When Police Cross the Line, You Need Someone Who Will Cross the Courtroom
Excessive force is not a policy disagreement. It is a constitutional violation — a Fourth Amendment breach that leaves real people with shattered bones, traumatic brain injuries, and in the worst cases, empty chairs at the dinner table.
We have taken these cases to trial. We have stood in federal court against cities, police departments, and government entities with unlimited legal budgets. We have won.
If you are a referring attorney with a police misconduct or excessive force case that needs federal civil rights expertise and genuine trial readiness, this is the co-counsel conversation you need to have.
If you or your family were the ones who suffered — this page is for you too. Keep reading.
What Excessive Force Actually Means Under the Law
Every law enforcement officer has legal authority to use force. That authority is not unlimited.
The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires that any use of force be objectively reasonable given the circumstances at the moment of the encounter — not in hindsight, not from the comfort of a conference room, but from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene. When force exceeds that standard, it becomes a constitutional violation.
Excessive force includes:
● Shooting an unarmed individual who posed no immediate threat
● Striking, choking, or beating a person who was already restrained
● Deploying a taser or K-9 on a compliant subject
● Using a prohibited restraint technique that causes positional asphyxia or death
● Continuing to use force after a subject has surrendered
These are not edge cases. They happen in Los Angeles, in Chicago, and in cities across this country. And when they happen, the system rarely holds itself accountable without a fight. We are the fight.
The Institutional Machinery Working Against You
Families who have experienced police excessive force encounter a system designed to protect itself. Understanding what you are up against is the first step toward building a case that can win.
Qualified immunity
is the legal doctrine that shields individual officers from personal liability unless their conduct violated a constitutional right that was "clearly established" at the time — meaning prior court decisions with sufficiently similar facts must exist. This doctrine dismisses legitimate cases before they reach a jury. Defeating it requires deep knowledge of Fourth Amendment case law and the ability to identify controlling precedent.
The blue wall of silence
means witnesses in uniform rarely cooperate. Body camera footage gets "lost." Internal affairs investigations clear officers before the family has retained counsel. Evidence that should exist disappears.
Government notice requirements
impose strict deadlines — as short as 90 days in some jurisdictions — to file a formal claim before any lawsuit can proceed. Miss that window and the case is gone, regardless of how clear the liability.
Powerful police unions
fund experienced defense counsel whose entire practice is built around minimizing accountability. They know the playbook. They count on opposing attorneys who do not.
Three Types of Excessive Force Claims We Litigate
The original page identified three core claim types. Each is preserved and deepened here with legal specificity and VPC framing.
False Arrest
A false arrest claim under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 challenges an officer's seizure of a person without probable cause. The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable seizures — and an arrest made without sufficient factual basis to believe a crime was committed is unreasonable by definition.
This is the most frequently filed excessive force-adjacent claim. It often accompanies malicious prosecution and unlawful search and seizure allegations. Winning requires proving the officer lacked probable cause at the moment of arrest — not what they learned afterward, but what they knew then.
For referring attorneys: false arrest claims are frequently combined with excessive force claims in the same Section 1983 complaint. If your client was arrested without cause and then physically harmed during that arrest, both violations belong in federal court together.Malicious Prosecution
Malicious prosecution under Section 1983 addresses what happens after the unlawful arrest: a criminal proceeding initiated without probable cause, brought with malice, that ultimately terminates in the victim's favor.
To prevail, four elements must be proven: the officer initiated or continued a criminal proceeding; the proceeding ended favorably for the plaintiff; there was no probable cause for the proceeding; and the officer acted with malice — meaning a purpose other than legitimate law enforcement.
These cases are slower and more complex than pure excessive force claims. They require evidence of the officer's state of mind. That evidence often lives in internal communications, prior disciplinary records, and deposition testimony — all of which we pursue aggressively.Unreasonable Use of Force
This is the core Fourth Amendment excessive force claim — the one that covers police shootings, beatings, chokeholds, taser deployments, and every form of physical force that exceeds constitutional limits.
The standard comes from Graham v. Connor (1989): courts evaluate the severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect posed an immediate threat to officers or others, and whether the suspect was actively resisting or attempting to evade arrest. These factors are assessed from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene.
Critically: an officer's bad intentions do not make reasonable force unconstitutional. But unreasonable force is unconstitutional regardless of the officer's intent. The focus is on the act, not the motive.
For victims and families: if a loved one was shot, beaten, or killed by police and you believe the force was unjustified, this is the claim. We investigate, we preserve evidence, and we take these cases to trial when the facts demand it.
How We Build Excessive Force Cases: The Evidence War
Successful civil rights litigation starts the moment we take the case — not months later when the government has had time to manage the narrative.
Immediate evidence preservation.
We send spoliation letters within hours of retention, demanding preservation of body camera footage, dashcam video, jail surveillance recordings, dispatch logs, and all internal communications related to the incident. Government entities have been known to claim footage was "not captured" or "inadvertently deleted." Our preservation demands create legal liability for destruction.
Public records requests.
We file FOIA and California Public Records Act requests for police reports, the involved officers' complete disciplinary histories, internal affairs investigation files, prior complaints against the same officers, and department-wide use-of-force statistics. This evidence reveals patterns — and patterns win cases.
Independent investigation.
We hire private investigators to canvass for civilian witnesses before memories fade. We retain use-of-force experts — former law enforcement officers and police practices specialists — to analyze whether the officer's conduct was objectively reasonable under Graham v. Connor. We obtain independent autopsy reports and medical examinations.
