Officer misconduct can have many different colors and it’s important to know the different ways it can look. Among more common officer misconduct are unlawful search and seizure, brutal force in arrests, and racial profiling. Unlawful Detention is just one violation of civil rights by an officer and you should know what it is before pursuing a claim.
It’s important to understand the term detention before learning about the laws surrounding it. When you are detained by an officer, it means they have “seized” or kept you physically in a location. In order for it to be legal, the officer must have reasonable suspicions of criminal activity on your part. It is different from an arrest because they typically do not read your Miranda rights or put cuffs on you and escort you. You are not technically in the custody of the police department when you are held in detention.
Of course, not all police encounters are detentions, some are quick encounters such as traffic checkpoints and frisks. The detention type of encounter should only follow if the officer suspects criminal activity after the initial encounter. If the case continues to court, the officer will need to justify each of his actions leading towards an arrest.
The majority of the time, detentions are lawful, but there are occasions when they are unlawful. They are unlawful because they break the Fourth Amendment rights of an individual. Some instances of unlawful detention include:
There are other ways in which detention by an officer can be unlawful, but these are the most common instances.
There are certain time limitations on detentions. Although it is not written in the law, officers know there are expectations that they must abide by when detaining individuals. Depending on the reason or circumstance of detention, the time allotted for the officer to hold the individual will increase or decrease. If it is a matter of how cooperative and how many questions it takes to reach a substantial conclusion of suspicion or non-suspicion.
If you discover you could potentially be a victim of officer misconduct via unlawful detention, there are ways to act. The first step is to have a great attorney like those at H Law Group on your side. A well-read attorney will guide you to a conclusion on whether you have a strong case and how to execute it.
When you charge an officer of misconduct, you can use either a Biven’s Lawsuit or Section 1983 Claim. Each has its different uses, one is used against a federal offense while the other is a lawsuit to obtain reimbursement for any monetary damages.
If you find yourself a victim of unlawful detention, which is a type of police misconduct, you can file a Biven’s Claim. It is a lawsuit that allows victims to fight for monetary damages incurred by misconduct by federal officers. It is a tool through which victims can be compensated for any loss of income or damages that were a result of misconduct.
If your civil rights have been violated, you are eligible to file a Section 1983 claim. This can only be used in instances where federal rights are violated. It is a procedure through which individuals can file their charges.
Rest assured, officers will face a myriad of repercussions if found guilty. Over the last year, California Senate Bill No. 2 has stripped officers of formerly protective advantages to make it easier for victims to find justice.
Both kinds of claims cover civil rights violations that occur under the color of law. Life and/or liberty are usually the civil right(s) at issue in these cases. Furthermore, both kinds of claims originate in federal court, at least in most situations. Additionally, the controversial qualified immunity defense is usually available in both kinds of cases.
One big difference between Section 1983 claims and Biven's lawsuits is the identity of the defendant. People may file Bivens claims, which are based on a 1971 Supreme Court case, against certain federal officials, mostly DEA agents and corrections officers. Section 1983 claims, which are based on part of the 1871 Civil Rights Act, are against state or local law enforcement officers, like sheriff’s deputies, and municipal police officers. CHP troopers are in a grey area, but they are probably subject to Bivens claims.
The available remedies are different as well. Section 1983 claimants may obtain injunctions that force police departments and other responsible agencies to alter their policies and show greater respect for civil rights. Bivens claimants are usually entitled to money damages only.
These money damages usually include compensation for economic losses, such as medical bills, and noneconomic losses, such as pain and suffering. A police misconduct lawyer can usually obtain additional punitive damages as well. These damages are available if the defendant recklessly disregarded a known risk. Additionally, presumed damages are almost available in these cases. These damages, which are basically like additional noneconomic damages, compensate victims for the loss of their civil rights.
To obtain money damages and possibly an injunction, a Section 1983 plaintiff must prove that a person, who was acting under the guise of official authority (under color of law), wrongfully deprived the plaintiff of a guaranteed privilege, immunity, or right.
Under the law, a state, a territory, or the United States is not a “person.” However, local governments, like cities and counties, are people.
The Supreme Court has broadly defined “under color of law” to include almost any state action. Therefore, employment alone could establish this element. Police officers moonlighting as security guards are in a grey area.
As for the deprivation, this must involve a constitutional or statutory right. Constitutional rights violations, like Fourth Amendment (searches and seizures) or Fourteenth Amendment (right to life, liberty, and property) infractions, are easier to prove in court. Constitutional provisions automatically establish rights. If the “right” comes from federal law, additional proof is necessary.
As for available remedies, we mentioned monetary compensation above. This compensation helps victims pay medical bills and otherwise move on with their lives. Available injunctions in Section 1983 claims are often rather broad. Some common provisions include:
Usually, a federal judge supervises the police department or other defendant until the judge is satisfied that all parts of the injunction have been fully complied with. This process could take a few weeks or a few decades.
Unlike a Section 1983 claim, a Bivens claim is an implied right of action. Courts only imply rights of action if there is no other remedy available. Most federal laws include punishment provisions, such as fines. If there is no remedy, a Bivens claim might be appropriate.
Nevertheless, judges have broad powers to dismiss these claims. Common grounds for dismissal include injuries sustained during military service or serious national security concerns.
Individual federal officers who deprive people of their civil rights under the color of law are subject to Bivens claims. Many federal agencies, including ICE and the Department of Justice, are immune from Bivens claims. This is because a separate remedy is available, and as mentioned, a Bivens claim is the last resort.
For the same reason, government contractors are usually immune from Bivens claims. These contractors may be sued for negligence, breach of contract, and other such actions.
The de minimis injury defense often looms large in both 1983 and Bivens claims. Victims are ineligible for compensation if their injuries were de minimis. In general, a de minimis injury is anything that requires no medical attention beyond first aid. Examples include:
The eggshell skull rule usually applies here. Defendants take victims as they find them. So, if Officer Jack’s Taser severely burns Michelle because she is anemic, Michelle might be able to file a 1983 or another claim, even though her injury would have otherwise been de minimis.
The controversial qualified immunity defense is available as well. Defendants are not liable if they:
The first part of this defense applies to the facts of the case. Essentially, the victim must prove that the officer’s use of excessive force or other civil rights violation was so over the top that it violated the victim’s rights. The eggshell skull doctrine, which was mentioned above, sometimes applies in these matters as well.
The second element applies to the law in the case. The Supreme Court has never defined what “clearly established” means. Officers often argue that their specific actions were not prohibited by federal law. For example, until very recently, no-knock warrants and chokeholds were completely permissible under federal law. They are still legal in some situations.
Police misconduct adversely affects everyone. For a confidential consultation with an experienced L.A. police misconduct attorney, contact the H Law Group. We routinely handle matters throughout SoCal.
