Can You Sue the Police in California?
Yes — if a police officer violated your federally protected constitutional rights while acting under color of law, you can sue under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal civil rights statute. You may be able to sue the officer personally, the city or county under a Monell claim, or both. However, in California you must first file a government tort claim within six months of the incident under California Government Code § 911.2. Miss that deadline and you lose the right to sue — period.
Free case evaluation: (949) 474-1849 | Available 24 hours | jerry@steeringlaw.com
The Question I Get Asked More Than Any Other
“Can I sue the police?”
That is the first thing almost every client asks me. And it is the right question — because if you have been beaten, falsely arrested, or had your constitutional rights violated by a police officer in California, the answer is yes, you can. But it requires understanding the specific legal framework, who you can sue, what you have to prove, and — critically — how little time you have to act before the opportunity closes.
I have been doing this since 1984. I have handled hundreds of police misconduct cases in federal and state courts throughout Southern California — Los Angeles County, Orange County, Riverside County, San Bernardino County, San Diego County, and beyond. What I am going to tell you in this article is what I tell every potential client who calls my office: the law, the framework, the obstacles, and the path through them. No sugarcoating. See our case results for what these cases look like when pursued correctly.
| Before Anything Else — The Six-Month Deadline That Kills More Cases Than Bad Facts In California, before you can file a lawsuit against a city, county, or other government entity for police misconduct, you must file a government tort claim with that entity under California Government Code § 911.2. You typically have six months from the date of the incident to do this. If you miss this deadline — by even one day — you lose your right to sue. Permanently. No exceptions. No judicial discretion. I have seen strong cases with clear liability, documented injuries, and video evidence go nowhere because the victim called me at month seven instead of month two. This is not a technicality. It is the case-killer that gets more victims than any other single factor. If something happened to you or someone you know, contact a civil rights attorney this week. |
What Is 42 U.S.C. § 1983 — The Law That Makes This Possible
The foundation of every police misconduct civil rights lawsuit is42 U.S.C. § 1983 — the Civil Rights Act of 1871, sometimes called the Ku Klux Klan Act because Congress passed it to hold government officials accountable for civil rights violations after Reconstruction.
Section 1983 provides that any person acting under color of state law who deprives another of their constitutional rights can be held liable for damages. In plain English: it is the legal tool that lets us hold police officers and the departments behind them accountable when they use their badge to violate the Constitution.
The statute creates a cause of action in federal court. These are federal lawsuits, typically filed in United States District Court, governed by federal procedural rules. I have written a more detailed breakdown of § 1983 practice on our site — see our 42 U.S.C. § 1983 article.
What You Have to Prove
To win a § 1983 claim, you must establish two things. First, that the defendant was acting under color of state law — meaning they were exercising authority granted by government, such as a police officer making an arrest. Second, that the defendant’s conduct deprived you of a specific right guaranteed by the Constitution or federal law.
This is the most important point: § 1983 is not a remedy for officers being rude, unprofessional, or even incompetent. It is a remedy for constitutional violations. The right violated must be specific and identifiable.
Which Constitutional Rights Are Most Commonly Violated
| Amendment | Right violated | What it covers in police misconduct cases |
| Fourth Amendment | Unreasonable seizure | Excessive force, false arrest, unlawful detention, malicious prosecution — the most common basis for police misconduct claims |
| Fourth Amendment | Unreasonable search | Warrantless entry into your home, car searches without probable cause, strip searches, property searches without consent or valid exception |
| First Amendment | Free speech retaliation | Arresting or punishing someone for recording police, criticizing officers, or engaging in constitutionally protected speech — the ‘Contempt of Cop’ scenario |
| Fourteenth Amendment | Due process | Deprivation of liberty or property without due process, coerced confessions, denial of medical care while in custody |
| Fourteenth Amendment | Equal protection | Discriminatory enforcement — targeting individuals based on race, ethnicity, religion, or other protected characteristics |
Who You Can Sue — Officers, Cities, and What You Cannot Touch
One of the most important things I explain to potential clients is who actually pays in these cases — because the answer determines strategy, and getting this wrong costs people their cases.
