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.

Your situation	Civil case status	What this means
No criminal conviction (charges dismissed or never filed)	Civil case is NOT barred by Heck	This is the clearest path. If charges were dismissed before any conviction – even after arrest and booking – the Heck bar does not apply and your civil rights lawsuit can proceed.
Pretrial diversion completed (no conviction entered)	Civil case is likely NOT barred	Courts have held (Aprileo v. Clapprood, D. Mass. 2024) that completion of diversion without a criminal judgment does not trigger Heck. Without an outstanding conviction that could be reversed, barring suit would leave victims with no remedy.
Charges reduced / dismissed as part of plea to unrelated offense	Civil case may survive (fact-specific analysis)	If the plea does not admit facts that would necessarily imply the arrest or force was lawful, the civil case may survive. This requires careful coordination between criminal and civil counsel before any plea is entered.
Conviction for resistance charge (PC 148, PC 69, battery on officer)	Civil case IS barred if claim necessarily implies invalidity	If your civil rights lawsuit would require proving the arrest was unlawful – and you already pled guilty to resisting that arrest – the claim is barred. This is the Heck trap that destroys civil cases.
Conviction exists BUT civil claim is based on later conduct	Civil claim may survive for post-conviction events	Tinsley v. Town of Framingham (Mass. 2020): Claims based on conduct after conviction events can proceed even when earlier claims are barred. The Heck bar is event-specific, not case-wide.
Fourth Amendment unlawful search or seizure claim	Civil claim generally survives even with conviction	Hughes v. Lott (11th Cir. 2003) and Heck footnote: Because of independent source and inevitable discovery doctrines, a successful Fourth Amendment claim does not necessarily imply a conviction was invalid. These claims generally survive Heck.

The Most Important Takeaway From the Heck Table The guilty plea trap is the single most preventable disaster in civil rights law. Every day, people accept misdemeanor pleas to ‘just make it go away’ – not understanding that the plea is also making the civil rights lawsuit go away permanently.   Do not accept any plea to any resistance charge without first consulting a civil rights attorney who can assess the Heck consequences for your specific civil claims. The criminal defense strategy must be designed with the civil case outcome in mind.   My firm handles both cases simultaneously. That is not a convenience – it is the only way to protect the full scope of what you are entitled to.

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.

1	The Officer Was Not Lawfully Performing Their Duties

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.

2	Self-Defense Against Excessive Force – CALCRIM No. 2672

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.

3	You Did Not Act Willfully

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.

4	You Did Not Know the Person Was a Police Officer

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.

5	The Officer Is Fabricating the Resistance

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

6	Fourth Amendment Violations – Claims That Survive Even With a Conviction

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.

Facing Criminal Charges After Police Used Force Against You in Southern California? (949) 474-1849 – Available 24 Hours a Day Free Case Evaluation – No Fee Unless We Recover jerry@steeringlaw.com  |  steeringlaw.com/free-case-evaluation Law Offices of Jerry L. Steering  |  4063 Birch Street, Suite 100  |  Newport Beach, CA 92660 Suing the Police in Southern California Since 1984

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.

The Six-Month Deadline Does Not Wait for Your Criminal Case Before filing a civil lawsuit against a California city, county, or public agency for police misconduct, you must file a government tort claim under California Government Code Section 911.2 within six months of the incident.   The six-month clock runs from the day of the incident – not the day your criminal case resolves. Many clients lose their civil cases not because of Heck but because they waited for the criminal proceedings to end before consulting a civil rights attorney. By then, the government claim deadline had passed.   Contact a civil rights attorney this week – not after the preliminary hearing, not after the arraignment, not after the trial. This week.

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.

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. 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

How Much Is a Police Misconduct Case Worth in California?

There is no fixed amount – but the range is wide. Cases involving minor rights violations with limited documented harm may resolve in the low five figures. Cases involving serious injuries, wrongful death, or clear video evidence of egregious conduct reach six or seven figures. My own results in Southern California range from $75,000 for an eight-minute false arrest to $6 million for a wrongful death shooting. Case value depends on seven factors – none of which can be assessed without reviewing your specific facts.

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

The Question I Hear Most Often – And the Honest Answer

This is the question I hear most often from potential clients: What is my case worth?

It is also the most difficult question to answer – not because the answer is secret, but because every case is profoundly different. A false arrest that lasts twenty minutes has different value than a beating that leaves you permanently disabled. A case with crystal-clear body camera footage has different value than one dependent on conflicting witness testimony.

I cannot give you a number without knowing your specific circumstances. What I can give you is something more useful: a framework for how case value is determined, a breakdown of what types of compensation are available under the law, and – most importantly – a table of real results from my own practice and comparable California cases, so you have an honest sense of what these cases are actually worth when they are pursued correctly.

Here is what forty years of civil rights litigation in Southern California has taught me about case value.

“Police misconduct cases are not evaluated by a rate card. They are evaluated by what you lost, what we can prove, and what the officer and the department did to you.”

What Compensation Is Available – The Four Categories of Damages

Under both federal law (42 U.S.C. Section 1983) and California state law, victims of police misconduct can recover four distinct categories of damages. Understanding these categories is the foundation of understanding case value. The legal framework was established by the Supreme Court in Memphis Community School District v. Stachura, 477 U.S. 299 (1986): damages must be tied to actual injury and actual loss, not to the abstract importance of the constitutional right violated.

Type	What it covers	What you need to know
Economic damages (tangible financial losses)	Medical expenses, hospital stays, surgeries, medications, physical therapy, rehabilitation, projected future medical care Lost wages during recovery Diminished earning capacity if injuries affect future work Property damage – vehicles, electronics, clothing Out-of-pocket expenses directly caused by the misconduct	Documented with bills, receipts, pay stubs, tax returns, and expert economic testimony. The most straightforward category to quantify – and the floor of your case value, not the ceiling.
Non-economic damages (intangible harms)	Physical pain and suffering Emotional distress – anxiety, depression, PTSD, humiliation, fear Loss of enjoyment of life – inability to engage in prior activities Loss of companionship for families of fatal misconduct victims Damage to reputation	Proved through medical records, mental health treatment records, testimony from treating providers, and your own testimony about how the incident has affected your daily life. In significant misconduct cases, these damages often far exceed the economic damages.
Punitive damages (to punish and deter)	Additional damages awarded when an officer acted with malice, oppression, or reckless indifference to your constitutional rights Available against individual officers under Smith v. Wade (1983) NOT available against municipalities under federal law	Requires proof of particularly egregious conduct – not just excessive force, but malicious or recklessly indifferent force. Available against individual officers; not against cities or counties directly under Section 1983. However, the threat of punitive damages increases settlement pressure significantly.
Attorneys’ fees (42 U.S.C. Section 1988)	A prevailing plaintiff in a Section 1983 case can require the defendant to pay reasonable attorneys’ fees	This provision is what makes civil rights litigation economically viable for people without resources. It also means defendants have additional financial incentive to settle – because litigation costs them in fees regardless of whether they win.

A note on attorneys’ fees: The Section 1988 attorneys’ fees provision is what makes civil rights litigation economically viable for people who do not have the resources to fund a complex federal case. It also means city attorneys are calculating their exposure not just as the potential settlement or verdict amount, but as that amount plus whatever they spend on their own defense. This creates settlement leverage that does not exist in ordinary litigation.

The Seven Factors That Determine What Your Case Is Worth

Every police misconduct case is evaluated against these seven factors. No single factor controls – they interact. A case with catastrophic injuries but weak evidence may be worth less than a case with moderate injuries and devastating video footage.

Factor	What it means	How it affects value
Severity and permanence of injuries	Broken bones, gunshot wounds, TBI, spinal cord damage, lasting disability vs. minor bruising or temporary discomfort	The single most significant driver of case value. Wrongful deaths and permanent disabilities regularly reach seven figures. Injuries that fully resolve in weeks are worth a fraction of those that alter a life permanently.
Strength of evidence	Body camera footage, third-party surveillance video, 911 recordings, independent witnesses, medical records	Clear video that directly contradicts the officer’s written report dramatically increases settlement value. A case requiring the jury to choose between conflicting testimony is worth less than a case where the footage tells the story.
Impact on your life and work	Effect on employment, mental health, relationships, daily activities, and ability to engage in prior pursuits	A career-ending injury is worth more than one that heals completely. Courts and juries evaluate the full scope of how the incident changed your life – not just what happened at the scene.
Nature of the misconduct	Deadly force, sexual misconduct, racially motivated abuse, fabricated evidence, malicious prosecution	The more egregious the conduct, the higher the exposure. Cases involving sexual misconduct by officers, racial animus, or deliberate fabrication of charges against an innocent person typically command significantly higher values.
Officer history and department patterns	Prior complaints of excessive force, dishonesty, or similar misconduct; departmental failure to discipline	When an officer has a documented pattern of the same conduct – and the department kept them on the street knowing it – Monell liability attaches and the exposure increases substantially. A Pitchess motion that reveals prior misconduct changes the case.
Jurisdiction	Urban California (Los Angeles, Orange County, San Diego) vs. rural jurisdictions	Urban California juries tend to produce higher verdicts due to higher costs of living, plaintiff-friendly jury pools, and larger municipal budgets. That said, I have obtained significant recoveries in every Southern California county.
Quality of legal representation	Attorney’s experience with police misconduct litigation, willingness to go to trial, reputation with city attorneys	City attorneys know which firms go to trial and which ones fold. A firm with a track record of jury verdicts gets better settlements – because the other side knows what happens if they don’t settle.

On jurisdiction: I have obtained significant recoveries in every Southern California county – Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, Ventura, and Kern. The conventional wisdom that rural jurisdictions produce smaller verdicts is sometimes true, but the right case with the right facts wins anywhere.

On legal representation: City attorneys track law firms the way baseball teams track opposing pitchers. They know which firms go to trial. A firm that never tries cases settles cases for less – because the other side knows the threat of trial is empty. In forty years, I have tried these cases. That record affects every settlement negotiation I have.

Real Case Results – What Police Misconduct Cases Actually Settle For

Rather than speculate about averages, here are actual results – from my own practice and comparable California litigation. These are the numbers that matter. For the complete list of my results, see steeringlaw.com/police-misconduct-and-other-civil-rights-case-results/.

Seven-Figure Results – Wrongful Death and Catastrophic Injury

Amount	Case / Matter	Claim type	Jurisdiction
$6,000,000	Tualaulelei v. City of Compton (1995)	Wrongful death – police shooting	Compton / L.A. County
$2,900,000	Steering Law client (2020s)	Police shooting – excessive force	City of Anaheim
$2,163,799	Gomez v. County of Orange (2011)	Wrongful death – unreasonable force in jail	Orange County
$2,100,000	Steering Law client	Wrongful death – jail death	Southern California
$2,000,000	LAPD client (recent)	Excessive force – severe injuries requiring long-term care	Los Angeles
$1,300,000	Steering Law client	Excessive force and malicious prosecution	Riverside County
$1,010,000	Sharp v. City of Garden Grove (2000) – jury verdict	45-minute detention of father of parolee	Garden Grove / Orange County
$1,000,000	Steering Law client	Excessive force during unlawful detention	Southern California

Six-Figure Results – Serious Injuries and Significant Rights Violations

Amount	Case / Matter	Claim type	Jurisdiction
$900,000	Steering Law client	False confession to murder that never happened	City of Fontana / San Bernardino County
$850,000	Alvarez v. City of L.A. (2004)	False arrest, malicious prosecution, withheld exculpatory evidence	Los Angeles
$800,000	Steering Law client – jury verdict	False arrest	City of Garden Grove / Orange County
$750,000	Torrance swastika case – Steering Law	Swastika painted on impounded vehicle; dept. failure to train	City of Torrance / L.A. County
$750,000	Steering Law client	Police shooting – excessive force	Southern California
$714,000	Morgan v. County of San Bernardino (1996)	Excessive force and false arrest – search warrant	San Bernardino County
$612,000	Farahani v. City of Santa Ana (1990) – jury verdict	Excessive force – baton strike to head	Santa Ana / Orange County
$600,000	Chamberlain v. County of Orange (2008)	Wrongful death – failure to protect inmate	Orange County
$500,000	Austin v. County of San Bernardino – jury verdict	False arrest and excessive force	San Bernardino County
$500,000	Torres v. County of Riverside (2010)	Unreasonable force	Riverside County
$475,000	Santos v. City of Garden Grove (2009)	False arrest, malicious prosecution, unreasonable force	Garden Grove / Orange County
$450,000	In Re Richard P. (1992)	False arrest, malicious prosecution, excessive force	Southern California
$450,000	Steering Law client	False arrest – officers lacked probable cause	Riverside County
$400,000	Jane Doe v. City of Irvine (2005)	Sexual battery by police officer	Irvine / Orange County
$380,000	Torrance v. County of Orange (2010)	Unreasonable force and false arrest	Orange County
$360,000	Steering Law client	False arrest – evidence preservation critical	City of Newport Beach

Mid-Range Results – Significant Rights Violations

Amount	Case / Matter	Claim type	Jurisdiction
$300,000	Cortez v. City of Anaheim (2010)	Placing bystander in position of danger	Anaheim / Orange County
$290,000	Jane Doe v. County of San Bernardino (2008)	Sexually motivated mistreatment of arrestee	San Bernardino County
$225,000	Mansfield v. City of Costa Mesa (2006)	Unreasonable shooting of family pet and unlawful seizure	Costa Mesa / Orange County
$208,000	Baima v. County of Orange (2004)	False arrest and excessive force	Orange County
$199,000	Vera v. County of Riverside (2009)	Unreasonable force	Riverside County
$180,000	Grasso v. County of San Bernardino (2009)	Unreasonable force	San Bernardino County
$140,000	Garcia v. City of Huntington Beach (1994)	Eight-minute false arrest – following jury verdict	Huntington Beach / Orange County
$137,500	Hands v. City of Laguna Beach (1991)	False arrest and excessive force	Laguna Beach / Orange County

Smaller Results – Established Rights Violations

Amount	Case / Matter	Claim type	Jurisdiction
$100,000	Goodwin v. City of Stanton (1988)	False arrest	Stanton / Orange County
$100,000	Darr v. County of San Bernardino (2000)	First Amendment violation (right to marry)	San Bernardino County
$95,000	Johnson v. County of Orange (2003)	False arrest	Orange County
$82,000	Gallard v. City of L.A. (1998)	Wrongful eviction by LAPD	Los Angeles
$75,000	Guillen v. City of Santa Ana (1992)	Following acquittal of resisting charges	Santa Ana / Orange County

What These Results Tell You The range runs from $75,000 for a short false arrest in 1992 to $6 million for a wrongful death shooting in Compton. The factors that explain this range are the same seven factors discussed above – severity of injury, strength of evidence, impact on life, nature of the misconduct, officer history, jurisdiction, and representation.   Every single one of these cases required early evidence preservation, thorough documentation of damages, and an attorney willing to take the case to trial if the settlement offer was inadequate.   These results do not happen by accident. They happen because someone acted quickly, preserved the evidence, and had counsel who understood these cases. Contact us for a free evaluation.

What About ‘Average’ Settlement Figures?

You will find articles online citing a median police misconduct settlement of somewhere around $17,500 nationwide. I want to address this directly because it creates a damaging misconception.

That figure – whatever its source – includes every category of case: cases with minimal documented harm, cases where plaintiffs had no legal representation and accepted the first offer made, cases from jurisdictions with statutory caps on damages, cases that were settled for nuisance value to avoid litigation costs, and cases that should have been worth ten times as much but weren’t because no one preserved the evidence.

It is not a useful benchmark for a California case handled by experienced civil rights counsel. California has some of the most plaintiff-friendly civil rights laws in the country, no statutory caps on compensatory damages in Section 1983 cases, and urban jury pools in Los Angeles and Orange County that take police misconduct seriously.

The cases in the table above are what California police misconduct cases are actually worth when they are properly investigated, documented, and litigated. The range is wide – from $75,000 to $6 million – because the facts vary enormously.

Why Every Case Is Different – And Why I Cannot Tell You Your Number Without Reviewing Your Facts

I want to be direct about something that many attorneys will not say: I cannot tell you what your case is worth in this blog, in a phone consultation, or even in our first meeting.

I can tell you what it is worth after I have reviewed the evidence, documented your damages, evaluated the officer’s history through a Pitchess motion, assessed the specific jurisdiction and the specific department’s litigation history, and determined whether we are dealing with an individual officer claim, a Monell claim against the department, or both.

What I can tell you is this: the man whose arm was fractured during an unlawful arrest and who received $750,000 did not receive that amount because there is a ‘rate card’ for broken arms. He received it because his attorneys proved exactly what he lost – medical bills, lost time from work, pain, suffering, and the lasting impact on his life. The family in the Compton wrongful death case did not receive $6 million because there is a standard price for a life. They received it because the case was built – piece by piece, with evidence secured before it disappeared, with damages documented thoroughly, and with the willingness to take it to trial if necessary.

Your case is not an average. It is your case. What it is worth depends on your facts.

What Good Legal Representation Actually Does to Case Value

Police departments have teams of lawyers working to minimize payouts. They have insurance. They have experience. They have seen every version of this case before. Without strong representation, victims accept lowball settlements or see their cases dismissed.

Here is specifically what experienced police misconduct representation does to case value:

• Preserves evidence before it disappears. Body camera footage, third-party surveillance video, 911 recordings. All of it is time-sensitive. Our spoliation letter goes out the same day we are retained.
• Builds the complete damages picture. Economic damages are only the floor. Non-economic damages – pain, suffering, emotional distress, loss of enjoyment of life – are often where the real case value lies. Documenting these damages requires medical records, mental health treatment records, expert testimony, and the client’s own account.
• Investigates officer history through Pitchess motions. A pattern of prior complaints transforms an individual officer claim into a Monell claim against the department. That shifts the financial exposure from whatever the officer has personally to whatever the city’s insurance and litigation budget allows. See our dedicated Pitchess and Brady List article.
• Takes cases to trial when necessary. City attorneys know which firms go to trial. A firm with a track record of jury verdicts – like the Sharp verdict of $1,010,000 against Garden Grove – gets better settlements than a firm that always folds. My willingness to try these cases is not separate from the settlement value. It is the settlement value.
• Attacks qualified immunity aggressively. Officers hide behind qualified immunity in virtually every case. Defeating it requires identifying the specific prior case law that established the right at issue. See my analysis of qualified immunity.

The Six-Month Deadline – Act Now Before suing a California city, county, or public agency for police misconduct, you must file a government tort claim under California Government Code Section 911.2 within six months of the incident.   Miss this deadline and your state law claims are permanently barred – regardless of case value, injury severity, or strength of evidence.   The clock starts on the day of the incident. Contact a civil rights attorney immediately – not after you have figured out the case value, not after the criminal case resolves. Now.

