used against you in both cases.
• Do not accept any plea without understanding the Heck consequences. A misdemeanor plea to PC 148 with no jail time sounds harmless. It may eliminate your civil rights case permanently. This is not a decision you can undo.
• Document your injuries now. Photograph every injury today and again in 24 and 48 hours. Seek medical attention the same day and tell every provider exactly how you were injured. These records are evidence in both cases.
• Do not post about the incident on social media. Everything you say publicly becomes evidence.
• Contact a civil rights attorney immediately – while your criminal case is still pending. Do not wait for the criminal case to resolve. The six-month government tort claim deadline is running from the day of the incident, regardless of what is happening in criminal court.

Where We Handle These Cases

My firm handles both criminal defense of resistance charges and civil rights lawsuits for the underlying police misconduct throughout Southern California – Los Angeles County, Orange County, Riverside County, San Bernardino County, San Diego County, Ventura County, and Kern County.

Results in cases where we handled both the criminal defense and the civil rights claim include an $800,000 jury verdict against the City of Garden Grove, a $750,000 settlement in the Torrance swastika case, and numerous six-figure recoveries in Orange County and Riverside County where the criminal charges were first dismissed before the civil case proceeded. See our full case results.

Frequently Asked Questions – Criminal Charges After Police Use Force

The Charges Are a Tactic – Fight Both Cases

Being charged with crimes after police use force against you is one of the most frustrating and unjust experiences there is. You are the victim. You are the one with injuries, with medical bills, with trauma. And yet you are treated like the defendant.

But understand what is happening: the charges are a tactic. A way to justify misconduct, cover up excessive force, and immunize officers from civil liability. A conviction under PC 148 or PC 69 can bar your civil rights lawsuit forever under the Heck doctrine. The criminal case is not separate from the civil case. It is being used against it.

This is why fighting the criminal case is not just about avoiding jail time. It is about preserving your right to justice. An acquittal, a dismissal, or even a carefully structured plea that does not admit to facts that destroy the civil case can keep your claims alive.

The deck is stacked. But in forty years of fighting these cases in Southern California courts, I have learned that the deck can be undealt. The evidence exists. The defenses exist. The law exists. What it takes is counsel who understands both sides – and who moves fast enough to preserve both.

Fight back. Vindication is the goal.

About the Author – Jerry L. Steering

Jerry L. Steering is a civil rights attorney and police misconduct specialist who has been suing the police in California since 1984. His practice covers both sides of resistance charge cases: criminal defense of PC 148(a)(1) and PC 69 charges, and civil rights lawsuits under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 for the excessive force and false arrest that preceded them. He has litigated cases in federal and state courts throughout Los Angeles County, Orange County, Riverside County, San Bernardino County, San Diego County, and the rest of Southern California. Notable results include a $2.9 million settlement against the City of Anaheim, an $800,000 jury verdict against the City of Garden Grove, a $750,000 settlement in the Torrance swastika case, and numerous six-figure recoveries in cases where resistance charges were successfully challenged. He has appeared on NBC Dateline with Lester Holt and ABC Good Morning America with Diane Sawyer. View Attorney Profile

Law Offices of Jerry L. Steering  |  4063 Birch Street, Suite 100, Newport Beach, CA 92660  |  (949) 474-1849  |  Available 24 Hours  |  jerry@steeringlaw.com

Legal citations and primary sources:

• California Penal Code Section 148(a)(1) – Resisting, delaying, or obstructing  |  leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
• California Penal Code Section 69 – Resisting an executive officer  |  leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
• California Penal Code Section 148(g) – Recording police is protected, not obstruction  |  leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
• 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 – Federal civil rights statute  |  law.cornell.edu
• California Government Code Section 911.2 – Six-month government tort claim deadline  |  leginfo.legislature.ca.gov

Jerry L. Steering, Esq.

Steering Law is a California-based civil rights and criminal defense firm led by Jerry L. Steering, Esq. The firm focuses on police misconduct cases, including excessive force, false arrest, malicious prosecution, contempt of cop incidents, and 42 U.S.C. §1983 civil rights actions, while also handling serious criminal defense matters. Steering Law is dedicated to protecting clients’ constitutional rights and delivering justice for individuals who have been wronged by law enforcement.

steeringlaw.com/