| Who you can sue | The legal basis | What you need to know |
| Individual Officer (personal capacity) | Sue the officer directly for constitutional violations committed under color of law | Officer can assert qualified immunity — but immunity does not apply if the violated right was clearly established at the time. Officers generally do not indemnify themselves; cities often do. |
| Municipality (city or county) | Sue the city or county under Monell v. Department of Social Services when a policy, custom, or failure to train caused the violation | This is where the real money is. Cities and counties have assets, insurance, and the political motivation to settle cases that expose ongoing department liability. Monell is harder to prove but essential in most cases. |
| State or State Agency (e.g., CHP) | Cannot sue under § 1983 — states are not ‘persons’ under the statute (Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58) | California state law claims under the California Tort Claims Act may still be available. Federal constitutional claims against state officials in their individual capacity (not official capacity) may also survive. |
Why Monell Matters — The City Has Money, the Officer Often Doesn’t
Under the Supreme Court’s decision in Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978), a municipality can be held directly liable when the constitutional violation resulted from an official policy, a widespread custom, or a deliberate failure to train. This is not about holding the city vicariously liable for an officer’s mistake — it is about holding the institution responsible for the institutional failure that made the mistake inevitable.
In practical terms, Monell is often the most important claim in a case — not because it is easy, but because cities and counties have assets, insurance, and the political incentive to settle cases that expose ongoing department liability. A $50,000 judgment against an individual officer with no money does not accomplish much. A $2 million settlement against the city that funds its entire policy reform is something else entirely.
Monell claims succeed when we can show a pattern: prior complaints against the same officer that went uninvestigated, a department-wide use-of-force policy that permitted the conduct, or systematic failures in training that made the violation predictable. This is why early evidence preservation — getting records of prior complaints, prior incidents, department policies — is essential.
Qualified Immunity — The Shield They Will Raise, and How We Fight Through It
Qualified immunity is the doctrine that protects police officers from civil liability unless they violated a right that was “clearly established” at the time — meaning prior court decisions had specifically put officers on notice that the conduct was unconstitutional. I have written extensively about this doctrine and why I believe it has been expanded far beyond anything Congress intended when it passed § 1983. See “A.
The practical reality: qualified immunity is raised in virtually every police misconduct case. It is not a get-out-of-jail-free card for every officer, but it has been interpreted so broadly by federal courts that it shields officers from accountability even for conduct that most reasonable people would recognize as obviously unconstitutional.
How we fight it: by identifying prior cases from the Ninth Circuit and the Supreme Court that establish clearly the specific right at issue. If there is a prior case holding that officers cannot use a particular type of force in similar circumstances, qualified immunity does not apply. This is why case selection and legal research at the outset of litigation matters enormously.
| The Contempt of Cop Connection Qualified immunity becomes most problematic in what I call “Contempt of Cop” cases — where an officer arrests someone for verbally challenging or criticizing police conduct. Officers routinely invoke qualified immunity in these First Amendment retaliation cases, arguing the law was not clearly established. It was. The right to criticize police — even loudly, even rudely — is constitutionally protected speech. The right to record police activity in public spaces is a clearly established First Amendment right, as confirmed in Molina v. City of St. Louis, 59 F.4th 334 (8th Cir. 2023) and recognized throughout the Ninth Circuit. Officers who arrest someone for filming them or calling them out are not immune from suit. |
What You Can Actually Recover — Damages Under § 1983
The blog that explains liability without explaining damages is only half useful. Here is what you can recover if your § 1983 case succeeds.
| Type of damages | What it compensates | What you need to know |
| Compensatory damages | Actual losses caused by the constitutional violation | Medical expenses, lost wages, pain and suffering, emotional distress, property damage. These are the baseline damages in any § 1983 case. |
| Punitive damages | Punishment for malicious or recklessly indifferent conduct | Available against individual officers — not municipalities — when their conduct was especially egregious. There is no cap on punitive damages in federal § 1983 cases. |
| Nominal damages | Symbolic recognition of a constitutional violation | Available when the violation is proven but actual harm is difficult to quantify. Important where the injury is primarily constitutional rather than economic. |
| Attorneys’ fees (42 U.S.C. § 1988) | Recovery of legal fees from the defendant | A prevailing plaintiff in a § 1983 case can recover reasonable attorneys’ fees from the defendant. This is what makes civil rights litigation economically viable — it means you do not have to be wealthy to pursue justice. |
The attorneys’ fees provision under42 U.S.C. § 1988 deserves emphasis. In a typical personal injury case, plaintiffs pay their attorneys a contingency fee from the recovery. In a § 1983 case, a prevailing plaintiff can require the defendant to pay their attorneys’ fees directly. This is what makes civil rights litigation economically viable for people who were injured but whose damages are not enormous. It also means defendants have an additional financial incentive to settle — because litigation costs them in fees regardless of whether they win.