What Is Your Police Misconduct Case Worth? Find Out. (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 You Can Do Right Now to Protect Your Case Value

The steps that maximize case value are the same steps that preserve the right to bring the case at all. For the complete guide, see our step-by-step guide. The evidence-focused summary:

• Seek medical attention immediately. The same day. Tell every provider exactly what happened and how you were injured. A medical record dated the day of the incident is your most credible evidence of damages.
• Photograph injuries today and again tomorrow. Bruising from blunt force trauma peaks 24 to 48 hours after the incident. Both sets of photographs are evidence.
• Identify and contact nearby security cameras within 24-72 hours. Private security footage is overwritten in 7 to 30 days. Go in person – do not just call.
• Get witness names and contact information at the scene. The bystander willing to talk right after the incident is the one who becomes your most valuable witness.
• Save everything you were wearing or carrying. Torn clothing, damaged property – do not wash or alter it.
• Do not post about the incident on social media. Anything you say publicly becomes evidence for the defense.
• Call a civil rights attorney immediately. The spoliation letter goes out the day we are retained. The six-month deadline is running from the day it happened.

Where We Handle These Cases – Southern California

My firm handles police misconduct cases throughout Southern California: Los Angeles County, Orange County, Riverside County, San Bernardino County, San Diego County, Ventura County, and Kern County. The case results in the tables above span Orange County, Los Angeles County, Riverside County, and San Bernardino County – demonstrating what these cases are actually worth in the specific jurisdictions where I practice. See the full results list.

Frequently Asked Questions – Police Misconduct Case Value in California

The Bottom Line – What Your Case Is Worth Is What You Can Prove

Police misconduct cases are not evaluated by a rate card. They are evaluated by what you lost, what we can prove, and what the officer and the department did to you.

A settlement or verdict that costs the department money is also the only thing that gets the attention of the city council, the police chief, and the officers themselves. Money is what changes behavior. When a department pays $6 million because an officer shot someone he had no right to shoot, that payment is felt in the budget, in the training protocols, and in the evaluation of every officer who was on the scene.

That is what accountability looks like in the civil system. It is not perfect. Qualified immunity is real. Monell is hard to prove. Departments fight these cases hard and sometimes win. But in forty years, I have seen the civil rights system work – when the evidence was there, when the damages were documented, and when the attorneys were willing to go all the way.

Fight back. Vindication is the goal.

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 obtained settlements and jury verdicts totaling millions of dollars for victims of excessive force, false arrest, malicious prosecution, wrongful death, and First Amendment retaliation 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 $6 million structured settlement against the City of Compton, a $2.9 million settlement against the City of Anaheim, a $1.3 million settlement against Riverside County, a $1,010,000 jury verdict against Garden Grove, and a $900,000 settlement against the City of Fontana. 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:

• 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 – Federal civil rights statute  |  law.cornell.edu
• 42 U.S.C. Section 1988 – Attorneys’ fees in civil rights cases  |  law.cornell.edu
• California Government Code Section 911.2 – Six-month government tort claim deadline  |  leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
• Steering Law case results  |  steeringlaw.com/police-misconduct-and-other-civil-rights-case-results/

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.

See our full case results.

Frequently Asked Questions — Suing the Police in California

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

What Evidence Wins Police Misconduct Cases?

The evidence that wins police misconduct cases is the evidence that contradicts the officer’s narrative – before it disappears. Body-worn camera footage, third-party surveillance video, 911 calls, medical records, independent witness testimony, and officer personnel records obtained through Pitchess motions are the most powerful tools. All of it is time-sensitive. Body camera footage can be overwritten in 30 to 90 days. Third-party video in 7 to 30 days. The attorney who wins these cases is the attorney who preserves the evidence before it is gone.

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

Cases Are Not Won in the Courtroom – They Are Won in the Evidence

In my forty years of practicing civil rights law, I have learned one immutable truth: Cases are not won in the courtroom. They are won in the evidence.

Jurors want to believe police officers. Officers are trained witnesses. They have the badge, the uniform, and the presumption of credibility. They write the first report. They control the initial narrative. And they know – because they are trained – how to describe a use-of-force incident in language that sounds reasonable even when the underlying conduct was not.

To overcome that advantage, you need evidence – powerful, objective, irrefutable evidence that tells the jury what really happened. Not what the officer’s report says happened. What actually happened.

But not all evidence is created equal. Some evidence wins cases. Some merely fills space. And the worst outcome of all – the one I have watched happen to too many clients – is watching critical evidence disappear because no one acted quickly enough to preserve it.

Here is what every victim of police misconduct in Southern California needs to know about the evidence that wins cases, how to preserve each type before it is gone, and why the first 72 hours after an incident are the most important hours of your case. For the complete immediate action guide, see our step-by-step guide.

“The attorney who wins police misconduct cases is not necessarialy the most eloquent one in court. It is the one who got to the evidence first.”

The Complete Evidence Reference – All 10 Types at a Glance

Before walking through each evidence type in detail, here is the complete reference table. Every one of these categories is time-sensitive. Every one has a preservation window that closes faster than most people realize.

Evidence type	What it proves	How to preserve it	Key notes
Body-worn camera footage	What the officer saw and heard; sequence of events; use of force in real time	Send spoliation letter same day retained; request preservation before 30-90 day deletion window closes	Pitfalls: activation gaps, blind spots, officers narrate after reviewing footage
Dashcam footage	Officer’s vehicle approach; pre-encounter conduct; pursuit footage	Same spoliation letter; dashcam footage often has shorter retention window than BWC	May capture what BWC misses – especially during vehicle stops
Third-party surveillance video	Objective wide-angle view; full scene context; what happened before/after officer arrived	Contact business or homeowner in person within 24-72 hours; most systems overwrite in 7-30 days	Ring, Nest, bank ATMs, gas stations, traffic cams – each has different retention
911 calls and dispatch logs	What was reported before officers arrived; what officers were told; dispatcher characterization	Request through CPRA immediately; audio and CAD records may be destroyed on routine schedules	Often contradicts what officers claim they were responding to
Medical records	Nature and severity of injuries; date/time link to incident; contradicts officer’s account	Seek care immediately; tell every provider exactly how injuries occurred	Delay in seeking care weakens the link – go same day
Witness testimony	Corroborates your account; explains context officers omit; can identify officers	Get names and contact info at scene; interview within days while memory is fresh	Independent witnesses (no stake in outcome) are most credible with juries
Photographs	Injury documentation; scene; property damage	Photograph injuries same day, 24 hrs., 48 hrs. – bruising peaks after incident	Date/time metadata on phone photos is evidence; do not edit or filter
911 CAD records	Dispatcher’s real-time notes; officer radio transmissions; backup call times	Include in spoliation letter; request through CPRA	Often reveals timeline inconsistencies in officer reports
Officer personnel records	Prior complaints of excessive force, dishonesty, fabrication	File Pitchess motion in criminal case or civil discovery in civil case	Pattern of prior complaints = Monell claim against department
Police reports	Officer’s version for impeachment; identifies charges and theories	Obtain immediately through public records or discovery request	Written to protect officer – compare against every other piece of evidence

The Ten Types of Evidence That Win Police Misconduct Cases

1	Body-Worn Camera Footage

Body-worn cameras were supposed to revolutionize police accountability. In many ways they have – BWC footage provides the closest thing to an objective record of encounters that once lived only in conflicting testimony. I have used BWC footage to win cases that I would have been hard-pressed to win twenty years ago.

But I want to be honest about something that many attorneys are not: body cameras do not always tell the truth. And officers know this.

• Officers control activation. Many departments allow officers to activate their cameras after an encounter has already begun – or have inconsistent policies about when activation is required. A camera that turns on after force has been used tells a very incomplete story. In my experience, the timing of camera activation is one of the first things I examine when reviewing evidence.
• Cameras have blind spots. Body cameras are worn on the chest and capture a forward-facing field of view. What happens to the left, to the right, behind the officer, or on the ground after a subject is taken down is often outside the frame. The most significant use of force – the blows after the subject stopped moving – frequently occurs exactly where the camera cannot see.
• Officers narrate to the camera. Experienced officers know they are being recorded. The narration that accompanies force – ‘Stop resisting! Stop fighting!’ – is often delivered for the recording, not because the subject is actually resisting. I have reviewed footage in which an officer shouts ‘stop resisting’ to a subject who is motionless on the ground. The shout is for the jury, not for the subject.
• Reports are written after officers review footage. In many departments, officers are permitted to review their own body camera footage before writing their use-of-force report. This means the written narrative is constructed with knowledge of what the camera captured – and tailored around it. The report does not precede the footage; it follows it.

How to Preserve BWC Footage Body-worn camera footage is subject to automatic deletion policies that vary by department – typically 30 to 90 days for non-flagged footage, longer for footage flagged as evidence.   A spoliation letter must be sent immediately – the same day an attorney is retained. This formal written demand notifies the department to suspend normal deletion schedules and preserve all footage related to the incident. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 and California Evidence Code Section 413, destruction of evidence after receiving proper notice can result in adverse inference instructions – the jury is told it may presume the destroyed evidence would have been unfavorable to the defendant.   Our firm sends spoliation letters the day we are retained. Every case, every time.

2	Dashcam Footage

Patrol vehicle dashcams often capture what body cameras miss – particularly during traffic stops and vehicle pursuits. The dashcam records the officer’s approach, the initial interaction, and the scene before the officer’s body camera may have been activated. In traffic stop cases, dashcam footage frequently shows whether the driver complied, what the officer’s demeanor was before force was used, and how events unfolded before the official version of events begins.

Dashcam retention policies are often shorter than BWC retention – in some departments, dashcam footage is overwritten faster than body camera footage. The spoliation letter must demand preservation of both.

3	Third-Party Surveillance Video

Body cameras capture one angle. Third-party surveillance cameras – from businesses, homeowners, and infrastructure – capture the rest. In many of my cases, the piece of evidence that made the difference was not the officer’s own camera but a Ring doorbell camera across the street or a gas station security camera down the block.

Third-party video is often the most powerful evidence in police misconduct cases precisely because it was captured by a source with no stake in the outcome. The officer cannot claim the camera was positioned to make him look bad. The footage shows what happened from a neutral, wide-angle perspective.

• Businesses: Gas stations, banks, ATMs, pharmacies, restaurants, convenience stores, and retail shops routinely have exterior cameras. Many capture the street in front of their property continuously.
• Residential cameras: Ring, Nest, Arlo, and similar doorbell and security cameras are now ubiquitous. Neighbors within a block of the incident may have captured everything.
• Traffic and transit: Red-light cameras, traffic monitoring cameras, and public transit cameras (bus route cameras, train station cameras) may cover the area.
• Government buildings: City halls, courthouses, DMV offices, and other government facilities often have exterior security cameras covering public sidewalks and streets.

Third-Party Video Disappears in 7 to 30 Days Unlike police departments, private businesses have no legal obligation to preserve footage unless they receive formal notice. Most commercial security systems overwrite footage automatically after 7 to 30 days.   Go in person within 24 to 72 hours of the incident. Do not call – call and they forget. Go in person, ask to speak with a manager, explain that you need the footage preserved, and follow up in writing immediately. Your attorney should simultaneously send a formal preservation letter.   Once the footage is overwritten, it is gone permanently. There is no recovery.

4	911 Calls and CAD Records

911 calls are among the most underutilized evidence in police misconduct cases – and among the most revealing. They capture what was actually reported before officers arrived on scene, before any narrative was constructed.

Here is why 911 calls matter: the call establishes what officers were told they were responding to. In Contempt of Cop cases, the 911 call often reveals that the reported situation was minor – a noise complaint, a neighbor dispute, a wellness check – and the officer’s subsequent use of force was wildly disproportionate to what was actually described. In domestic disturbance cases, the call may reveal that the person who ended up arrested was the one who called for help.

• 911 audio recordings: The caller’s actual words, in real time, before any narrative has been constructed. Captures what was described and what was not.
• Computer-Aided Dispatch (CAD) records: The dispatcher’s real-time notes of the call; what was communicated to officers before they arrived; backup requests; timeline of officer responses.
• Radio transmissions: What officers said to each other and to dispatch during and after the incident. Often reveals information about what they knew, when they knew it, and what actually happened.

These records are maintained by the agency and are subject to routine destruction schedules. They must be included in the spoliation letter sent to the department.

5	Medical Records

In excessive force cases, your injuries are not just damages – they are evidence. Medical records create an objective, contemporaneous account of what was done to you, dated and time-stamped on the day it happened.

I have seen police reports that describe a use-of-force incident in which the officer allegedly used minimal, necessary force – and then the emergency room records show broken ribs, facial lacerations, and traumatic brain injury. Medical records do not lie. Officers do.

• What medical records prove: The nature and severity of injuries; that injuries occurred at the specific date and time; the level of force actually applied (broken bones, deep bruising, taser burns, ligature marks from handcuffs); ongoing pain and treatment needs.
• They contradict fabricated police narratives: In case after case – including cases I have handled in Los Angeles County, Orange County, and Riverside County – medical records showing injuries inconsistent with the officer’s account of minimal force have been decisive evidence.
• They establish the foundation for damages: Without medical records, proving significant physical injury becomes nearly impossible. Courts have recognized that the absence of contemporaneous medical records limits the damages available to plaintiffs in excessive force cases.

The Critical Rule: Go the Same Day Seek medical attention immediately – the same day as the incident. Not tomorrow. Not when you feel better. That day.   Tell every provider exactly how you were injured – ‘I was struck by a police officer during an arrest.’ Do not minimize. Every symptom you report – headache, dizziness, pain, difficulty breathing – should be in the record.   Do not tell the treating physician ‘I’m fine’ or ‘it’s not that bad.’ That statement goes in your medical record and will be used by defense counsel at trial.   Photograph injuries immediately, then again at 24 hours and 48 hours. Bruising typically darkens and spreads significantly in the first two days after blunt force trauma.

6	Witness Testimony

Video shows what happened. Witnesses explain what it meant. Together, they create a complete picture that no single piece of evidence can provide alone.

Independent witnesses – bystanders with no relationship to either party and no stake in the outcome – are among the most credible evidence in police misconduct cases. Jurors understand that a stranger who stopped to watch and is willing to testify has nothing to gain from lying.

• What witnesses can describe: The officer’s demeanor and language before force was used; the duration of force; conduct that occurred outside camera frames; officer statements that were not captured on audio; the reaction of the subject – whether they were complying or actually resisting.
• Why they are difficult to secure: People leave scenes. Fear of retaliation keeps some witnesses silent. Memories fade rapidly – what someone can recall in vivid detail on day one becomes fragmented by day ten. The witness you need most is the one who was ready to talk right after it happened.

Get names and contact information at the scene if you safely can. Ask if they would be willing to speak with an attorney. If they recorded the incident on their phone, ask them not to delete it and to send it to a secure location. Your attorney’s investigator should follow up within days – not weeks.

7	Photographs

Photographs are evidence that is completely within your control – and they cost nothing to create. Take them immediately. Take them again the next day and the day after.

• Injuries: Photograph every bruise, laceration, abrasion, taser burn, handcuff mark, and swelling immediately after the incident. Then photograph again at 24 and 48 hours. Bruising from blunt force trauma typically peaks 24 to 48 hours after impact – the photographs from day one will look different from the photographs from day two, and both are evidence.
• The location: Photograph the scene, including street signs, landmarks, and any fixed objects relevant to the incident. This establishes geography that can be important in reconstructing events.
• Property damage: Torn clothing, damaged personal property, broken items – all of this is evidence of force and of damages.

The date and time metadata embedded in smartphone photos is evidence. Do not edit, filter, or enhance photographs of injuries. The original, unaltered image is what you want in court.

8	Pitchess Motions – Officer Personnel Records

A Pitchess motion – from Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) – allows defense counsel in a criminal case (and civil discovery in a Section 1983 lawsuit) to petition the court for access to a police officer’s personnel file, specifically to review prior complaints of dishonesty, excessive force, fabrication of evidence, and similar misconduct.

In my forty years of police misconduct litigation, Pitchess motions have been some of the most powerful tools available. An officer who has filed false resistance charges before – and has complaints substantiated or documented – has their credibility destroyed in front of the jury. Their prior conduct becomes the foundation for a Monell claim against the department: the city or county knew about this officer’s propensity and failed to address it.

• What Pitchess motions reveal: Prior citizen complaints of excessive force; complaints of dishonesty or filing false reports; prior disciplinary findings; the officer’s history with resistance charges; Brady list designations (officers who have been found to have credibility issues).
• The Monell connection: A pattern of prior complaints against the same officer, combined with evidence that the department received those complaints and failed to act, supports a Monell claim – a direct lawsuit against the city or county itself. Cities and counties have assets. Individual officers often do not.

I have written a detailed breakdown of Pitchess motions and the related Brady list process at steeringlaw.com. This is evidence that is only available through the legal process – another reason why retaining counsel early matters.

9	Police Reports

Police reports are evidence – but not the kind of evidence that helps you. They are the officer’s version of events, written after the fact, with knowledge of what needs to be justified. They are designed to make the officer’s conduct look reasonable.

What they are useful for is impeachment. Every inconsistency between the police report and the video evidence, the medical records, the witness testimony, or the 911 call is an opportunity to expose the officer as either incompetent or dishonest. In my experience, most police reports in misconduct cases contain multiple factual claims that other evidence directly contradicts.

• Obtain them immediately: Through public records requests (CPRA) or civil discovery. The sooner you have the report, the sooner you can compare it against every other piece of evidence.
• Compare systematically: The report says the subject ‘tensed his arms and actively resisted.’ The medical records show no defensive injuries consistent with a struggle. The BWC footage shows the subject with hands at his sides when force was applied. The inconsistency is the case.
• Preserve internal supplemental reports: Use-of-force reports, supervisor reviews, and internal memos generated after the incident should all be in the spoliation letter. These internal documents often reveal what the department actually knew, as opposed to what the public report claims.

10	Expert Witnesses

Complex police misconduct cases require expert witnesses – and expert witnesses require time. The earlier you retain counsel, the earlier an expert can begin reviewing the evidence, developing opinions, and preparing reports.

• Use-of-force experts: Former law enforcement commanders with expertise in police training standards. They testify that the force used was inconsistent with what the officer’s own training required – turning the department’s own standards against the department.
• Medical experts: Physicians and forensic pathologists who can explain what the injuries prove about the force that caused them, connect the medical findings to the specific conduct alleged, and project future medical needs for damages purposes.
• Police procedure experts: Specialists in department policy, training standards, and the duty to de-escalate. They explain what a properly trained officer would have done differently – and why the failure to follow proper procedure was itself the cause of the harm.

Rushed expert work is weak expert work. Experts who have had months to review evidence, develop opinions, and prepare reports are far more effective than experts retained the week before the expert disclosure deadline.

The Spoliation Letter – The Most Important Document Your Attorney Files on Day One

Of all the actions an attorney can take immediately after being retained in a police misconduct case, sending the spoliation letter is the most important. It is not glamorous. It does not require litigation skill or constitutional knowledge. But it is what determines whether the evidence exists by the time the case goes to trial.

A properly drafted spoliation letter notifies every potential evidence holder – the police department, the city attorney, the relevant agencies – that litigation is anticipated and that all related evidence must be preserved. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(e) and California Evidence Code Section 413, when a party destroys evidence after receiving proper notice of anticipated litigation, courts can impose sanctions ranging from adverse inference instructions to case-ending penalties.

What the Spoliation Letter Must Cover 1. Identify the incident specifically: Date, time, location, officers involved by name and badge number where known.   2. List every category of evidence to preserve: BWC footage from all officers on scene; dashcam footage; radio transmissions; 911 calls; CAD records; all police reports (initial, supplemental, use-of-force); Internal Affairs records; booking photos; jail medical records if applicable; any evidence submitted to or reviewed by any department.   3. Identify potential third-party holders: If businesses with security cameras are identifiable, letters should go to them as well.   4. State the legal consequences of destruction: Courts may instruct juries that destroyed evidence is presumed to have been unfavorable to the destroying party. This presumption – the adverse inference – is one of the most powerful tools in police misconduct litigation.   Our firm sends spoliation letters the same day we are retained. We do not wait for the intake process to complete, for a retainer to be signed, or for a case evaluation to be finished. The letter goes out that day.

When defendants destroy evidence after receiving a preservation demand, we move for spoliation sanctions. These motions put enormous pressure on departments to settle – because an adverse inference instruction from the judge, telling the jury that the department destroyed evidence it had been ordered to keep, is often more damaging than the underlying evidence would have been.

Has Evidence in Your Police Misconduct Case Already Started Disappearing? (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

Why the First 72 Hours Determine Whether the Evidence Exists

Police departments are sophisticated defendants. From the moment an incident occurs, their legal machinery is in motion – officers writing reports, supervisors reviewing footage, attorneys preparing to defend. The sooner you have legal representation, the sooner someone is working on your side of the equation.

Here is what happens to evidence in the first weeks after an incident:

• Day 1-3: Third-party surveillance footage is at highest risk of being overwritten. A Ring doorbell system may overwrite in as little as 7 days. A gas station security system may have already started a new recording cycle.
• Day 30-90: Body-worn camera footage that has not been flagged for preservation may be subject to automatic deletion depending on department retention policy. Without a spoliation letter, this footage disappears on a schedule that no court can undo.
• Ongoing: Witnesses become harder to locate. Memories degrade. Medical records become less contemporaneous. The credibility of every piece of evidence weakens with time.
• Six months: The California Government Code Section 911.2 deadline for filing a government tort claim. Miss this and your state law claims are barred forever – regardless of how strong the evidence is.

The difference between a case that results in a significant recovery and a case that gets dismissed is often simply this: who got to the evidence first.

The Six-Month Government Claim Deadline Before filing a civil lawsuit against a California city, county, or other public entity for police misconduct, you must file a government tort claim under California Government Code Section 911.2 within six months of the incident.   Miss this deadline and your state law claims are permanently barred. No exceptions. No judicial discretion. This deadline has ended more viable police misconduct cases than any evidence problem or immunity defense.   The clock starts on the day of the incident. Contact a civil rights attorney immediately – not after the criminal case resolves, not after you decide you want to sue. Now.

What to Do Immediately – The Evidence Preservation Checklist

For the complete guide to the first 72 hours after police misconduct, see our step-by-step guide. Here is the evidence-focused immediate action checklist:

• Seek medical attention the same day. Tell every provider exactly what happened and how you were injured. Request copies of all records – intake forms, nurse notes, physician notes, discharge instructions.
• Photograph injuries now, and again in 24 and 48 hours. Both sets of photographs will be evidence. Bruising peaks after the first day.
• Get witness names and contact information at the scene. If someone saw it happen, get their information immediately. Ask if they would be willing to speak with an attorney.
• Identify nearby security cameras before you leave the scene. Note every business, residence, and infrastructure camera that might have captured the incident. Your attorney needs this list within hours.
• Preserve your own recordings. If you recorded the incident, back it up to cloud storage immediately. Do not edit or filter. Do not post to social media.
• Save everything you were wearing or carrying. Torn clothing, damaged property, any physical objects from the incident. Do not wash or alter them.
• Write down everything while it is fresh. Officer names, badge numbers, unit numbers, exact words spoken, the sequence of events. Do it within hours.
• Call a civil rights attorney immediately. The spoliation letter goes out the day we are retained. Every day you wait is a day more evidence slips away.

Where We Handle Police Misconduct Cases

My firm investigates and litigates police misconduct cases – with an immediate focus on evidence preservation – throughout Southern California: Los Angeles County, Orange County, Riverside County, San Bernardino County, San Diego County, Ventura County, and Kern County. See our case results for what these cases look like when the evidence is secured and the case is pursued to conclusion.

Results include a $2.9 million settlement against the City of Anaheim, a $1.3 million settlement against Riverside County, an $800,000 jury verdict against the City of Garden Grove, and a $900,000 settlement against the City of Fontana – all cases where early evidence preservation was essential to the outcome.

Frequently Asked Questions – Evidence in Police Misconduct Cases

Police Misconduct Cases Are Battles of Evidence – Win the Evidence War

Police misconduct cases are battles of evidence. The side with the best evidence – the clearest video, the most credible witnesses, the most compelling medical records, the officer’s documented history of prior misconduct – usually wins.

But evidence is fragile. It disappears. It gets overwritten. It walks away. Witnesses lose their willingness to testify. Memories fade into generalities. The difference between a winning case and a dismissed case is often simply this: who got to the evidence first.

In forty years of civil rights litigation in Southern California, I have seen strong cases lost to missed evidence and weak cases won because an attorney moved immediately. The evidence does not wait for you to decide whether you want to pursue it.

Fight back. Vindication is the goal.

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. His practice covers excessive force, false arrest, malicious prosecution, First Amendment retaliation, and Section 1983 civil rights violations throughout Southern California. 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, a $1.3 million settlement against Riverside County, a $900,000 settlement against the City of Fontana, and an $800,000 jury verdict against Garden Grove. 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:

• Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(e) – Failure to preserve electronically stored information  |  law.cornell.edu
• California Evidence Code Section 413 – Adverse inference from destruction of evidence  |  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
• California Government Code Sections 832.7-832.8 – Body camera footage disclosure  |  leginfo.legislature.ca.gov

How Do Police Use Resistance Charges to Justify Excessive Force?

When a police officer uses excessive force, they face a problem: the use of force needs to be justified. The solution California police departments have relied on for decades is simple — charge the victim with resisting arrest under PC 148(a)(1) or PC 69. The resistance charge converts the officer from aggressor to responder in the official record. More importantly, if the victim is convicted or takes a plea, the Heck v. Humphrey doctrine may permanently bar their civil rights lawsuit. The criminal charge is both the cover story and the legal trap.

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

“Resistance” Is the Most Abused Word in California Law Enforcement

I have represented hundreds of clients who were beaten, tased, pepper-sprayed, or brutalized by police. In nearly every case, the police report told the same story: the officer used force because the suspect resisted.

It is a powerful word, “resistance.” It transforms the officer from aggressor into responder. It shifts the narrative so completely that the person lying in a hospital bed with broken ribs looks like the one who caused the problem.

In forty years of civil rights litigation in Southern California, I have learned that “resistance” is often a fiction — a convenient narrative constructed after the fact, in the quiet of the police station, to justify force that was unnecessary, excessive, or outright illegal. I have seen it in Los Angeles County courtrooms, in Orange County federal court, in Riverside and San Bernardino County cases, and in San Diego. The template is the same everywhere.

Here is how it works. Here is how we fight it. And here is why — if you have been charged with a resistance offense after a use-of-force incident — every decision you make in the criminal case will determine whether you ever get justice in civil court.

“Resistance is often a fiction — a convenient narrative constructed after the fact to justify force that was unnecessary, excessive, or outright illegal.”

The Two Statutes — How PC 148 and PC 69 Are Weaponized

There are dozens of statutes officers could theoretically use. In practice, resistance charges in California come down to two. Understanding them — and their limitations — is the foundation of every defense.

PC 148(a)(1)

California Penal Code § 148(a)(1) — Resisting, Delaying, or Obstructing

PC 148(a)(1) is the workhorse — what I call “The on my firm’s website. It makes it a misdemeanor to willfully resist, delay, or obstruct a peace officer in the lawful performance of their duties.

The deliberate breadth of the word “obstruct” is the point. Officers use PC 148 to cover everything from actual physical struggle down to asking a question at the wrong moment. It is the all-purpose justification charge.

The element the police report never mentions: PC 148 requires that the officer was acting lawfully at the time. If the officer was using excessive force, making an unlawful arrest, or conducting an illegal search when the “resistance” occurred, the charge cannot stand. The prosecution must prove lawful performance beyond a reasonable doubt — and that is the crack in the statute we drive our defense through.

Penalties: Misdemeanor — up to one year in county jail and a $1,000 fine.

PC 69

California Penal Code § 69 — Resisting an Executive Officer

PC 69 is the more serious version — what I call “The on my site. It applies when someone uses threats or force to deter an executive officer from performing their duties. It is a wobbler — charged as a misdemeanor or a felony depending on the facts and, critically, on the charging practices of the individual DA’s office.

In my experience, PC 69 is charged as a felony significantly more often in San Bernardino County than in Los Angeles or Orange County under similar or identical facts. Prosecutorial culture matters. Knowing how the local DA approaches these cases is part of the strategic knowledge that comes from forty years in these specific courts.

The same lawful performance requirement applies: If the officer was acting unlawfully when the alleged resistance occurred, PC 69 cannot be sustained.

2023 Update: Recording Police Is Explicitly Protected Under PC 69 In 2023, the California Legislature added subsection (b) to Penal Code § 69, explicitly clarifying that taking a photograph or recording video of an executive officer in a public place does not, by itself, constitute a violation of the statute.   This codifies what courts in the Ninth Circuit had already recognized as a First Amendment right. If you were charged with PC 69 solely for recording police activity in a public place, that charge is legally indefensible.

Penalties — misdemeanor: Up to one year in county jail, fines up to $10,000.

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

The Resistance Narrative — How the Report Gets Written

The magic trick happens after the incident. The officer — possibly still at the scene, possibly back at the station — sits down and writes the use-of-force report. This report will be the first and often most influential account of what happened. It will be read by supervisors, Internal Affairs, the DA, and eventually the jury.

Officers are extensively trained on use-of-force report writing. They know their reports will be scrutinized. They know what elements need to be documented to withstand review. And they know, because they are taught, that a well-written use-of-force report is what stands between them and discipline, civil liability, and criminal prosecution.

Here is the template — the five-step narrative that appears, with minor variations, in virtually every resistance-justified force case I have handled.

	What the report says	What is actually happening
Step 1	Lawful contact claimed	The report begins with the officer approaching for an ostensibly lawful purpose — traffic stop, pedestrian check, response to a call. The lawfulness of this initial contact will rarely be questioned at the scene.
Step 2	“Verbal resistance” documented	The subject asks why they are being stopped, declines to answer a question, or expresses frustration. The officer’s report labels this “verbal resistance” or “becoming uncooperative” — neither of which is a crime.
Step 3	“Physical resistance” documented	The subject “tenses arms,” “pulls away,” or “fails to comply with handcuffing commands.” These phrases are boilerplate. In my experience, they appear in use-of-force reports regardless of what actually happened.
Step 4	Force described as response	The officer’s force is described as “objectively reasonable” and “necessary to overcome resistance and gain compliance.” The force is framed as reaction, not action. The officer becomes the responder; the civilian becomes the aggressor.
Step 5	Charges filed	PC 148(a)(1) and/or PC 69 are charged. This serves two purposes: it justifies the force in the criminal proceeding, and — if the civilian is convicted or takes a plea — it blocks the civil rights lawsuit under the Heck v. Humphrey doctrine.

The problem with Steps 2 and 3 — the verbal and physical resistance — is that they are often fabricated or grossly exaggerated. In case after case, independent witnesses, cell phone video, and security camera footage have directly contradicted what the police report said happened at those steps.

The report is not evidence of what occurred. It is evidence of what the officer needed to have occurred to justify what they did.

Why Body Cameras Do Not Solve This Problem

The most common thing people say when I explain this is: “But what about body cameras? Doesn’t the footage tell the truth?”

In my experience: sometimes yes, sometimes no. Body cameras have changed the practice of police misconduct litigation significantly — they have helped us win cases we would have lost twenty years ago. But they are not the solution people assume they are.

• Camera placement limits what is captured. Body cameras are worn on the chest. They do not capture peripheral action, what happens behind the officer, or what happens after a subject is taken to the ground and out of the camera’s field of view. I have seen cases where the most significant use of force — the blows after the subject stopped moving, the knee on the neck, the boot to the head — happened just outside the camera frame.
• Officers narrate to the camera. Experienced officers know they are being recorded. The verbal narration that accompanies force — “Stop resisting! Stop fighting!” — is often delivered for the benefit of the recording, not because the subject is resisting. I have seen body camera footage in which an officer shouts “stop resisting” to a subject who is motionless on the ground. The shout is for the record.
• Footage can be deactivated or missing. Policies requiring camera activation are inconsistently enforced, and technical malfunctions — real and convenient — occur. The absence of body camera footage when footage should have been captured is itself significant evidence that we argue aggressively.
• The report is written after the officer reviews footage. In many departments, officers are permitted to review body camera footage before writing their reports. This means the written narrative is constructed with knowledge of what the camera captured — and tailored around it. The report does not precede the footage; it follows it.

The bottom line: body cameras are a tool, not a guarantee. Independent witnesses, medical records, and security camera footage from third-party sources remain the most powerful evidence in these cases — precisely because they were not captured by someone with a stake in the outcome.

The Real Purpose of Resistance Charges — Blocking Your Civil Lawsuit

Now we get to the piece that most victims do not understand until it is too late. The resistance charge is not just about the criminal case. It is a legal trap designed to eliminate the civil rights lawsuit.

The Heck v. Humphrey Doctrine

Under the Supreme Court’s decision neck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), a person cannot bring a civil rights claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if success in that civil claim would necessarily imply the invalidity of an existing criminal conviction.

Consider the implications. You were beaten by an officer. The officer charged you with PC 148 — resisting arrest — to justify the force. You took a plea to PC 148 because your public defender said it was the easiest way out, or because you could not afford to fight it, or because the prosecutor threatened a felony if you went to trial. Six months later, you try to file a civil rights lawsuit for the excessive force. The defendant moves to dismiss under Check: your civil claim necessarily implies that the arrest was unlawful — but you already pled guilty to resisting it. Your civil case is barred. Permanently.

This is not an accident. This is the intended function of the charge. Police departments, their defense attorneys, and prosecutors who work alongside them understand Heck. The resistance charge is the mechanism by which a victim is converted into a convicted defendant and then stripped of the right to ever hold anyone accountable.

The Guilty Plea Trap — The Decision That Cannot Be Undone Do not accept a plea to PC 148 or PC 69 without first consulting a civil rights attorney about the Heck consequences.   “Just making it go away” to avoid criminal exposure can make your civil rights lawsuit go away too — permanently. Even a misdemeanor conviction with no jail time and a small fine can close the door on a significant civil claim.   In the Ninth Circuit, even entry into certain pretrial diversion programs — without a full acquittal or dismissal on the merits — can trigger the Heck bar in some circumstances. Every case is different, but the principle is the same: any disposition short of a full favorable termination on the merits carries risk. The criminal defense and the civil rights case must be planned together, from the beginning, by an attorney who handles both.

Qualified Immunity — The Second Obstacle

Even when Heck does not bar the civil claim, police officers invoke qualified immunity — the judicial doctrine protecting officers from civil liability unless they violated a “clearly established” constitutional right. I have written about this in detail atsteeringlaw.com. In excessive force cases, the question becomes whether prior Ninth Circuit or Supreme Court precedent specifically addressed the type of force at issue in circumstances similar enough to put the officer on notice.

In my experience, qualified immunity is raised in virtually every case — not because it applies in every case, but because it is the first line of defense and it costs nothing to assert. The key to defeating it is identifying the specific prior cases that established the right at issue and making the argument at the right procedural stage. This is where the specialist knowledge built over decades of federal civil rights litigation matters most.

The deck is stacked. Two layers of protection — the Heck bar and qualified immunity — stand between a police misconduct victim and accountability. But neither is insurmountable. The path through them requires knowing the law, preserving the right issues, and refusing to accept a plea that closes the civil door before you have even opened it.

How We Fight Resistance Charges — Five Defenses That Work

Defense 1

Challenge the Lawfulness of the Officer’s Conduct

This is the foundational defense — and the one that directly bridges the criminal and civil cases. Both PC 148 and PC 69 require that 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 when the interaction occurred, the resistance charge cannot legally stand.

Attacking the lawfulness of the officer’s conduct in the criminal case simultaneously builds the factual record for the civil rights claim. A finding by a criminal court that the officer was acting unlawfully is powerful evidence in the subsequent § 1983 lawsuit. The two cases are not separate; they are the same dispute viewed from two different angles.

See our dedicated pages on false and excessive force for more on how we build these underlying claims.

Defense 2

Self-Defense Against Excessive Force — CALCRIM No. 2672

California law is explicit: you have the right to defend yourself against excessive force by a police officer. CALCRIM No. 2672 — the jury instruction given in PC 148 and PC 69 trials — states directly 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.

This is one of the most powerful defenses in our toolkit — and one of the most underused, because many defense attorneys either do not know to assert it or are not comfortable arguing that the police used excessive force in a criminal courtroom. We are. We present the evidence of the officer’s force — medical records, photographs, expert testimony on use-of-force standards — and argue that what the prosecution calls “resistance” was legally justified self-defense.

Defense 3

Pitchess Motions — The Officer’s History of Fabrication

Officers who fabricate resistance narratives often have a documented history of doing exactly that. A Pitchess motion — from Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) — allows defense counsel to petition the court for access to the officer’s personnel file to review prior complaints of dishonesty, excessive force, or misconduct.

The strategic value of a successful Pitchess motion extends well beyond impeachment. A pattern of prior complaints establishes the foundation for a Monell civil rights claim against the department — the argument that the city or county knew about the officer’s propensity for fabrication and failed to address it. In the criminal case, it undermines the officer’s credibility. In the civil case, it implicates the institution.