The Resistance Offense Trap — Why You May Have Been Arrested Too
Here is something I need to address directly, because it affects a significant portion of the people who contact my office.
Many victims of police misconduct are also facing criminal charges — specifically, California Penal Code § 148(a)(1) (resisting, delaying, or obstructing an officer) or California Penal Code § 69 (resisting with force, a felony). These charges are not coincidences. They are tactics.
When an officer uses excessive force or makes a bad arrest, the officer has a problem. The use of force needs to be justified. The solution the department trains for: arrest the victim. Charge them with a resistance offense. These statutes are written so broadly that almost any interaction can be characterized as “delaying” or “obstructing” an officer.
The stakes of this tactic are severe: if you are convicted of a resistance offense in connection with the incident, you are generally legally precluded from bringing a civil rights lawsuit for the very misconduct that caused your arrest. The criminal conviction wipes out the civil case. The police know this. The DA’s office that prosecutes you knows this.
This is why my firm handles both sides simultaneously: defending the bogus criminal case and building the civil rights lawsuit. The two are inseparable. A guilty plea to a resistance offense — even a misdemeanor, even “just to make it go away” — can destroy your civil case. Contact us before making any decisions about your criminal case.
| Has a California Police Officer Violated Your Constitutional Rights? (949) 474-1849 — Available 24 Hours a Day Free Case Evaluation — No Fee Unless We Recover jerry@steeringlaw.com | steeringlaw.com/free-case-evaluation Law Offices of Jerry L. Steering | 4063 Birch Street, Suite 100 | Newport Beach, CA 92660 Suing the Police in Southern California Since 1984 |
What People Get Wrong About Suing the Police
In forty years of doing this, I have heard the same misconceptions over and over. Here they are, corrected.
“I can sue because the officer was rude to me.”
You cannot. Verbal abuse by an officer — as infuriating as it is — is not a constitutional violation. Section 1983 requires a deprivation of a specific constitutional right: unreasonable force, false arrest, unlawful search, First Amendment retaliation. Being called a name, being sworn at, or being treated disrespectfully does not create a federal cause of action. The conduct must cross the line from unprofessional into unconstitutional.
“If I sue the officer, the city automatically pays.”
Not automatically. The city pays when a Monell claim succeeds — when you prove the violation resulted from a departmental policy, custom, or failure to train. If the officer genuinely went rogue, acted entirely outside of training and contrary to department policy, and the city has no pattern of similar conduct, the officer may be personally liable without the city being on the hook. In practice, many cities indemnify their officers contractually. But a Monell claim requires its own proof independent of the officer’s individual misconduct.
“Qualified immunity means I can never win.”
No. Qualified immunity is a serious obstacle but not an absolute bar. It protects officers only when the right violated was not clearly established at the time. If you can point to prior Ninth Circuit or Supreme Court precedent that specifically addresses the conduct at issue, immunity does not apply. The key is finding the right prior cases and making the right legal arguments at the motion stage. This is where the difference between a specialist and a generalist matters most.
“The police report will tell the truth.”
Police reports are often written to justify the arrest and protect the officer. That is not an accusation — it is the institutional reality of how use-of-force reports are prepared. Officers write them after the fact, with knowledge of what needs to be justified. They are evidence, not gospel. In case after case, independent witness testimony, security camera footage, and medical records have directly contradicted what police reports said happened. Never assume the police report is the final word.
“Filing a complaint with Internal Affairs will help my case.”
It almost certainly will not — and it may hurt you. Internal Affairs investigations are not conducted for your benefit. They are conducted to protect the department. Anything you say in an IA interview is potentially usable against you in your criminal case if you have been charged with a resistance offense. Do not participate in an Internal Affairs interview without your attorney present. I have written about the IA process in more detail in our guide to what to do after police misconduct.
Where We Handle These Cases — Southern California
My office is in Newport Beach. I handle police misconduct and civil rights cases throughout Southern California — Los Angeles County, Orange County, Riverside County, San Bernardino County, San Diego County, Ventura County, Kern County, and Santa Barbara County.
Frequently Asked Questions — Suing the Police in California
Yes, if a police officer violated your federally protected constitutional rights while acting under color of law, you can sue under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. You may be able to sue the officer personally, the city or county under a Monell claim, or both. In California, you must first file a government tort claim under California Government Code § 911.2 — typically within six months of the incident. Contact our office immediately if something happened to you.