Defense 4

Independent Evidence — Witnesses, Video, and Medical Records

The police report is the officer’s version of events. It is not the final word. In case after case, independent evidence has directly contradicted what the resistance narrative claimed.

• Witness testimony: Bystanders who saw what happened and have no stake in the outcome are the most powerful rebuttal to a fabricated resistance narrative. We identify and secure witness statements as early as possible — before memories fade and before they are approached by investigators.
• Security camera and cell phone footage: Third-party video — from businesses, Ring doorbells, traffic cameras, and bystanders’ phones — is the most objective evidence available because it was captured by sources with no interest in the outcome. We move immediately to preserve this footage because it is overwritten on automated schedules, often within 24 to 72 hours.
• Medical records: The nature, location, and severity of injuries tell a story that is difficult to contradict. Injuries inconsistent with the officer’s force description, injuries consistent with being struck after being restrained, or the absence of injuries that should be present if the resistance described actually occurred — all of these are evidence.
• Spoliation letters: We send spoliation letters to the department on the day we are retained, demanding preservation of body-worn camera footage, dashboard camera footage, radio transmissions, CAD logs, and all related materials. Without this letter, footage is often lost to routine retention policies before litigation begins.

Defense 5

Challenging the Knowledge Element — People v. Serna (2025)

in People v. Serna (2025), the California Court of Appeal confirmed that PC 148 requires the defendant to have known — or to have reasonably known — that the person they were interacting with was a peace officer in the performance of their duties. This element creates opportunities for defense in specific factual situations:

• Plainclothes or undercover officers: Where the officer was not in uniform or did not clearly identify themselves, the knowledge element may not be satisfied.
• Chaotic or confusing scenes: Where the interaction was fast-moving, involved multiple officers, or occurred in circumstances where identifying who was an officer and what they were ordering was genuinely difficult, intent to resist may not be established.
• Mental health crisis: Where the defendant was in a mental health crisis at the time of the incident, the willful and knowing elements of both PC 148 and PC 69 may be significantly weakened.

Serna is a recent decision that is still being litigated in trial courts. How broadly courts apply its knowledge requirement is an area of active development, and we monitor new decisions carefully.

What This Means If You Are Facing Charges Right Now

If you are reading this because you were charged with PC 148 or PC 69 after a use-of-force incident — after you were beaten, tased, or injured by a police officer — here is what you need to understand immediately.

You Have Two Cases. Every Decision in One Affects the Other. The criminal case determines whether you are convicted. A conviction or an unfavorable plea can permanently bar your civil rights lawsuit under the Heck doctrine.   The civil rights case determines whether you are compensated for what was done to you — medical expenses, lost wages, emotional distress, punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. These two cases must be evaluated and strategized together, from day one. An attorney who handles only criminal defense cannot advise you on the civil consequences of a plea. An attorney who handles only civil rights cases cannot protect you in the criminal proceeding.   My firm handles both — simultaneously. Contact us before making any decisions about your criminal case.

Do not take a plea because your public defender says it is the fastest way out. Do not plead guilty to a misdemeanor because the prosecutor told you it will not affect your record. Do not assume that an expungement later will undo the Heck consequences now. Every one of these paths has the potential to close the civil door permanently.

For a complete guide to what to do immediately after a use-of-force incident, see our.

The Six-Month Government Claim Deadline In California, before you can file a civil lawsuit against a city, county, or other government entity for police misconduct, you must file a government tort claim under California Government Code § 911.2. This claim is typically due within six months of the incident.   Miss this deadline and you lose the right to sue — permanently. No exceptions. No judicial discretion. This deadline has ended more strong civil rights cases than any legal doctrine or immunity defense.   The six-month clock is running from the day of the incident — not from the day your criminal case resolves. Contact a civil rights attorney immediately.

Charged With Resisting After Being Beaten by Police in Southern California? (949) 474-1849 — Available 24 Hours a Day Free Case Evaluation — No Fee Unless We Recover jerry@steeringlaw.com  |  steeringlaw.com/free-case-evaluation Law Offices of Jerry L. Steering  |  4063 Birch Street, Suite 100  |  Newport Beach, CA 92660 Suing the Police in Southern California Since 1984

Where We Handle These Cases

My firm handles PC 148 and PC 69 defense and the related civil rights lawsuits throughout Southern California. We have litigated these cases — on both the criminal defense and the civil rights side — in Los Angeles County, Orange County, Riverside County, San Bernardino County, San Diego County, Ventura County, and Kern County. See for what these cases look like when they are pursued to conclusion.

Results include a $2.9 million settlement against the City of Anaheim, a $1.3 million settlement against Riverside County, and an $800,000 jury verdict against Garden Grove — all in cases where resistance charges were part of what we were fighting through.

Frequently Asked Questions — Resistance Charges and Excessive Force in California

Fight the Charge. Preserve Your Rights.

Resistance charges are the most abused statutes in California law enforcement. They are the mechanism by which officers justify force, manufacture probable cause, and insulate themselves and their departments from the civil accountability they deserve.

If you were beaten by a police officer and then charged with resisting arrest, you are not just fighting a criminal case. You are fighting for your right to hold the officer and the department accountable in civil court. Every decision in the criminal case — especially a plea — has consequences that extend far beyond the courtroom where the criminal case is heard.

Do not accept the narrative the officer wrote. Do not accept a plea without understanding what it costs you. Do not wait until the six-month deadline has passed.

Fight the charge. Preserve your rights. Vindication is the goal.

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. His practice covers both sides of resistance charge cases: criminal defense of PC 148 and PC 69 charges, and civil rights lawsuits under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for the excessive force and false arrest that preceded them. 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, a $1.3 million settlement against Riverside County, an $800,000 jury verdict against the City of 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, 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 § 148(a)(1)  |  leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
• California Penal Code § 69  |  steeringlaw.com
• 42 U.S.C. § 1983 — Federal civil rights statute  |  law.cornell.edu
• 42 U.S.C. § 1988 — Attorneys’ fees in civil rights cases  |  law.cornell.edu
• California Government Code § 911.2 — Government tort claim deadline  |  leginfo.legislature.ca.gov

Can You Record the Police in California?

Yes. Recording police officers performing their duties in a public place – or from any location where you have a legal right to be – is protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and explicitly by California Penal Code Section 148(g). Recording alone cannot be the basis for a stop, a detention, or an arrest. Officers who arrest you solely for filming are violating clearly established federal law and may not be entitled to qualified immunity. That arrest is a federal civil rights case.

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

Your Phone Is a Constitutional Right – And Officers Know It

In the age of smartphones, nearly every police encounter is a recorded event. Bystanders film traffic stops from the sidewalk. Residents document arrests from their own front porches. Protesters livestream crowd control in real time. Citizens capture what police reports later describe very differently.

This has changed police accountability in ways that forty years of civil rights litigation alone could not. Video evidence has exposed misconduct that would have been buried in a police report, exonerated innocent people facing fabricated resistance charges, and created the factual record that defeats qualified immunity defenses in federal court.

The question I hear constantly from clients is: Was I allowed to record? And when the officer told me to stop – did I have to?

The answer is clear. Yes, you have the right. No, you do not have to stop on a legal officer’s preference alone. But how you exercise that right – and what you do when an officer challenges it – can be the difference between capturing powerful evidence and spending the night in jail.

“Officers know the law protecting your right to record. When they arrest you for filming anyway, that is not a misunderstanding of the law. That is a violation of it – and a federal civil rights case.”

The Legal Foundation – Two Sources, Both Controlling

Your right to record police in California rests on two independent legal foundations. Either one, standing alone, is sufficient. Together, they create one of the clearest constitutional protections in police accountability law.

Foundation 1: The First Amendment

Courts have consistently held that recording matters of public interest – including police activity – is a form of protected expression under the First Amendment. The Ninth Circuit, the controlling federal circuit for California, recognized this right in Fordyce v. City of Seattle, 55 F.3d 436 (9th Cir. 1995), and the right has been repeatedly affirmed in subsequent cases.

In Sandoval v. County of San Diego, 985 F.3d 657 (9th Cir. 2021), the Ninth Circuit confirmed that there is a First Amendment right to observe and record police activity in public. The right exists regardless of whether you are a professional journalist. Your smartphone makes you the media within the meaning of the First Amendment.

Other circuits have reached the same conclusion – the First, Third, Fifth, Seventh, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits have all recognized the right to record police as a clearly established constitutional right. The breadth of this consensus is what defeats qualified immunity arguments: officers across the country have been on notice for years that arresting someone for filming is a constitutional violation.

Foundation 2: California Penal Code Section 148(g)

California has codified this protection by statute – and in 2023, strengthened it further. California Penal Code Section 148(g) states explicitly that photographing or making an audio or video recording of a public officer or peace officer while the officer is in a public place – or the person recording is in a place they have the right to be – does not, by itself, constitute:

• A violation of PC Section 148(a)(1) (resisting, delaying, or obstructing an officer)
• Reasonable suspicion to detain the person recording
• Probable cause to arrest the person recording

In 2023, the California Legislature reinforced this further by adding California Penal Code Section 69(b), which explicitly states that photographing or recording an executive officer in a public place does not, by itself, constitute a violation of PC Section 69 (resisting with force or threats). This codified in the felony statute what Section 148(g) had already established for the misdemeanor: recording is not a crime.

What the Law Means in Plain English The simple act of pointing your phone at a police officer performing their duties in a public place – and recording what you see – is not a crime. It cannot legally justify the officer stopping you. It cannot justify detaining you. It cannot justify arresting you.   If an officer tells you to stop recording and you do not, that refusal alone – without any physical interference, without approaching or obstructing – is protected conduct. Recording is speech. The First Amendment protects it.

Where You Can Record – and Where the Right Has Limits

Your right to record applies anywhere you have a legal right to be. The protected locations are broader than most people realize.

• Public sidewalks, streets, and parks. The clearest case. If you are lawfully on a public sidewalk and police activity is occurring within view, you have the right to record it.
• From inside your vehicle during a traffic stop. You are lawfully in a place you have a right to be. Recording the stop – including the officer’s conduct – is protected.
• From your own property. Your front porch, your driveway, through your window, or from your yard. If you have the right to be there, you have the right to record police activity visible from there.
• Protests, public gatherings, and public spaces. Recording police interaction with crowds and protesters is among the most clearly protected applications of the right.
• Outside government buildings. Police activity occurring in public areas adjacent to government buildings is generally recordable from public vantage points.

Where the right has limits: Areas where police have a legitimate safety perimeter may require you to maintain a greater distance. But distance is not elimination. You can record from where officers can lawfully direct you to stand. The right to record survives a reasonable distance order. It does not survive a complete prohibition.

California’s Two-Party Consent Law Does Not Apply to Police in Public

California Penal Code Section 632 generally requires all parties to consent to the recording of a confidential communication – a conversation in which the parties have an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy. This law does not apply to recording police officers in public.

Officers performing their duties in public have no reasonable expectation of privacy in those actions. Their conduct is public, governmental, and subject to public accountability. Recording a traffic stop, a use-of-force incident, or an arrest in public is not the interception of a confidential communication – it is documentation of a public act by a public official.

What You Can Do and What Police Cannot Do – Quick Reference

The law is clear. Here is the practical summary.

You CAN	Police CANNOT
Record from a safe distance (10-15 feet from active situations)	Order you to stop recording solely because they dislike being filmed
Record from inside your vehicle during a traffic stop	Detain you based solely on the fact that you are recording
Record from your own property – front porch, driveway, or through a window	Arrest you based solely on the fact that you are recording
Continue recording even if an officer asks you to stop (absent a lawful order)	Confiscate your phone without a warrant (Riley v. California, 2014)
State that you are exercising your First Amendment rights	Search your phone’s contents without a warrant (Riley v. California, 2014)
Refuse to unlock your phone or consent to a search	Demand you unlock your device without proper legal authority
Livestream or auto-backup to cloud storage in real time	Delete your recordings or photos – this is destruction of evidence
Request body camera footage through a CPRA request	Impose content-based restrictions on what you can record

Every item in the Police Cannot column, if violated, is a potential civil rights claim under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. An arrest solely for recording is a false arrest. A phone seizure without a warrant violates the Fourth Amendment. Deletion of your recording is destruction of evidence. These are not abstract legal principles – they are federal civil rights violations that my firm litigates. See our false arrest page and excessive force page for the full framework.

The Critical Line – Recording vs. Interfering

The right to record does not include the right to physically interfere with police performing their duties. California Penal Code Section 148(a)(1) prohibits willfully resisting, delaying, or obstructing an officer. Recording alone is explicitly excluded from this statute by Section 148(g). But certain conduct during a recording encounter can cross the line.

Conduct That May Constitute Interference

• Standing so close to an active arrest or use-of-force situation that officers cannot safely maneuver
• Refusing a specific, safety-based order to step back – as opposed to a general order to stop recording
• Physically touching officers, their equipment, or their subjects during the recording
• Using lights or flashes that impair officers’ vision during an active confrontation
• Blocking officers’ physical access to a suspect or crime scene

Conduct That Is Protected

• Recording from a safe distance – courts have generally found 10 to 15 feet reasonable for non-active situations
• Holding your phone visibly and continuously recording
• Verbally stating that you are exercising your First Amendment rights when questioned
• Continuing to record after an officer asks you to stop, as long as you are not physically interfering

The practical principle: distance and non-interference. Officers cannot turn a distance order – ‘step back’ – into a prohibition on recording. They can establish a safety perimeter. They cannot use that perimeter as a pretext to prevent documentation of their conduct.

What the Courts Have Said – Albanese v. City of Oroville

The clearest recent example from California federal courts is Albanese v. City of Oroville, No. 2:22-cv-1131-KJN (E.D. Cal. 2022). The plaintiff was recording officers from approximately 20 feet away – behind a hedge – when he was arrested for obstruction under PC 148(a).

The court denied the motion to dismiss. The court held that California law does not permit arrest for obstruction solely because a person records law enforcement officers. The court further found that the law protecting this right was clearly established, meaning officers who violated it could not invoke qualified immunity to escape civil liability.

What Albanese Confirms First: Recording alone cannot legally justify an obstruction arrest. Officers cannot bootstrap a recording into a PC 148(a) charge by claiming the act of filming constituted obstruction.   Second: The law protecting this right is clearly established under qualified immunity analysis. Officers who arrest someone for recording – without genuine interference – can be held personally liable under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.   Third: Albanese adds to existing Ninth Circuit and California case law. The right to record has been clearly established for decades.

If You Were Arrested for Recording Police – You May Have a Civil Rights Case

An arrest made solely because you were filming police is a false arrest – a violation of your Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable seizure. If the arrest was also in retaliation for your exercise of First Amendment rights, you have a separate First Amendment retaliation claim under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. These are not mutually exclusive – and together they constitute a strong civil rights case.

The Contempt of Cop connection: Officers who arrest people for recording them are executing a Contempt of Cop arrest – using the criminal justice system to punish protected conduct. The arrest for recording is typically accompanied by a PC 148(a)(1) or PC 69 charge. Both of those charges are legally indefensible as applied to pure recording conduct, and – if challenged and defeated – leave the officer fully exposed to civil liability.

See my detailed breakdown of the Contempt of Cop mechanism at steeringlaw.com, and the specific analysis of PC 148(a)(1) at steeringlaw.com.

The Guilty Plea Trap – Do Not Accept a Plea to the Recording Arrest Charges If you were arrested for recording police and charged with PC 148 or PC 69, do not accept a plea without first consulting a civil rights attorney.   Under the Heck v. Humphrey doctrine, a guilty plea to a resisting arrest charge can permanently bar your civil rights lawsuit for the underlying false arrest and First Amendment retaliation. Just making it go away with a misdemeanor plea can make the civil rights case go away too – permanently.   These two cases – the criminal defense and the civil rights lawsuit – must be planned together from the beginning. My firm handles both.

If Police Take Your Phone or Delete Your Recording

The Fourth Amendment protects you from unreasonable searches and seizures. In Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014), the Supreme Court held unanimously that police must obtain a warrant before searching the digital contents of a cell phone. The Court was explicit: cell phones contain the privacies of life and require full Fourth Amendment protection.

In practice, this means:

• No warrant, no phone search. An officer cannot search through your phone’s photos, messages, or content during an arrest or detention without a warrant. State clearly that you do not consent to any search.
• Phone seizure requires either a warrant or exigent circumstances. Officers can potentially seize a phone as evidence if they have probable cause to believe it contains evidence of a crime – but they cannot search it without a warrant. Your recording of their misconduct is not evidence of your crime.
• Deletion of your recording is destruction of evidence. An officer who deletes your recording has destroyed evidence of potential government misconduct. This supports both a civil rights claim and a spoliation argument in litigation.
• Livestreaming and cloud backup protect your footage. If you are livestreaming or automatically backing up to cloud storage, your footage may survive even if your physical phone is seized. Setting up automatic cloud backup before you are ever in a position where you might record police is one of the most practical evidence-preservation steps available.

If your phone is seized or your recording deleted, document exactly what happened immediately: the officer’s name and badge number, what they said, what they did with the phone, and the exact sequence of events. Write it down within hours. That contemporaneous account is evidence.

Why Your Recording Can Win a Civil Rights Case

I have litigated police misconduct cases for forty years. Here is what video evidence does in court that nothing else can.

It Contradicts the Police Report

Police reports are written after the fact, with knowledge of what needs to be justified. They describe the officer’s conduct as reasonable and the civilian’s conduct as threatening or resistant – regardless of what actually happened. Video shows what actually occurred: the distance, the words spoken, who moved first, where the hands were, what level of force was used, and when. In case after case, body camera and citizen recordings have directly contradicted what the police report said happened.

It Defeats Qualified Immunity

Qualified immunity protects officers from civil liability unless they violated a clearly established constitutional right. Video establishes precisely what the officer did and what the circumstances were – eliminating the ambiguity that officers rely on when asserting qualified immunity. When video shows an officer using force against an obviously compliant subject, it is far harder to argue that a reasonable officer in the same situation would not have known the conduct was unconstitutional. See my analysis of qualified immunity for the full framework.

It Exposes False Resistance Charges

When officers charge someone with obstruction or resisting arrest to cover an arrest made for recording, video often shows exactly what happened – a person standing at a distance, filming. Nothing more. That footage, combined with PC Section 148(g) and Ninth Circuit clearly established law, dismantles the prosecution and builds the Section 1983 case simultaneously. See the full analysis in my blog on how police use resistance charges to justify excessive force.

It Establishes Monell Patterns

Video does not just win individual cases – it reveals institutional patterns. When multiple recordings show officers from the same department using the same tactics to stop bystanders from filming, those recordings support a Monell claim against the department for a policy or custom of First Amendment retaliation. The individual case becomes the predicate for institutional accountability.

Arrested or Harassed for Recording Police in Southern California? (949) 474-1849 – Available 24 Hours a Day Free Case Evaluation – No Fee Unless We Recover jerry@steeringlaw.com  |  steeringlaw.com/free-case-evaluation Law Offices of Jerry L. Steering  |  4063 Birch Street, Suite 100  |  Newport Beach, CA 92660 Suing the Police in Southern California Since 1984

What to Do When an Officer Tries to Stop You From Recording

This is a situation that requires calm, clear thinking. How you respond determines both your immediate safety and the quality of the evidence you are capturing.

• Stay calm. Do not escalate. An officer who is violating your rights by ordering you to stop filming is doing exactly what I have spent forty years suing police for. Your response in the moment should be calm and clear – not aggressive. The confrontation you want happens in federal court, not on the street.
• State your rights clearly and once. Say: ‘I am exercising my First Amendment right to record police performing their duties in public. California Penal Code Section 148(g) protects my right to record.’ Say it once, calmly, and continue recording.
• Comply with specific distance orders – continue recording. If ordered to step back for a legitimate safety reason, step back. Do not stop recording. Complying with a distance order does not mean surrendering the recording.
• Keep your hands visible. Hold your phone where the officer can see it is a phone. Avoid reaching toward your body suddenly or making movements that could be misinterpreted.
• Do not physically resist if you are arrested. If an officer arrests you for recording – which is an unlawful arrest – comply physically. Do not resist. The unlawful arrest becomes your civil rights case. Physical resistance becomes an additional charge that complicates everything.
• Do not consent to a phone search or unlock your device. State clearly: ‘I do not consent to a search of my phone.’ This preserves your Fourth Amendment challenge to any subsequent search.

After the incident: Document the officer’s name, badge number, and unit immediately. Write down the exact sequence of events while your memory is fresh. Note any witnesses. Check whether your footage was backed up to cloud storage. Then call a civil rights attorney – and see our complete guide.

The Six-Month Deadline – If You Were Arrested for Recording If you were arrested for recording police in California and want to pursue a civil rights claim against the city, county, or public agency, you must file a government tort claim under California Government Code Section 911.2 within six months of the incident.   Miss this deadline and your state law claims are permanently barred. Federal Section 1983 claims have a two-year statute of limitations, but the six-month government claim is the trap that destroys most cases before they are ever filed.   Do not wait to see how the criminal case resolves. The civil deadline runs regardless of the criminal proceedings. Call a civil rights attorney immediately.

Getting the Official Footage – Body Camera and CPRA Requests

Your recording is powerful. But you may also have the right to obtain official body camera and dashcam footage through the California Public Records Act (CPRA).

Under California Government Code Sections 832.7 and 832.8, and California Penal Code Section 832.18, law enforcement agencies are required to make available to the public recordings of critical incidents – including officer-involved shootings and uses of force causing death or serious bodily injury – subject to limited exceptions for active criminal investigations.

The critical caveat: body camera footage is often overwritten after 30 to 90 days without a preservation hold. The moment you are involved in or witness a use-of-force incident, your attorney should immediately send a spoliation letter demanding preservation of all footage. CPRA requests should follow – but preservation comes first.

Agencies may delay release if disclosure would substantially interfere with an active criminal or administrative investigation. Courts have held that when footage is released, agencies must provide sufficient context to allow the public to fully understand what occurred – not just seconds surrounding the critical moment.

Serving Southern California – First Amendment Retaliation Cases

My firm handles First Amendment retaliation claims – arrests made in response to protected recording activity – throughout Southern California: Los Angeles County, Orange County, Riverside County, San Bernardino County, San Diego County, Ventura County, and Kern County.

Officers in every one of these jurisdictions have attempted to stop people from recording. In many cases, those attempts were followed by bogus PC 148 or PC 69 charges. In cases I have handled, those charges were defeated and the officers held civilly accountable. See our case results for what these cases look like when pursued to conclusion.

Frequently Asked Questions – Recording Police in California

Your Smartphone Is One of the Most Powerful Accountability Tools We Have – Use It

In forty years of civil rights litigation, I have seen what video evidence does to a police misconduct case. It contradicts the police report. It defeats qualified immunity. It exposes false resistance charges. It builds institutional Monell claims that go beyond the individual officer to the department that trained and protected them.

California law is clear. You have the right to record. Officers who arrest you for exercising it are violating clearly established federal law. That violation is a civil rights case.

But your right only protects you if you know how to exercise it – calmly, at a distance, without physical interference – and if you act quickly enough when it is violated to preserve the civil claim.

Fight back. Vindication is the goal.

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. His practice covers First Amendment retaliation, false arrest for recording police, excessive force, malicious prosecution, and Section 1983 civil rights violations throughout Southern California. Notable results include a $2.9 million settlement against the City of Anaheim, a $1.3 million settlement against Riverside County, and an $800,000 jury verdict against Garden Grove. 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(g) – Recording police does not constitute obstruction  |  leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
• California Penal Code Section 69(b) (2023) – Recording does not constitute resisting executive officer  |  leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
• California Penal Code Section 632 – Two-party consent; does not apply to police in public  |  leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
• 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 – Federal civil rights statute  |  law.cornell.edu
• California Government Code Sections 832.7-832.8 – Body camera footage disclosure  |  leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
• California Government Code Section 911.2 – Six-month government tort claim deadline  |  leginfo.legislature.ca.gov

What Do You Do After Police Misconduct in California?

Get medical attention. Document everything. Keep quiet with police and investigators. Secure witness contact information and nearby security footage. Contact a civil rights attorney within days — not weeks — because California’s government claim deadline can be as short as six months from the incident (California Government Code § 911.2). Miss that window and you lose your right to sue forever, regardless of how clear the misconduct was.

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

You Were Just Beaten or Falsely Arrested. Here Is What You Need to Know Right Now.

If you are reading this because you or someone you care about was just beaten by police, tased, pepper sprayed, falsely arrested, or otherwise abused by a law enforcement officer — I want to give you the same advice I would give a close friend.

I have been suing the police in California since 1984. In forty-plus years of civil rights litigation, I have seen strong cases destroyed — not by bad facts, but by mistakes made in the first 24 to 72 hours after an incident. Evidence gone. Witnesses lost. Statements used against the victim. Six-month deadlines missed.

What you do right now is as important as what happened to you.

I am also going to tell you something that most attorneys won’t say directly: the system is not designed to help you. Police reports are written to protect the officer. Internal Affairs exists to protect the department. The District Attorney’s office will often prosecute you for a fabricated “resistance offense” specifically to prevent you from suing. Courts have expanded police immunity to levels that would shock most Americans. I wrote about this in detail in my article “Why You (Almost) Have No Rights In America” — it is not hyperbole.

But there is a path to justice. I know where it is because I have walked it for forty years. Here is what you need to do.

STOP: Read This Before Anything Else — The Six-Month Deadline In California, before you can sue a city, county, or other government entity for police misconduct, you must first file a formal government tort claim with that entity. Under California Government Code § 911.2, you typically have only six months from the date of the incident to file this claim.   If you miss this deadline — even by one day — you lose your right to sue forever. It does not matter how clear the misconduct was. It does not matter how serious your injuries are. The deadline is the deadline.   This is the single most common reason that legitimate police misconduct cases cannot be pursued. The evidence was there. The facts were there. The victim waited too long.   Call a civil rights attorney this week. Not next month. This week.

Understanding What Just Happened to You — The “Contempt of Cop” System

Before I walk you through the specific steps, you need to understand the game that may have just been played on you — because it will affect every decision you make going forward.

When police officers use excessive force on someone, or make a bad stop, or violate someone’s constitutional rights, they have a problem. They used force — or worse. That needs to be justified. So here is what they do: they arrest you. They charge you with a “resistance offense” — California Penal Code § 148(a)(1) (“resisting, delaying, or obstructing” an officer) or California Penal Code § 69 (resisting with force, a felony). These statutes are so vague, so broadly written, that police officers can almost always claim that any innocent person somehow “resisted” or “delayed” them.

This is not an accident. It is a tactic. If you are convicted of one of these resistance offenses, you are generally legally precluded from suing the police for the exact misconduct that they committed against you. The police know this. The DA’s office knows this. The courts know this.

This is what I call the “Contempt of Cop” system. It operates when a civilian verbally questions, challenges, or protests a police officer’s actions — which is constitutionally protected behavior — and the officer retaliates. The arrest and the criminal prosecution are not the end of the abuse. They are the continuation of it, by other means.

Why This Matters for Your Civil Rights Case If you have been charged with a resistance offense following the incident — Cal. Penal Code § 69, § 148(a)(1), battery on a peace officer, or similar charges — your criminal case and your civil rights case are directly connected. A conviction or a guilty plea can destroy your civil claim.   Our firm handles both sides of this problem: defending bogus resistance offense cases and suing the police for the underlying misconduct. Do not make any decisions about your criminal case without understanding how it affects your civil rights claim.

What To Do — Step by Step

Step 1

Get Medical Attention — Now, Not Later

Your physical safety comes first. But there is a legal dimension to this step that matters enormously for your case.

• Go to the emergency room or urgent care today. Do not wait. Adrenaline masks injury. Fractures, internal bleeding, and traumatic brain injuries frequently present hours after an incident. If you were beaten or subjected to a Taser, you need to be evaluated.
• Tell the doctor everything. Every symptom — headache, dizziness, pain anywhere, anxiety, difficulty breathing. Say it all out loud so it gets into your medical record. That record is evidence. It links your physical condition to the incident at a specific date and time.
• Do not tell the treating physician “I’m fine” or “it’s not that bad.” That statement can and will appear in your medical record, and opposing counsel will use it at trial to argue that your injuries were minor.
• Keep every receipt, every bill, every document related to your medical treatment. Lost wages. Transportation costs. Everything.

Step 2

Photograph and Document Everything Immediately

Evidence in police misconduct cases disappears fast. Body camera footage gets overwritten. Witnesses leave. Bruises peak at 24 to 48 hours and then fade. You have a very short window.

• Photograph every injury right now. Every bruise, laceration, abrasion, swelling, and mark on your body. Then photograph again in 24 hours and again in 48 hours — bruising often darkens and spreads significantly after the initial incident.
• Photograph your wrists if you were handcuffed. Photograph any torn clothing. Photograph the location of the incident, including street signs, landmarks, and anything that establishes where you were.
• Write down everything while your memory is fresh. The time. The location. The names, badge numbers, and physical descriptions of every officer involved. What they said. What you said. The sequence of events. Do this within hours — not days. Memory degrades, and you will be asked to testify to these details under oath.
• Secure security camera footage immediately. Walk or drive to every business and home near the location of the incident — gas stations, restaurants, banks, pharmacies, Ring doorbells. Ask them in person to preserve their footage. Do not wait for a subpoena. Digital footage is overwritten on automated cycles, often within 24 to 72 hours. Once it is gone, it is gone forever.

Step 3

Get Witness Contact Information

Bystander witnesses are often the difference between a case that wins and a case that doesn’t. Police reports are written from the officer’s perspective and are designed to justify what the officer did. An independent witness has no stake in the outcome.

• If there are witnesses still on scene, approach them calmly and ask for their name and phone number.
• If someone is reluctant to give their name, ask if they would be willing to speak with an attorney.
• If someone captured the incident on their cell phone, ask them not to delete it and ask for their contact information.
• Note the description and license plate of any vehicles whose occupants may have witnessed the incident.

Witnesses do not stay at scenes. They go home. They go to work. They lose interest. Get their information now.

Step 4

Stay Silent With Police and Government Investigators

This step is the one most people get wrong — and it is the one that most often destroys otherwise valid cases.

After an incident, you may be approached by police officers at the scene, by Internal Affairs investigators, by representatives of the city or county, or by insurance investigators working on behalf of the government entity. They will be polite. They will seem sympathetic. They will say they just want to understand what happened. Do not be deceived.

Do Not Give a Statement Without an Attorney Internal Affairs investigators are not your friends. They are trained investigators whose job is to protect the department from liability. Anything you say in an Internal Affairs interview — even as the victim — can be used against you in criminal proceedings.   If the officer who abused you has charged you with a resistance offense, a statement you give to IA or to the DA’s office can be used to support that criminal prosecution. Your words will be taken out of context. Inconsistencies will be exploited. Admissions — however innocent — will be twisted.   Do not go to any interview with government investigators without your attorney present. Do not give a recorded statement. Do not sign anything. Do not accept the premise that this is a routine inquiry you should cooperate with.   Your attorney will be present for every interaction with government investigators. That is what attorneys are for.

• Do not discuss your injuries with officers at the scene. “Are you okay?” is not a welfare check. It is an attempt to get you to minimize your injuries on record.
• Do not argue about the law at the scene. You cannot talk your way out of a police misconduct situation. You are not going to persuade the officer that what he did was wrong. That argument happens in federal court, not on the street.
• Do not post about the incident on social media. Anything you say publicly — on Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, or anywhere else — is discoverable evidence in your case. Anything you say can and will be used against you.

Step 5

Demand Preservation of Evidence — The Spoliation Letter

One of the most important things a civil rights attorney can do in the immediate aftermath of a police misconduct incident is send a “spoliation letter” to the police department demanding the preservation of all evidence related to the incident.

This letter formally puts the department on notice that litigation is anticipated and that all related evidence must be preserved. Without this letter, departments will often argue — sometimes successfully — that evidence was destroyed as part of routine retention policy.

• Body-worn camera footage — often overwritten within 60 to 90 days without a preservation hold
• Dashboard camera footage — from the officer’s patrol vehicle
• Radio transmissions and dispatch logs — critical for establishing the timeline and what officers were told
• Computer-Aided Dispatch records — documents what was communicated and when
• Officer use-of-force reports and supplemental reports
• Booking photos, jail medical records, and intake documentation if you were arrested

Our office sends spoliation letters the same day we are retained. The faster we move, the better the chance that the evidence is still there when we need it.

Step 6

Contact a Civil Rights Attorney — This Week

I am going to be direct about this because I have seen what happens when people wait.

People wait because they are not sure they have a case. They wait because they are dealing with injuries and criminal charges and they are overwhelmed. They wait because they think they can handle it themselves, or because they think filing a complaint with the department will accomplish something. In my experience, department complaint processes accomplish very little for victims and a great deal for the department — they gather information about your claims before you are represented.

The six-month deadline is not a technicality. It is not something courts routinely waive. I have seen families lose $2 million cases — cases with clear liability, documented injuries, and video evidence — because they called me at month seven instead of month two. The deadline is the deadline.

What Happens When You Call Our Office We offer a free case evaluation for police misconduct matters. When you call, we will:   Assess your claim: Hear what happened, identify the constitutional violations, and give you an honest assessment of whether you have a viable case. Send the spoliation letter immediately: If we take your case, we demand evidence preservation the same day. File the government tort claim: We handle the California Government Code § 911.2 claim and all deadlines so nothing slips through. Evaluate your criminal exposure: If you have been charged with a resistance offense, we assess how it affects your civil rights case and advise you accordingly.   We take police misconduct cases on contingency — you pay nothing unless we recover for you. See our case results to understand what these cases can be worth when pursued correctly.

Quick Reference — Do This, Not That

After a police misconduct incident, confusion is normal. Here is a simple reference.

What TO do	What NOT to do
DO: Get medical attention immediately — even if you think you’re fine	DO NOT: Tell the officer “I’m okay” or discuss your injuries on scene
DO: Photograph every injury, torn clothing, and handcuff marks before they fade	DO NOT: Give a recorded statement to Internal Affairs without an attorney present
DO: Write down the officer’s name, badge number, unit, and everything said	DO NOT: Argue with officers about whether the stop or force was legal — you cannot win that argument on the street
DO: Get witness contact information, or at least ask if they’ll speak to an attorney	DO NOT: Post about the incident on social media — anything you say becomes evidence
DO: Contact nearby businesses and homeowners about security footage immediately	DO NOT: Wait weeks before contacting an attorney — the six-month government claim deadline is running right now
DO: Contact a civil rights attorney within days, not weeks	DO NOT: Assume the police report tells the truth — it was written to justify what they did

The Legal Framework — What You Are Actually Suing For

Most people who have been abused by police think about suing “the cop.” In reality, the legal landscape is more complex — and more powerful — than that.

42 U.S.C. § 1983 — The Federal Civil Rights Statute

The primary vehicle for suing police officers for constitutional violations is42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Civil Rights Act of 1871 — sometimes called the Ku Klux Klan Act because it was originally passed to hold government officials accountable for civil rights violations.

Section 1983 allows individuals to sue state and local government employees — including police officers — who, acting under color of law, violated their federally protected constitutional rights. These are federal lawsuits, filed in United States District Court.

The constitutional rights most commonly at issue in police misconduct cases are:

• Fourth Amendment — unreasonable search and seizure, excessive force, false arrest, unlawful detention
• First Amendment — retaliation for speech, including “Contempt of Cop” arrests for verbal protest of police actions
• Fourteenth Amendment — equal protection violations and denial of due process

Monell Claims — Suing the City or County, Not Just the Officer

Under the Supreme Court’s decision in Monell v. Department of Social Services, a municipality can be held directly liable — not just the individual officer — when the constitutional violation results from an official policy, custom, or widespread practice of the department. A Monell claim allows you to sue the city or county itself, not just the individual cop who hurt you.

This matters enormously in practice. Individual officers often have limited assets. Cities and counties have insurance, significant assets, and — importantly — the political motivation to settle cases that expose their departments to ongoing liability.

Qualified Immunity — The Shield They Will Invoke

The doctrine of qualified immunity is the primary defense used by police officers in federal civil rights cases. It protects officers from suit unless the constitutional right they violated was “clearly established” at the time of the incident — a standard that courts have interpreted so broadly that it shields officers from accountability even for obvious constitutional violations. I have written extensively about this — see “A.

This is one of the reasons why police misconduct litigation requires a specialist. Navigating qualified immunity doctrine, identifying the clearly established law, and preserving the right arguments for appeal requires knowledge of constitutional law that goes far beyond general personal injury practice.

Has Your Constitutional Right Been Violated by California Police? (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

Why the First 24 Hours Determine Whether You Win or Lose

In my experience, the difference between a case that results in a substantial recovery and a case that gets dismissed is almost always the evidence collected in the first 24 to 72 hours.

Police departments are sophisticated defendants. They have insurance. They have experienced defense attorneys. They have investigators who begin building their defense the moment an incident occurs. They write reports. They interview officers. They review footage — and they do it before you have a lawyer.