42 U.S.C. § 1983 is the federal Civil Rights Act of 1871 that allows individuals to sue government officials — including police officers — who violate their constitutional rights while acting under color of state law. It is the foundation of virtually every police misconduct civil rights lawsuit in the United States. Cases under § 1983 are filed in federal district court.
Qualified immunity is a judicially created doctrine that protects police officers from civil liability unless they violated a right that was clearly established at the time. Courts have interpreted this standard broadly, shielding officers even for obvious constitutional violations in some cases. However, qualified immunity is not absolute. If prior Ninth Circuit or Supreme Court precedent specifically addressed the type of conduct at issue and put officers on notice that it was unconstitutional, immunity does not apply. An experienced civil rights attorney can assess whether qualified immunity will be a barrier in your specific case.
A Monell claim — based on Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978) — allows you to sue a city or county directly when the constitutional violation resulted from an official policy, widespread custom, or deliberate failure to train. Monell claims are harder to prove than individual officer claims, but they are often the most important claims in a case because municipalities have assets, insurance, and strong incentives to settle. See our dedicated page on 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuits for more.
In a successful § 1983 case, you can recover compensatory damages (medical expenses, lost wages, pain and suffering, emotional distress), punitive damages against individual officers for malicious or recklessly indifferent conduct, and attorneys’ fees from the defendant under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. The attorneys’ fees provision is particularly important — it means you do not have to be wealthy to pursue a civil rights case, because a prevailing plaintiff can require the defendant to pay their legal fees.
Before filing a lawsuit against a California city, county, or other public entity for police misconduct, you must file a government tort claim with that entity under California Government Code § 911.2. This claim typically must be filed within six months of the incident. Miss this deadline and you lose the right to sue — permanently, regardless of how strong the evidence is. Contact a civil rights attorney immediately after an incident.
This is the most dangerous situation for a potential civil rights plaintiff, and it is exactly where you need a specialist immediately. If you were charged with California Penal Code § 148(a)(1) or § 69 in connection with the incident, a conviction or guilty plea to that charge can legally preclude you from bringing a civil rights lawsuit for the underlying misconduct. Do not make any decisions about your criminal case — including a plea — without understanding how it affects your civil claim. Our firm handles both the criminal defense and the civil rights lawsuit simultaneously for exactly this reason.
No — not directly. States are not considered ‘persons’ under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and state agencies like the CHP are protected by Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity from suit in federal court under § 1983. Will v. Michigan Department of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989). However, individual state officers acting in their personal capacity — not their official capacity — can still be sued under § 1983. California state law claims under the California Tort Claims Act may also be available for claims against state agencies.
The Bottom Line — The Law Gives You Rights. We Help You Use Them.
Section 1983 is a powerful statute. In the right hands, with the right facts and the right evidence, it is the mechanism that has produced multi-million dollar judgments against California cities and counties for police misconduct. It is why Anaheim paid $2.9 million. It is why Fontana paid $900,000 for a false confession to a murder that never happened.
But it is not a simple process. Qualified immunity is real. Monell requires proof of institutional failure, not just individual bad conduct. The deadlines are short and unforgiving. And if you have been charged with a resistance offense, every decision you make in the criminal case has direct consequences for the civil case.
Free case evaluation — no fee unless we recover.
| Call for a Free Case Evaluation — Available 24 Hours (949) 474-1849 jerry@steeringlaw.com | steeringlaw.com/free-case-evaluation Law Offices of Jerry L. Steering 4063 Birch Street, Suite 100, Newport Beach, CA 92660 Suing the Police in Southern California Since 1984 |
About the Author — Jerry L. Steering
Jerry L. Steering is a civil rights attorney and police misconduct specialist who has been suing the police in California since 1984. He has 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. His notable results include a $2.9 million settlement against the City of Anaheim for a police shooting, a $2.1 million wrongful death settlement, a $1.3 million settlement against Riverside County, 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 in this article:
- 42 U.S.C. § 1983 — The Civil Rights Act of 1871 | Cornell Law School LII
- 42 U.S.C. § 1988 — Attorneys’ fees in civil rights cases | Cornell Law School LII
- California Government Code § 911.2 — Government tort claim deadline | California Legislative Information
- California Penal Code §§ 148(a)(1) and 69 — Resistance offense statutes | steeringlaw.com
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.