Here is what happens on their side of the table, in real time, while you are figuring out what to do:

• The officer writes his use-of-force report. It will describe a reasonable use of force justified by your conduct. It will minimize or explain away any injuries.
• Officers on scene compare notes and align their accounts. By the time Internal Affairs gets involved, the story is already coordinated.
• Body camera footage is flagged for preservation by the department — which means it is also accessible to department investigators for review before you get it.
• Any witnesses who might have contradicted the officers’ account have gone home.

The sooner you have an attorney, the sooner we can get into this fight on your side. Every day you wait is a day the other side is working against you.

Where We Handle Police Misconduct Cases in California

My firm handles police misconduct and civil rights cases throughout Southern California. We have obtained significant settlements and verdicts against police departments in Los Angeles County, Orange County, Riverside County, San Bernardino County, San Diego County, Ventura County, and throughout the state.

Some of our notable results include a $2.9 million settlement against the City of Anaheim for a police shooting, an $800,000 jury verdict against Garden Grove for false arrest, and a $750,000 settlement against the City of Torrance. See.

If you are in Southern California and have been the victim of police misconduct, we want to hear from you. We handle cases throughout the region, including:

Los Angeles County  |  Orange County  |  Riverside County  |  San Bernardino County  |  San Diego County  |  Ventura County  |  Kern County  |  Santa Barbara County  |  and throughout California

Frequently Asked Questions About Police Misconduct in California

The Bottom Line

Police misconduct litigation is not a game for generalists. The law in this area is complex, the immunities are broad, and the defendants are sophisticated. The government has unlimited resources and experienced defense counsel working on its side from the moment an incident occurs.

You need someone who has been doing this for a long time, who knows the law, who knows the courts, and who is not afraid of going to trial against a police department.

I have been doing exactly that since 1984 — in federal and state courts throughout Southern California. I have obtained settlements and verdicts totaling millions of dollars for victims of police misconduct. If you have a case, I want to hear it. If you don’t have a case, I will tell you that too — honestly, directly, and without wasting your time. Read.

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 is a civil rights attorney and police misconduct specialist practicing in Southern 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, and San Diego County. His notable results include a $2.9 million settlement for a police shooting in Anaheim, an $800,000 jury verdict against Garden Grove, and a $750,000 settlement against the City of Torrance. He has appeared on NBC’s Dateline with Lester Holt, ABC’s 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

Sources cited in this article:

• California Government Code § 911.2 — Government tort claim deadline | California Legislative Information
• 42 U.S.C. § 1983 — The Civil Rights Act of 1871 | Cornell Law School LII
• California Penal Code § 148(a)(1) and § 69 — Resistance offense statutes | steeringlaw.com
• Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978) — Municipal liability under § 1983
• ACLU of California — Know Your Rights: Police Encounters | aclu.org

Why Does Hiring a Local Police Misconduct Attorney Matter?

Local knowledge is not a marketing claim in police misconduct cases – it is a strategic advantage that directly affects outcomes. The attorney who knows your courthouse, your judge, the specific police department involved, and the city attorney’s negotiating style gets better evidence, better settlements, and better verdicts than one who is learning the territory on your case. In Southern California, I have been building that knowledge for forty years.

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

Local Knowledge Is Not a Luxury – It Is a Strategic Necessity

When you have been injured, traumatized, or wronged by police, the instinct to hire a lawyer is a good one. But not all lawyers are created equal. And in police misconduct cases, the difference between a national firm operating remotely and a local attorney with deep community roots can be the difference between justice and dismissal.

I have spent forty years practicing civil rights law in California – specifically in Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura counties. I know the judges, the court clerks, the city attorneys, and the police departments. I know which agencies destroy footage after 30 days and which hold it for 180. I know which prosecutors are reasonable and which fight every claim.

This local knowledge is not a luxury. It is a strategic necessity.

Let me be specific about what that means – because ‘local knowledge’ is easy to claim and hard to evaluate. Here is what it actually looks like in practice.

“Do not settle for a lawyer who has to read a map to find your courthouse. Hire someone who knows the territory – someone who has been fighting here for forty years, who knows the players, and who will use every local advantage to fight for your rights.”

Knowing the Courtroom – Judges, Local Rules, and Venue

California has 58 counties, each with its own superior court system. While the law is consistent across the state, the procedures, timelines, and judicial tendencies vary significantly from courthouse to courthouse. And federal cases in Southern California are heard in the Central District of California – one of the largest federal districts in the country, with courthouses in Los Angeles, Riverside, and Santa Ana.

Judicial Preferences Are Not Academic Abstractions

Judges develop reputations over decades on the bench. Some are plaintiff-friendly. Some have deep skepticism of civil rights claims. Some have strong views on qualified immunity. Some prefer extensive briefing; others want oral argument. Some push hard for settlement conferences; others let cases go to trial without intervention.

I know which judges in the Central District have backgrounds as civil rights lawyers and which spent their careers as prosecutors or defense counsel. I know which judges have ruled favorably on qualified immunity and which have denied it. I know which judges grant extensions readily when counsel shows good cause and which enforce deadlines without flexibility.

This knowledge shapes strategy. If your case is assigned to a judge skeptical of police misconduct claims, I push harder for early settlement at a higher amount. If the judge has a track record of denying qualified immunity in similar cases, I feel confident litigating through to summary judgment. If the judge prefers cases to resolve at settlement conferences, I prepare accordingly.

Local Rules and Venue Are Not Administrative Details

The Central District of California has specific local rules governing electronic filing, meet-and-confer requirements, the formatting of exhibits, and the scheduling of motions. Missing a local rule does not just mean a rejected filing – it can mean lost opportunities, forfeited arguments, and delays that allow evidence to disappear. An attorney filing their first case in the Central District learns these rules from the court’s website. An attorney who has practiced here for forty years knows them instinctively.

Venue selection also matters. Cases filed in the Riverside division of the Central District are heard by different judges with different tendencies than cases filed in the Santa Ana division – even when both involve Orange County defendants. A local attorney knows which division offers the best chance for your specific type of claim and structures the filing accordingly.

Knowing the Police Departments – Culture, Policy, and History

Every police department in Southern California has its own culture, its own use-of-force policies, its own internal accountability structure, and its own history of misconduct. An attorney who has litigated against a department for decades knows things about it that no database can reveal.

The Major Departments – What I Know That Matters

• LAPD: Subject to a federal consent decree for years, with extensive BWC requirements and civilian oversight through the Police Commission. The LAPD’s policies are more developed than most departments – which means violations of those policies are easier to document and harder to defend. I know which LAPD divisions have the most significant misconduct histories and which officers have recurring complaint patterns.
• LASD: One of the largest sheriff’s departments in the country, with jurisdiction over unincorporated areas and contract cities throughout Los Angeles County. The LASD’s jail system has its own distinct litigation history. The department’s culture of internal loyalty creates specific patterns of evidence suppression that I know how to identify and challenge.
• Long Beach PD: An independent city department with its own policies and a specific oversight structure. I know the Long Beach City Attorney’s office, its settlement practices, and its litigation tendencies. I know which Long Beach officers have prior complaints and how the department handles internal investigations.
• Orange County Sheriff and municipal departments: The OCSD and the smaller Orange County municipal departments – Garden Grove, Santa Ana, Huntington Beach, Irvine, Costa Mesa, Laguna Beach – each have distinct cultures and complaint histories. Many of my largest results have come from Orange County cases precisely because I know these departments.
• Riverside and San Bernardino County departments: Riverside PD, the Riverside County Sheriff, San Bernardino PD, and the San Bernardino County Sheriff each have different approaches to use-of-force, different BWC policies, and different patterns of misconduct. I have obtained million-dollar results against both county sheriff’s departments.

This is not general knowledge. It is forty years of accumulated specific knowledge – about specific officers, specific supervisors, specific policies, and specific patterns – that only comes from repeatedly litigating against these departments in these courts.

Officer History Through Pitchess Practice

Through four decades of Pitchess motions and public records practice in Southern California, I have built institutional knowledge of officers with documented misconduct histories. An officer with three prior excessive force complaints and a Brady list designation is a very different defendant than a clean-record officer on their first complaint. I know the difference – and I know which officers in which departments have the histories that transform individual cases into Monell claims against the department itself.

Faster Evidence – The Local Advantage That Matters Most

In police misconduct cases, speed is everything. Body camera footage may be overwritten in 30 to 90 days. Third-party surveillance video disappears in 7 to 30 days. Witnesses move, forget, and become reluctant. The attorney who moves fastest gets the evidence that wins cases.

Immediate Response vs. Remote Coordination

When a client calls my office, I can have an investigator at the scene within hours. We photograph the location before conditions change. We identify and interview witnesses while memories are fresh. We walk into nearby businesses and ask in person for security footage to be preserved – before the automatic overwrite cycle runs.

A national firm with a website and an 800 number coordinates this by phone and email. By the time they have arranged for a local investigator to respond, the footage is often already gone.

Public Records Knowledge – Each Agency Is Different

Every law enforcement agency in Southern California has its own process for California Public Records Act requests. Some accept email submissions. Some require certified mail to a specific address. Some respond within days. Others drag their feet for months and require follow-up demands. Some have specific contacts who actually process requests expeditiously. Others have intake processes designed to slow-walk everything.

I know the shortcuts, the contact people, and the escalation paths for every major Southern California law enforcement agency. This is not something you learn from a statute. It is something you learn from doing it, repeatedly, for forty years.

Knowing the Opposing Counsel – Forty Years of Settlement Negotiations

Police misconduct cases rarely go to trial. The vast majority settle. And in settlement negotiations, knowing the person across the table is as important as knowing the law.

I have negotiated with the same city attorneys, deputy city attorneys, and risk managers for twenty and thirty years. I know their negotiating styles. I know which ones have settlement authority and which have to get approval from a committee. I know which ones are bluffing when they say they will try the case and which ones mean it.

More importantly: they know me. City attorneys know that when I make a demand, it is backed by thorough investigation, complete damages documentation, and a realistic case valuation. They know I have tried cases and won jury verdicts – including the $1,010,000 Sharp verdict against Garden Grove and the $612,000 Farahani verdict against Santa Ana. That knowledge affects every offer they make.

What City Attorneys Think About When They Receive My Demand Letter They are not evaluating the demand in isolation. They are evaluating it against everything they know about my practice.   They know I go to trial. A firm that settles everything makes settlement offers based on what the plaintiff will accept. A firm with a track record of verdicts gets offers based on what the jury might give. They know I know their department. They know that when I cite a prior complaint pattern, I have actually reviewed the Pitchess records. They know that when I describe the evidence as strong, I have already secured the footage and interviewed the witnesses.   They know I know the judge. If the assigned judge has a history of denying qualified immunity motions, they know I know that. The legal landscape around our negotiation is not theoretical – it is specific.   That credibility is not transferable. It is built case by case, over forty years. It cannot be replicated by a firm learning the territory on your case.

Local Knowledge in Action – Three Cases That Demonstrate the Difference

The Torrance Swastika Case – $750,000 Settlement The facts: Torrance police officers painted a swastika on a citizen’s impounded vehicle. The department denied knowledge and claimed it could not be determined which officers were responsible.   Local knowledge advantage: We knew the Torrance Police Department’s policies on impounded vehicles and its evidence documentation requirements. We knew which officers were assigned to the impound division. We knew how to access the specific camera systems at the Torrance impound facility. We secured the video evidence before the department could claim it was unavailable.   We knew the department’s vulnerabilities: Torrance was already under pressure from prior misconduct complaints. The city attorney’s office knew that a trial would be far more damaging than a settlement – both financially and reputationally. We structured the negotiation to make that calculation explicit.   The result: $750,000 settlement, including compensation for lasting psychological trauma documented by local mental health experts who understood the cultural significance of what was done.

The Long Beach False Arrest Case – $450,000 Recovery The facts: A client was falsely arrested by Long Beach Police Department officers who lacked probable cause. The standard resistance charge was filed on top of the false arrest.   Local knowledge advantage: We knew which Long Beach supervisory lieutenant to contact immediately about evidence preservation – before the formal CPRA process began. We knew the standard settlement range for LBPD false arrest cases without significant physical injury. We knew the assigned judge had a reputation for pushing early settlement conferences aggressively.   We knew the opposing counsel: The Long Beach City Attorney’s office had seen us on prior cases. They knew we would litigate if the offer was inadequate. They knew we had the evidence secured.   The result: $450,000 recovery – significantly above the baseline for similar cases without serious physical injury, because local knowledge compressed the timeline and maximized negotiating leverage.

Tualaulelei v. City of Compton – $6,000,000 Structured Settlement The facts: A man was killed by Compton police. The family needed representation that understood the specific department, its history, and its institutional vulnerabilities.   Local knowledge advantage: The Compton Police Department had a documented history of excessive force complaints and inadequate training that I could access and deploy specifically in this case. We knew which experts in the Southern California area could testify credibly on use-of-force standards against this department’s specific training protocols.   We knew the family’s long-term needs: We structured the $6,000,000 settlement specifically to provide for the family’s financial security over time – working with local financial and legal professionals who understood California structured settlement law.   The result: $6,000,000 structured settlement – the largest result in my practice – built on specific knowledge of the department, the jurisdiction, the legal landscape, and the family’s circumstances.

What Local Knowledge Cannot Do – And Why Honesty Matters

I want to be direct about something that is easy to obscure in a marketing context: local knowledge is powerful but not magic.

It cannot create evidence that does not exist. If there is no footage, no witnesses, and no medical records documenting the incident, local knowledge cannot build a case from nothing. If the injuries are minor and fully resolved, the case value is limited regardless of the strength of the attorney or the weaknesses of the officer.

It cannot overcome a client’s unwillingness to testify credibly or a fact pattern that is genuinely ambiguous. Some cases are difficult for reasons that have nothing to do with the attorney’s local knowledge.

What local knowledge can do – and does, consistently, in my practice – is this:

• Ensure that all existing evidence is identified and preserved before it disappears
• Find the witnesses and camera sources that a remote attorney would not have known to look for
• Navigate procedural requirements efficiently, without costly learning mistakes
• Negotiate from a position of informed strength, with a realistic sense of what the market bears in the specific jurisdiction
• Make strategic decisions based on actual knowledge of the judge, the opposing counsel, and the department’s vulnerabilities

The difference between a case that settles for $200,000 and one that settles for $500,000 is often not a legal difference. It is a knowledge difference.

What Makes My Practice Different From a General Litigation Firm

If you are evaluating attorneys for a police misconduct claim in California, here is the specific framework I would use – and how my practice compares to each criterion.

What I bring	Why it matters
Forty years in Southern California courts	I have appeared before the judges of the Central District of California – Los Angeles, Riverside, and Santa Ana divisions – for four decades. I know their preferences, their judicial philosophies, and how they approach police misconduct claims. A firm filing its first case in the Central District learns all of this the hard way.
Specific knowledge of every major Southern California police department	LAPD, LASD, Long Beach PD, Orange County Sheriff, Riverside PD, San Bernardino County Sheriff, and dozens of smaller municipal departments. I know their use-of-force policies, their BWC retention schedules, their training deficiencies, and their litigation histories. That knowledge shapes every decision in every case.
Relationships with city attorneys built over decades	I have negotiated with the same city attorneys, deputies, and risk managers for twenty and thirty years. They know that when I make a demand, it is backed by thorough investigation. They know I try cases. That credibility produces better settlement results than a firm they have never heard of.
Immediate evidence response capability	When a client calls, I can have an investigator at the scene within hours – photographing the location, identifying witnesses, contacting businesses with security cameras before footage is overwritten. A firm in another state coordinates by phone and email while the evidence disappears.
Officer history through Pitchess practice	Through forty years of Pitchess motions and public records practice in Southern California, I have built institutional knowledge of which officers have prior misconduct complaints, which have been sued before, and which have credibility findings on their personnel records. This knowledge does not exist in a database. It is built through practice.
Track record of jury verdicts in Southern California courts	City attorneys track which firms go to trial. A firm that settles everything gets lesser offers – because the other side knows the threat of trial is empty. My willingness to try these cases – and win them – affects every settlement negotiation I have.

For the complete list of my results in Southern California courts, see steeringlaw.com/police-misconduct-and-other-civil-rights-case-results/. The results span Orange County, Los Angeles County, Riverside County, San Bernardino County, and beyond – because the local knowledge that produced them was built across all of Southern California, not just one jurisdiction.

Ready to Work With a Southern California Police Misconduct Attorney Who Knows the Territory? (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

The Six-Month Deadline – Why You Need Local Counsel Now, Not Later Before filing a civil lawsuit against a California city, county, or other public entity for police misconduct, you must file a government tort claim under California Government Code Section 911.2 within six months of the incident.   Miss this deadline and your state law claims are permanently barred. The clock is running from the day of the incident. The evidence is disappearing daily. Every day you spend evaluating attorneys from across the country is a day closer to the deadline and a day more evidence is overwritten.   A local attorney can preserve evidence and file the government claim immediately. A remote firm coordinates the same steps by phone while the footage disappears. Call today.

Where I Practice – The Southern California Territory I Know

My firm is based in Newport Beach and handles police misconduct cases throughout Southern California. I know these jurisdictions because I have litigated in them for forty years – not because I read about them.

Los Angeles County: LAPD, LASD, Long Beach PD, Torrance PD, and dozens of municipal departments  |  Orange County: OCSD, Garden Grove PD, Santa Ana PD, Anaheim PD, Huntington Beach PD, Irvine PD, Costa Mesa PD, Newport Beach PD  |  Riverside County: Riverside PD, Riverside County Sheriff  |  San Bernardino County: San Bernardino PD, San Bernardino County Sheriff  |  San Diego County  |  Ventura County  |  Kern County  |  Santa Barbara County

Frequently Asked Questions – Hiring a Local Police Misconduct Attorney

Vindication Is the Goal. Local Knowledge Is the Path.

Police misconduct cases are hard. The law is complex. The defendants are well-funded and well-represented. The officers are trained witnesses who know how to tell a story. The departments have insurance, experienced defense counsel, and institutional incentives to minimize every claim.

In that environment, every advantage matters. And one of the most significant advantages you can have is an attorney who has spent forty years building the specific knowledge of the specific courts, the specific departments, and the specific people on the other side of your case.

A national firm with a website and an 800 number cannot match this. They cannot match the relationships built over forty years. They cannot match the instinctive understanding of how things actually work in Orange County Superior Court versus the Central District Riverside division versus the Santa Ana federal courthouse.

Do not settle for a lawyer who has to read a map to find your courthouse. Vindication is the goal. Local knowledge is the path.

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. Based in Newport Beach, he has practiced in Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, and Ventura counties for four decades. He has appeared before the judges of the Central District of California throughout that period and has negotiated with the same city attorneys for twenty and thirty years. His results include a $6 million structured settlement against the City of Compton, a $2.9 million settlement against the City of Anaheim, a $1.3 million settlement against Riverside County, a $1,010,000 jury verdict against the City of Garden Grove, a $900,000 settlement against the City of Fontana, 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 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

Practice jurisdictions and representative results:

• Los Angeles County: Tualaulelei v. City of Compton ($6M), City of Torrance swastika case ($750K), multiple LAPD and LASD cases  |  steeringlaw.com
• Central District of California – Local Rules and Procedures  |  cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov
• California Government Code Section 911.2 – Six-month government tort claim deadline  |  leginfo.legislature.ca.gov

How Long Do You Have to File a Police Misconduct Claim in California?

Two deadlines apply. First: a government tort claim under California Government Code § 911.2 must be filed with the city, county, or public agency within six months of the incident — before you can sue at all. Miss this and your state law claims are permanently barred. Second: federal civil rights claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 have a two-year statute of limitations under California Code of Civil Procedure § 335.1. The six-month deadline is the one that destroys more cases than any other single factor in California police misconduct litigation.

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

The News I Have Had to Deliver Too Many Times

I have had to deliver heartbreaking news to too many clients: “I believe you were wronged, but we cannot file your case because the deadline has passed.”

The evidence was there. The injuries were documented. The misconduct was clear. And none of it mattered, because the clock ran out before the client called me.

In California, police misconduct claims involve multiple overlapping deadlines — some as short as six months from the date of the incident. Statutes of limitations are not technicalities. They are the firm, unforgiving cutoff after which your right to sue is gone forever, regardless of how strong your evidence, how severe your injuries, or how egregious the misconduct.

I have been litigating police misconduct cases in California courts since 1984 — Los Angeles County, Orange County, Riverside County, San Bernardino County, San Diego County, and beyond. Here is everything you need to know about the deadlines that control your right to sue — and the limited exceptions that may apply.

“The evidence was there. The injuries were documented. The misconduct was clear. None of it mattered because the clock ran out. That is the most preventable tragedy in civil rights law.”

Every Deadline at a Glance — The Complete Reference Table

Before diving into the details, here is the complete reference guide. Bookmark this. Print it. Share it with anyone you know who was recently injured by police.

Claim type	Deadline	When clock starts	Critical notes
Government tort claim (California Gov. Code § 911.2)	6 months	Date of incident	MANDATORY before suing any California city, county, or public entity. Miss this and your state law claims are barred forever — regardless of how strong the case is.
Filing suit after claim denial (California Gov. Code § 945.6)	6 months	Date rejection notice is mailed	After your government tort claim is denied, you have 6 months from the date the rejection is mailed — not received — to file your lawsuit.
Filing suit if entity fails to respond (California Gov. Code § 945.6)	2 years	Date of incident	If the public entity never sends a written denial, you have 2 years from the accrual of the cause of action to file suit.
Federal § 1983 civil rights claim (Cal. CCP § 335.1 / Wilson v. Garcia)	2 years	Date claim accrues (usually date of incident)	Federal civil rights claims use California’s personal injury statute of limitations. Clock starts when you knew or should have known of the injury.
California state personal injury claims (Cal. CCP § 335.1)	2 years	Date of incident	Applies to assault, battery, negligence, false imprisonment claims — but only after complying with the Government Claims Act for public entity defendants.
Bivens claims (federal officers) (Cal. CCP § 335.1 applied by analogy)	2 years	Date claim accrues	Claims against federal agents (FBI, Border Patrol, DEA) — no government claim requirement, but Bivens itself is increasingly limited post-Egbert v. Boule (2022).
Wrongful death (Cal. CCP § 335.1 / Gov. Code § 911.2)	2 years / 6 mo.	Date of death	The 2-year SOL runs from the date of death for the survival action. The 6-month government tort claim still applies to any public entity defendants.

The most important row in the table: the six-month government tort claim deadline. It is shorter than almost every other deadline in civil litigation. It is mandatory before suing any California city, county, or public agency. And it runs from the date of the incident — not the date you decide to pursue a case.

The Six-Month Government Tort Claim — The Deadline That Ends More Cases Than Any Other

Under the California Government Claims Act — California Government Code § 900 et seq. — anyone seeking to sue a California public entity (city, county, police department, public agency) or a public employee acting within the scope of employment must first file an administrative government tort claim with that entity. This requirement is mandatory. There is no way around it. Under California Government Code § 911.2, the deadline to file this claim is six months from the date of the incident.

The Six-Month Government Tort Claim Deadline Six months from the date of the incident. Not six months from when you feel better. Not six months from when your criminal case resolves. Not six months from when you decide you want to sue. Six months from the day it happened.   This deadline applies to claims against cities, counties, police departments, sheriffs, and individual officers acting within the scope of their employment.   If you miss this deadline, your state law claims are barred permanently. No exceptions for ignorance of the deadline. No judicial discretion to waive it. No equitable relief except in the narrowest circumstances. 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 one.   Call a civil rights attorney immediately — not when you feel ready, not after the criminal case, not after you have figured out what you want to do. Now.

The Government Claims Act Process — Step by Step

Here is exactly how the process works after an incident:

• You file the government tort claim with the relevant public entity — the city, county, or agency — within six months of the incident. The claim must describe the incident, the nature of the claim, the damages sought, and your contact information.
• The public entity has 45 days to respond. They can grant the claim (rare), deny it (common), or allow it to sit without action.
• If denied, you have six months from the mailing of the rejection notice to file your lawsuit in court. Under California Government Code § 945.6, the clock runs from the date the notice is deposited in the mail — not the date you receive it. California courts have charged claimants with knowledge of this rule.
• If the entity never responds and sends no written denial, you have two years from the accrual of the cause of action to file suit under Government Code § 945.6.

The January 15 Example — Walking Through the Timeline

Let me make this concrete with a typical scenario I see in my practice:

A Real Deadline Timeline January 15: You are subjected to excessive force during a traffic stop in Los Angeles County. July 14: Six-month government tort claim deadline. If you have not filed your claim by today, your state law claims are barred. July 1: You filed your claim on July 1 — two weeks before the deadline. Smart. July 1 + 45 days = August 15: The county must respond by this date. If it denies your claim and mails you a rejection notice on August 15… February 15 (6 months from August 15): Deadline to file your lawsuit in court. Miss this and your state law claims are gone. January 15 (2 years from incident): Federal § 1983 deadline — but only if you complied with the government tort claim requirement for the state law claims.   The danger zone: Many people confuse the two-year § 1983 deadline with the total time they have. They assume they have two years for everything. They do not. The six-month government tort claim is the threshold you must cross before the two-year period even becomes relevant.

Federal § 1983 Claims — Two Years, But With Important Caveats

For claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, California applies its two-year personal injury statute of limitations under California Code of Civil Procedure § 335.1, as established by Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261 (1985). This two-year period applies to:

• Excessive force — police brutality, unjustified shootings, tasings, use of restraints
• False arrest and wrongful detention without probable cause or reasonable suspicion
• Illegal searches and seizures without warrant, probable cause, or valid consent
• First Amendment retaliation — arrests for recording police, criticizing officers, or exercising protected speech
• Malicious prosecution — criminal charges filed without probable cause and resolved in your favor

When does the two-year clock start? Federal law determines when a § 1983 claim accrues. The general rule: the claim accrues when the plaintiff knows, or through reasonable diligence should know, of the injury that forms the basis of the action. For most police misconduct incidents, the accrual date is the date of the incident itself — because the injury is immediate and obvious.

The key caveat: the two-year federal deadline and the six-month state government tort claim deadline are not alternatives. They run simultaneously. You can be within your two-year window for the federal claim and still be permanently barred from state law claims because you missed the six-month government tort deadline. Both must be managed.

When Criminal Charges Are Pending — The Heck Complication

Many people who contact my office after a police misconduct incident are also facing criminal charges arising from the same incident — typically PC 148(a)(1) or PC 69 resistance charges. This creates the Heck v. Humphrey complication I have discussed in previous articles.

Under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), a § 1983 civil rights claim is barred if it would necessarily imply the invalidity of a prior criminal conviction. A conviction for resisting the arrest you are claiming was unlawful can bar the civil rights claim. This has direct implications for timing:

What Heck Means for Your Deadline Strategy The criminal case does not pause the clock. The statute of limitations continues to run while criminal charges are pending. You cannot simply wait for the criminal case to resolve before thinking about the civil case. By the time a criminal case goes to trial, you may have missed the six-month government tort claim deadline entirely.   A conviction closes the door. If you are convicted or take a plea to a resistance charge, the Heck bar may permanently preclude the civil rights lawsuit — regardless of how much time remains on the statute of limitations.   The right strategy: consult a civil rights attorney immediately after the incident — before you make any decisions about the criminal case and before the six-month deadline runs. The criminal defense strategy and the civil rights strategy must be coordinated from the beginning.   See my articles on the Contempt of Cop mechanism and the resistance charge trap for the full analysis.

Exceptions and Tolling — The Limited Circumstances When the Clock Pauses

The deadlines are strict. The exceptions are narrow. I want to be direct about this because I have watched too many clients lose cases they thought would be saved by tolling. Here is an honest assessment of each exception.

Tolling ground	When it applies	What you actually need to know
Delayed discovery (discovery rule)	The injury or its cause was not reasonably discoverable at the time of the incident	Narrowly applied. Courts require that both the injury and its connection to the defendant were not discoverable through reasonable diligence. Psychological trauma may qualify; physical injuries from a beating almost never do.
Minority (plaintiff was under 18)	The plaintiff was a minor at the time the cause of action accrued	For federal § 1983 claims, the statute is tolled until the plaintiff turns 18. However, the six-month government tort claim deadline may still apply — minors are not automatically exempt from the Government Claims Act.
Imprisonment tolling (CCP § 352.1)	The plaintiff was imprisoned on a criminal charge when the cause of action accrued	Tolls the federal § 1983 statute for up to 2 additional years. Ends on release. Death ends tolling entirely. Does not toll the government tort claim deadline.
Continuing violation doctrine	The misconduct constitutes a continuing pattern of violations rather than a single discrete act	Can extend the limitations period to the last act in the pattern. Requires showing that each act is part of a unified course of unlawful conduct — not just similar separate incidents. Rarely applies to single-incident use-of-force cases.
Equitable tolling	Plaintiff pursued a different remedy in good faith and defendant had notice of the claim	Requires three elements: timely notice to defendant, no prejudice to defendant, and reasonable good-faith conduct by plaintiff. California courts apply this narrowly. Do not count on equitable tolling to save a missed deadline — I have seen it fail in cases where clients assumed it would apply.
Defective rejection notice (Gov. Code § 912.7)	Public entity failed to include required warning about the lawsuit filing deadline in its rejection notice	If the rejection notice omits the mandatory 6-month warning, the claimant may be entitled to the 2-year period from accrual instead of 6 months from rejection. Chalmers v. County of Los Angeles (1985).

My frank assessment of equitable tolling: In forty years of California civil rights litigation, I have seen equitable tolling argued successfully in a small fraction of the cases where clients hoped it would apply. California courts are consistent: equitable tolling is not a safety net for missed deadlines. It requires specific, limited circumstances — and even then, it is litigated against defendants who have every incentive to challenge it. Do not structure your case around the assumption that equitable tolling will save you. File the government tort claim. File it early. File it correctly.

Federal Officers — Bivens Claims and Their Growing Limitations

If your claim involves a federal law enforcement officer — FBI, DEA, Border Patrol, TSA, federal marshals, or other federal agents — the claim cannot be brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which applies only to state and local actors. Instead, federal officer claims are brought under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), the Supreme Court’s judge-made analog to § 1983.

For Bivens claims in California, the two-year personal injury statute of limitations under California CCP § 335.1 applies by analogy. There is no government tort claim requirement for federal defendants — the California Government Claims Act applies only to California public entities.

The Critical 2022 Update — Egbert v. Boule In Egbert v. Boule, 596 U.S. 482 (2022), the Supreme Court significantly restricted the availability of Bivens claims, holding that courts should not recognize new categories of Bivens actions unless the case is virtually identical to one of the three original Bivens contexts.   The practical effect: excessive force claims against federal officers may still proceed under the original Bivens context (Fourth Amendment unreasonable seizure), but claims in novel contexts — new constitutional rights, new types of conduct, new agency contexts — face serious obstacles.   If your misconduct involved federal agents rather than state or local police, the viability of a Bivens claim depends heavily on how closely the facts match prior recognized Bivens contexts. This requires analysis by an attorney with federal civil rights litigation experience.

Why Waiting Is Dangerous Even Within the Deadline Window

Having two years for the federal claim does not mean waiting two years is safe. Even within the deadline window, delay costs cases. I cover the complete evidence preservation framework in ourstep-by-step guide to what to do immediately after police misconduct. The deadline-specific reasons not to wait:

• Body camera and dashcam footage is overwritten. Depending on department retention policies, footage may be automatically deleted in as little as 30 to 90 days without a preservation hold. A spoliation letter sent on day one protects it. Waiting until month six means it may already be gone.
• Internal investigations do not pause the clock. A pending internal affairs investigation does not toll the statute of limitations. The clock runs regardless of whether IA, a civilian review board, or a criminal investigation is ongoing. Waiting for those processes to conclude before consulting an attorney is a common and costly mistake.
• Witnesses forget — and leave. The bystander who had the clearest view and was willing to talk on day one may be difficult to locate and reluctant to testify six months later. Witness statements taken early are more credible and more useful than recollections reconstructed later.
• The department is already building its defense. From the moment of the incident, the police department’s legal machinery is in motion — interviewing officers, reviewing footage, drafting reports. The sooner you have legal representation, the sooner someone is working on your side of the case.

Has the Clock Already Started Running on Your Case? (949) 474-1849 — Available 24 Hours a Day Free Case Evaluation — No Fee Unless We Recover jerry@steeringlaw.com  |  steeringlaw.com/free-case-evaluation Law Offices of Jerry L. Steering  |  4063 Birch Street, Suite 100  |  Newport Beach, CA 92660 Suing the Police in Southern California Since 1984

What to Do Right Now — The Specific Actions With the Specific Deadlines

If you believe you were a victim of police misconduct in California, here is what to do, in sequence, with the deadlines attached:

• Call a civil rights attorney today. Not after your criminal case. Not after you decide whether you want to sue. Today. An attorney can advise you on the interplay between the criminal charges and the civil deadline, send a spoliation letter immediately, and file or prepare your government tort claim.
• Document everything before the day is out. Photographs of injuries (now and again in 24-48 hours as bruising develops), officer names and badge numbers, exact words spoken, witness contact information, nearby security cameras. See our complete evidence guide at steeringlaw.com.
• Mark the six-month deadline on your calendar right now. Count forward six months from the date of the incident. That is the absolute outer limit for filing your government tort claim. Your attorney should file it well before that date, but you need to know what the deadline is.
• Do not give a statement to Internal Affairs without your attorney. IA investigators work for the department. An IA interview does not pause any deadline and can be used against you in the civil case.
• Do not accept any criminal plea without consulting your civil rights attorney. A guilty plea to a resistance charge can close the door on the civil rights case permanently under the Heck doctrine. The criminal and civil cases must be strategized together.

Results in Cases Where the Deadline Was Met

The cases that resulted in significant recoveries for my clients all shared one thing: someone called in time.

• $2.9 million settlement, City of Anaheim — police shooting case. Government tort claim filed on time. Federal and state claims both preserved.
• $1.3 million settlement, Riverside County — excessive force and malicious prosecution. Early action allowed us to secure evidence before it was overwritten.
• $800,000 jury verdict, City of Garden Grove — false arrest. Government claim filed within weeks of the incident.
• $450,000 settlement, Riverside County — false arrest, bystander detained during warrant execution. Six-month claim filed while facts were still fully documented.
• $360,000 settlement, City of Newport Beach — false arrest. Evidence preserved through immediate spoliation letter.

Every one of these cases could have been lost on the deadline alone. None were — because the clients came to us in time. See.

Serving Southern California — Every County, Every Deadline

My firm handles police misconduct cases — and navigates these deadlines — throughout Southern California: Los Angeles County, Orange County, Riverside County, San Bernardino County, San Diego County, Ventura County, Kern County, and Santa Barbara County.

Every public entity in California is subject to the Government Claims Act. Every case has a six-month deadline. Every missed deadline is permanent. If you are in Southern California and believe you have a police misconduct claim, call us today — not tomorrow, not after you think about it. Today.

Frequently Asked Questions — Police Misconduct Deadlines in California

The Moment You Are Free, the Clock Starts Ticking

Time is not on your side in California police misconduct cases. Between the six-month government tort claim requirement and the two-year federal statute of limitations, the window for seeking justice is shorter than most people realize — and more unforgiving than almost any other area of civil litigation.

Do not assume you have plenty of time. Do not wait for an internal investigation to conclude. Do not wait until your criminal case is resolved to learn your rights. Do not wait until you have made up your mind about whether you want to sue.

The moment you are free, the clock starts ticking. Call.

Fight back. Vindication is the goal.

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. His practice covers excessive force, false arrest, malicious prosecution, unlawful detention, and civil rights violations — both the criminal defense of the charges that accompany these incidents and the § 1983 civil rights lawsuits against the officers and municipalities responsible. 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, a $1.3 million settlement against Riverside County, an $800,000 jury verdict against the City of Garden Grove, a $450,000 recovery for a Riverside County false arrest, and a $360,000 settlement against the City of Newport Beach. 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 Government Code § 911.2 — Six-month government tort claim deadline  |  leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
• California Government Code § 945.6 — Lawsuit filing deadline after government claim rejection  |  leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
• California Code of Civil Procedure § 335.1 — Two-year personal injury statute of limitations  |  leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
• 42 U.S.C. § 1983 — Federal civil rights statute  |  law.cornell.edu
• California Code of Civil Procedure § 352.1 — Tolling for imprisonment  |  leginfo.legislature.ca.gov

What Is the Difference Between False Arrest and Unlawful Detention in California?

A detention (Terry stop) requires only reasonable suspicion — specific, articulable facts suggesting criminal activity. An arrest requires the higher standard of probable cause — facts sufficient for a reasonable person to believe a crime was committed and this specific person committed it. Both are Fourth Amendment seizures. Both can give rise to civil rights claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The distinction determines which standard the officer needed to meet — and therefore which standard they failed to meet when your rights were violated.  

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

“Arrest” and “Detention” Are Not the Same Thing — and the Difference Matters Enormously

When clients come to my office after a police encounter that went wrong, they almost always use the words “arrested” and “detained” interchangeably. They tell me they were “arrested” when an officer held them on a sidewalk for twenty minutes. They tell me they were “just detained” when they were handcuffed and placed in a patrol car for an hour.

These distinctions are not semantic. Whether you were detained or arrested determines what constitutional standard the officer needed to satisfy to act lawfully. It determines which rights were triggered and which were violated. And it shapes the civil rights claims available to you in court.

In forty years of suing police in California, I have handled hundreds of false arrest and unlawful detention cases. The fundamental question in every one of them is the same: did the officer have what the law required to do what they did?

“The officer’s report will call it a lawful stop. The question my office asks is whether the law actually gave them the right to do it — because in a lot of these cases, it did not.”

The Fourth Amendment Framework — Two Levels of Seizure, Two Different Standards

Both false arrest and unlawful detention are “seizures” under the Fourth Amendment. The Supreme Court has held that a person is seized when, under the totality of the circumstances, a reasonable person would not feel free to leave or to decline the officer’s requests —Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429 (1991). But the Fourth Amendment recognizes that not all seizures are equal.

There are two levels of seizure — each requiring a different level of legal justification:

Level 1: Detention — Reasonable Suspicion

A brief investigatory stop — called a Terry stop after Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) — is constitutionally permissible if the officer has specific, articulable facts that would lead a reasonable person to suspect criminal activity is afoot. This is the lower standard. But it is not nothing. It is not a hunch. It is not an intuition. It is not based on race, a high-crime neighborhood, or a gut feeling. The facts must be specific and articulable — the officer must be able to explain them.

Level 2: Arrest — Probable Cause

An arrest requires probable cause — a significantly higher standard. Probable cause exists when the totality of the circumstances would lead a reasonable person to believe that a crime has been or is being committed and that the person to be arrested committed it. An arrest based on something less than probable cause is a Fourth Amendment violation — a false arrest — regardless of what the officer’s report says happened.

	Detention (Terry Stop)	Arrest
Legal standard required	Reasonable suspicion — specific, articulable facts suggesting criminal activity	Probable cause — facts sufficient for a reasonable person to believe a crime was committed and this person committed it
Purpose	Brief investigatory stop; officer is investigating, not detaining to charge	Custodial; officer is taking the person into custody to be charged with a crime
Duration	Limited to the time reasonably necessary to address the original purpose of the stop	Until booking, bail hearing, arraignment, or release — can last hours or days
Physical restraint	Minimal; handcuffing or placement in a patrol car may convert a detention to an arrest	Full physical restraint authorized; handcuffing, transport to station, booking
Freedom to leave	Not free to leave temporarily, but the detention must end when the purpose is complete	Not free to leave at all until legally released through bail, ROR, or dismissal
Your right to refuse	You may decline to answer questions beyond identifying yourself in limited circumstances	You have the right to remain silent; invoke it immediately and clearly
Civil rights remedy	§ 1983 Fourth Amendment claim for unlawful seizure — lower threshold to prove	§ 1983 Fourth Amendment claim for false arrest — must show absence of probable cause

The table above makes the stakes clear: the difference between a detention and an arrest is not just legal terminology. It is the difference between a standard that is relatively easy to meet and one that requires genuine evidentiary justification. When an officer escalates from a stop to an arrest — by handcuffing you, placing you in a patrol car, or taking you to the station — without crossing that evidentiary threshold, they have committed a constitutional violation.

When a Detention Becomes Unlawful — Three Ways a Terry Stop Goes Wrong

A lawful Terry stop can cross into constitutional violation in three ways. Each creates its own civil rights claim.

1. No Reasonable Suspicion From the Start

If the officer stopped you without specific, articulable facts suggesting criminal activity, the detention was unlawful from the moment it began. The following — individually or in combination — do not constitute reasonable suspicion under established Fourth Amendment case law:

What does NOT constitute reasonable suspicion	Why courts reject it
Being in a high-crime area	Presence in a neighborhood with high crime rates does not give officers the right to stop everyone in that area. Illinois v. Wardlow (2000) held that flight from officers in a high-crime area contributes to reasonable suspicion — but mere presence does not.
Appearing nervous around police	Nervousness in the presence of police is not reasonable suspicion. Almost everyone is nervous when a police officer approaches them. Courts have consistently rejected nervousness alone as a justification for a Terry stop.
“Blading” or avoiding eye contact	Turning your body away from officers or avoiding eye contact is not suspicious behavior. Attempting to walk away from police — unless you are already lawfully detained — is generally not grounds for a stop.
Race or ethnicity alone	Race cannot be the basis for a stop. It can only be considered as part of a specific suspect description — and even then, only when it is part of a detailed, particularized description rather than a general racial category.
Gut feeling or intuition	An officer’s hunch — however experienced the officer — is not a substitute for specific, articulable facts. The Supreme Court is clear in Terry v. Ohio: the facts must be articulable, not merely intuited.
Prior criminal history	A person’s prior criminal record alone does not constitute reasonable suspicion to stop them on the street. Prior record can be a factor in a totality analysis, but it cannot substitute for present, specific suspicious conduct.

The question I always ask when evaluating a detention case is simple: what specific conduct did the officer observe that would justify stopping this person, at this moment, in these circumstances? If the answer is “they were in the area” or “they seemed nervous” or “the officer had a feeling” — the detention was unlawful.

2. Prolonging the Stop Beyond Its Purpose

Even if a stop begins lawfully, it becomes an unlawful detention when it lasts longer than necessary to address the original reason for the stop. The Supreme Court addressed this in Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348 (2015): the authority for a traffic stop ends when the tasks tied to the traffic infraction are completed. The moment the original purpose of the stop is fulfilled — the license checked, the citation written, the record run — the detention must end unless new, independent reasonable suspicion has developed.

Officers frequently exploit this rule by extending a stop on pretextual grounds — asking unrelated questions, calling for a drug dog, waiting for backup — to extend the time available to find something incriminating. An unlawfully prolonged detention is a Fourth Amendment violation even if the original stop was lawful.

3. Converting a Detention to an Arrest Without Probable Cause

When an officer handcuffs a detained person, places them in a patrol car, or restricts their movement to a degree indistinguishable from custody, the encounter may have crossed the line from a Terry stop into a de facto arrest — requiring probable cause that the officer did not have.

California courts evaluate whether a detention became a de facto arrest based on the totality of the circumstances: the duration of the restraint, the degree of force used, the number of officers present, and whether the restrictions on movement exceeded what a brief investigatory stop requires. Officers who handcuff a person “for safety” without the justification required for an arrest are committing a constitutional violation.

What Makes an Arrest False — The Probable Cause Requirement

A false arrest occurs when a law enforcement officer takes someone into custody without probable cause. Under California law, false arrest is actionable under California Penal Code § 236 (false imprisonment) and as a civil rights violation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. I have written about the false arrest claim in more detail at steeringlaw.com.

The key legal principle: the probable cause analysis is made at the moment of arrest — based on what the officer knew at that moment, not what was discovered afterward. An arrest made without probable cause does not become lawful because the officer later found evidence of a crime. And an arrest made with probable cause does not become unlawful because the charges were later dismissed. Whether the arrest was lawful is determined at the moment of arrest, full stop.

What About Dismissed Charges?

One of the most common misconceptions I encounter: “The charges were dismissed, so I was falsely arrested.”   Not necessarily. Charges can be dismissed for many reasons — insufficient evidence at trial, plea agreements in other cases, prosecutorial discretion — that have nothing to do with whether probable cause existed at the time of arrest.   The question is not what happened to the charges. The question is what the officer knew at the moment of arrest — and whether that knowledge was sufficient to establish probable cause. A dismissal creates an inference worth investigating. It does not automatically establish a false arrest claim.   What does establish a false arrest claim: evidence that the officer lacked probable cause at the moment of arrest — regardless of what happened to the charges afterward.

Where False Arrests Happen — The Most Common Scenarios in My Practice

CONTEMPT OF COP

Arrests Made to Punish Protected Conduct

This is the most common false arrest scenario I see, and the one most closely connected to the rest of my practice. An officer stops someone — or the person questions why they are being stopped. The person asserts their rights: they decline a search, they ask why they are being detained, they record the encounter, they express displeasure in the officer’s direction. The officer arrests them for PC 148(a)(1) (resisting, delaying, or obstructing) or PC 69 (resisting with force). The arrest has nothing to do with a crime. It has everything to do with an officer whose ego was bruised. See our dedicated Contempt of Cop article for the full breakdown of this pattern.

The critical connection to civil litigation: these arrests almost always come with resistance charges. A guilty plea to that charge — even a misdemeanor, even to make it go away — can permanently bar the civil rights lawsuit under the Heck v. Humphrey doctrine. Do not accept any plea in a Contempt of Cop arrest without first understanding the civil consequences.

TRAFFIC STOPS

Minor Infractions That Escalate Without Cause

Traffic stops are detentions, not arrests. The officer stops you for a Vehicle Code violation, checks your license and registration, and either issues a citation or releases you. That is the legal limit of a traffic stop.

What makes a traffic stop unlawful: prolonging it beyond its purpose without new independent suspicion; using it as a pretext to investigate unrelated matters; converting it to an arrest without probable cause for a criminal offense. I have handled cases where someone was arrested for a serious crime after a traffic stop for a broken taillight — and the only “evidence” supporting the arrest was the officer’s subjective belief that the driver was nervous.

Nervous is not probable cause. Nervous is not reasonable suspicion for a prolonged stop. And nervous is not grounds to convert a traffic stop into an arrest.

DOMESTIC CALLS

Wrong Person Arrested at a Domestic Disturbance

Domestic disturbance calls are particularly prone to false arrests because officers arrive at a chaotic scene with incomplete information and a legal framework that in some circumstances encourages arrest. California law requires law enforcement agencies to develop policies encouraging arrest when probable cause exists — California Penal Code § 13701. But officers must make reasonable efforts to identify the dominant aggressor and consider factors like who was acting in self-defense and any history of abuse in the relationship.

In practice, officers frequently arrest the wrong person — often because they arrive to find one party more visibly upset, or because they accept the first account they hear, or because they want to remove someone from the scene quickly. The person who called the police ends up in handcuffs. The actual aggressor goes home. These cases make strong false arrest claims.

MISTAKEN IDENTITY

Arrested for Someone Else’s Warrant or Crime

Mistaken identity arrests occur when an officer arrests someone based on a warrant or suspect description that matches another person — without making reasonable efforts to verify the identification. An officer who stops someone who shares a name and general description with a wanted individual and arrests them without verification has made a Fourth Amendment violation.

These cases are particularly significant when the error is systematic — when a department has a pattern of acting on incomplete warrant information, or of failing to verify identity before making arrests. In those situations, a Monell claim against the department may be available in addition to the individual officer claim.

STOP-AND-FRISK

Searches and Seizures Beyond What the Law Allows

During a lawful Terry stop, officers may conduct a pat-down frisk only if they have a reasonable belief that the subject is armed and dangerous —Terry v. Ohio. The frisk is strictly limited to the outer clothing for weapons. Officers cannot reach into pockets, manipulate items felt in clothing, or conduct a general search. These limitations are frequently violated.

When an officer conducts a full search of a person or vehicle without probable cause — using the pretextual justification of a Terry stop — both the search and any resulting arrest may be constitutional violations. Evidence obtained through an illegal search can be suppressed in the criminal case, and the unlawful detention itself gives rise to a civil rights claim.

The Guilty Plea Trap — How a Criminal Plea Can Destroy Your Civil Case

This section deserves its own space because it is the most common, most preventable mistake I see victims of false arrest make.

When you are falsely arrested, the officer almost always charges you with a resistance offense — PC 148(a)(1) or PC 69 — in addition to whatever pretextual charge justified the stop. These resistance charges serve two purposes: they justify the force and the arrest in the criminal proceeding, and — if you are convicted or take a plea — they may bar your civil rights lawsuit under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994).

The Heck doctrine bars § 1983 civil claims that would necessarily imply the invalidity of a prior criminal conviction. If you plead guilty to resisting the arrest, that plea can be used to argue the arrest was lawful — which is the foundation of your false arrest civil claim.

Do Not Accept a Plea Without Consulting a Civil Rights Attorney Every disposition of a resistance charge — guilty plea, plea to a lesser offense, diversion program — has potential Heck consequences for your civil rights lawsuit.   “Just making it go away” with a misdemeanor plea can make the civil case go away too — permanently. The criminal defense and the civil rights case must be evaluated together from the beginning. My firm handles both simultaneously — the criminal defense designed to protect the civil case, and the civil case built on the facts that emerge in the criminal defense.   Do not make any decisions about your criminal case without first understanding the civil consequences. Contact us for a free case evaluation.

Your Legal Remedies — What You Can Sue For

Federal Civil Rights Claims — 42 U.S.C. § 1983

The primary vehicle for false arrest and unlawful detention claims is 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which allows individuals to sue government officials — including police officers — for violating their constitutional rights under color of law. I have written a detailed breakdown of § 1983 claims atsteeringlaw.com. These claims are filed in United States District Court and can include claims against both individual officers and, under Monell v. Department of Social Services (1978), against the city or county when a policy, custom, or failure to train caused the violation.

California State Law Claims

California Penal Code § 236 defines false imprisonment as the unlawful violation of personal liberty. California tort claims for false arrest and false imprisonment can be filed in state court and may provide remedies beyond what federal § 1983 claims offer in some circumstances. Both federal and state claims can often be pursued simultaneously.

What You Can Recover

Type	What it covers
Economic damages	Medical bills, lost wages, bail costs, property damage, legal expenses directly caused by the unlawful detention or arrest
Non-economic damages	Pain and suffering, emotional distress, humiliation, loss of liberty, damage to reputation — these are often the most significant damages in false arrest cases where physical injuries are limited
Punitive damages	Available against individual officers when their conduct was malicious or recklessly indifferent to your constitutional rights — not available against municipalities, but may be substantial against individual defendants
Attorneys’ fees (42 U.S.C. § 1988)	A prevailing plaintiff in a § 1983 case can require the defendant to pay their attorneys’ fees. This is what makes civil rights litigation economically viable regardless of your resources.

Our firm obtained a $450,000 recovery for a client falsely arrested by Riverside County deputies who lacked probable cause. We have obtained significant settlements and verdicts for false arrest victims throughout Southern California — Los Angeles County, Orange County, Riverside County, San Bernardino County, San Diego County, and beyond. See.

The Six-Month Government Claim Deadline — The Deadline That Ends More Cases Than Any Defense Before filing a civil lawsuit against a California city, county, or other government entity for false arrest or unlawful detention, you must file a government tort claim under California Government Code § 911.2. This claim is typically due within six months of the incident.   Miss this deadline and you lose the right to sue — permanently. No exceptions. No judicial discretion. The six-month clock starts on the day of the incident — not the day your criminal case resolves, not the day you decide to pursue it, not the day you find an attorney.   Federal § 1983 claims have a two-year statute of limitations under California Code of Civil Procedure § 335.1. But the government tort claim requirement for state and local entities is the deadline that most often destroys otherwise viable cases.   Contact a civil rights attorney immediately. Not after the criminal case. Now.

Falsely Arrested or Unlawfully Detained in Southern California? (949) 474-1849 — Available 24 Hours a Day Free Case Evaluation — No Fee Unless We Recover jerry@steeringlaw.com  |  steeringlaw.com/free-case-evaluation Law Offices of Jerry L. Steering  |  4063 Birch Street, Suite 100  |  Newport Beach, CA 92660 Suing the Police in Southern California Since 1984

What to Do Immediately After a False Arrest or Unlawful Detention

The steps are the same as for any police misconduct situation, but they carry specific urgency because evidence disappears fast. See our complete for the full framework. Here are the most critical immediate actions:

• Write everything down within hours — not days. Officer names, badge numbers, exact words used, the sequence of events, the location, the time. Memory degrades fast. What you cannot recall at deposition is what opposing counsel exploits.
• Photograph every injury immediately. Then again at 24 hours and 48 hours. This includes any marks from handcuffs, bruises, or any physical contact.
• Secure witness contact information and nearby security footage. Business security cameras, Ring doorbells, and bystander cell phone video are overwritten on automated schedules — often within 24 to 72 hours. Move immediately.
• Save every document. Citations, release papers, bail receipts, court documents, any paperwork from booking. Every piece of paper is evidence.
• Do not give a statement to Internal Affairs or investigators without your attorney. IA investigators work for the department that arrested you. Anything you say can and will be used against you in your criminal case and to defeat your civil claim.
• Do not post about the incident on social media. Everything you say publicly becomes evidence. Contradictions between your social media posts and your sworn testimony will be used against you at trial.
• Do not accept any plea without consulting a civil rights attorney. The Heck doctrine is real, and a misdemeanor plea today can close the door on a significant civil rights claim permanently.

Where We Handle False Arrest and Unlawful Detention Cases

My firm handles false arrest and unlawful detention 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.

In forty years of practice in these courts, I have seen the same false arrest patterns play out in department after department. The resistance charge on top of the pretextual stop. The domestic disturbance arrest of the wrong party. The traffic stop extended to a fishing expedition. The Contempt of Cop arrest for daring to assert a constitutional right. I know these cases. I know how to build them and how to win them. See.

Frequently Asked Questions — False Arrest and Unlawful Detention in California

Your Freedom Was Taken Without Legal Cause. That Has Consequences — For the Officers and the Department.

When a police officer arrests you without probable cause, or detains you without reasonable suspicion, they have violated the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. That is not a legal technicality. That is the foundation of American civil liberty — the right to be free from government seizure without legal justification.

In forty years of civil rights litigation in Southern California, I have sued cities, counties, sheriffs, police chiefs, and the United States government for these violations. The law gives you real remedies — compensatory damages, punitive damages against individual officers, and attorneys’ fees from the defendant under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.

But you must act quickly. The six-month deadline runs from the day it happened. The evidence disappears daily. The decision you make about the criminal case today can determine whether the civil case exists tomorrow.

Fight back. Vindication is the goal.

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. His practice covers false arrest, unlawful detention, excessive force, malicious prosecution, and civil rights violations — both the criminal defense of the resistance charges that accompany these arrests and the § 1983 civil rights lawsuits against the officers and departments responsible. He has litigated these 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 $450,000 recovery for a Riverside County false arrest, a $2.9 million settlement against the City of Anaheim, and an $800,000 jury verdict against Garden Grove. 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:

• 42 U.S.C. § 1983 — Federal civil rights statute  |  law.cornell.edu
• 42 U.S.C. § 1988 — Attorneys’ fees in civil rights cases  |  law.cornell.edu
• California Penal Code § 236 — False imprisonment  |  leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
• California Penal Code § 13701 — Law enforcement response to domestic violence calls  |  leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
• California Government Code § 911.2 — Government tort claim deadline  |  leginfo.legislature.ca.gov