Federal discovery.
Once the Section 1983 complaint is filed in federal district court, discovery compels production of officer personnel files, prior excessive force complaints, training records, and internal communications. Evidence that was withheld before litigation becomes available under oath.
The government counts on families not knowing how to find this evidence. We know exactly where it is and how to get it.
What You Can Recover
Excessive force cases pursue two objectives simultaneously: compensation for the harm done, and accountability that prevents the next family from going through what yours did.
Compensatory damages cover:
● Medical expenses — emergency care, surgeries, rehabilitation, ongoing treatment● Mental health treatment for PTSD, trauma, and grief● Lost wages and future earning capacity● Funeral and burial costs in wrongful death cases● Pain and suffering for the victim and surviving family members
Punitive damages
may be available against individual officers whose conduct was particularly egregious or malicious — sending a message that this conduct will not be absorbed as a cost of doing business.
Injunctive relief
can mandate policy changes within the department: revised use-of-force policies, enhanced de-escalation training, body camera requirements, strengthened civilian oversight. For many families, this is the most meaningful outcome — knowing the fight changed something.
Attorney fees under Section 1983.
Federal civil rights law allows courts to order government defendants to pay your attorney fees separately from your damages award. This means more of the recovery stays with you and your family.
Why This Firm — And Why It Matters
Most attorneys do not take excessive force cases. The reasons are real: qualified immunity is a genuine barrier, the litigation timeline runs two to five years, expert costs routinely exceed $50,000 to $100,000 per case, and the political pressure of suing law enforcement is not comfortable for firms built on volume.
We are not built on volume.
Haytham Faraj spent 22 years in the United States Marine Corps as an infantry officer and JAG Senior Defense Counsel. He defended service members in high-profile war crimes cases before military tribunals — standing against the United States government in federal proceedings when the institutional pressure to capitulate was enormous. He is a faculty member at the Gerry Spence Method at the Trial Lawyers College, where trial advocacy is not a seminar topic but a lived discipline.
That background is not a credential on a wall. It is the reason we go to trial when other firms settle. It is the reason we filed Section 1983 complaints against the City of Los Angeles and won. It is the reason we do not back down when a police union's defense counsel files a motion to dismiss on qualified immunity grounds.
$22.6M verdict against the City of Los Angeles.
A government liability case that required overcoming institutional resistance, aggressive discovery, and federal court litigation. We tried it.
$4.5M wrongful death verdict — police taser case.
A family who lost a loved one to a prohibited use of force. We took it to verdict.
$5M wrongful death verdict — police pursuit case.
Another family. Another trial. Another win.
For referring attorneys:
This is the track record that answers the question you are actually asking. Not whether we know Section 1983 — whether we will actually go to trial when the case demands it. The answer is yes.
For Referring Attorneys: What a Co-Counsel Partnership Looks Like
You have a client with a police misconduct or excessive force case. You know it has value. You also know it requires federal civil rights expertise, qualified immunity navigation, use-of-force expert relationships, and the willingness to spend two to five years in federal litigation before any recovery.
That is why these cases get referred. And that is exactly what we are built for.
Here is what the partnership looks like:
Case review within 24 hours.
You send us the facts. We give you an honest assessment — not a sales pitch.
Transparent co-counsel agreement.
Referral fee structure is clear, documented, and compliant with state bar rules. No surprises.
Your client relationship is protected.
We do not contact your client without your knowledge. You remain counsel of record if desired. All communications copy you. Future legal needs outside this case come back to you.
Regular case updates.
You are not chasing us for information. Significant developments — settlement offers, trial dates, discovery rulings — reach you immediately.
Trial preparation, not settlement pressure.
We prepare every case for trial. If the case settles, it settles because the offer reflects the case's full value — not because we needed to close the file.
If you are reading this after pulling our verdicts and checking our bar records: the referral relationship we are describing is the one we actually deliver.
Frequently Asked Questions
How long do I have to file an excessive force claim in California?
For claims against government entities in California, you must file a Government Tort Claim with the appropriate public entity within six months of the incident. For federal Section 1983 claims, California's two-year personal injury statute of limitations applies. Missing the government tort claim deadline can permanently bar your lawsuit, regardless of how strong the evidence is. Contact us immediately — do not wait.
What if the officer was cleared by internal affairs?
Internal affairs investigations are conducted by the same department being accused. A clearance from internal affairs does not bind a federal court and does not prevent a Section 1983 lawsuit. We have won cases where the officer was cleared internally. The legal standard is different and the evidence we gather is independent.
What if my loved one had a criminal record or was suspected of a crime?
Your constitutional right to be free from excessive force does not depend on your record or the circumstances of the encounter. Even if a person was suspected of a crime — even if they were in the wrong — the force used against them must still be objectively reasonable. We have represented clients and families in cases where the victim had prior convictions. The Fourth Amendment protects everyone.
Can I file a civil rights lawsuit if there is also a criminal case against the officer?
Yes. The criminal prosecution and the civil Section 1983 case are separate proceedings with different standards of proof. A criminal acquittal does not prevent a civil recovery — the civil standard is preponderance of the evidence, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt. We coordinate civil litigation strategy with awareness of parallel criminal proceedings.
How much does it cost to hire you?
We handle excessive force and civil rights cases on a contingency fee basis. You pay nothing unless we recover. Under Section 1983's fee-shifting provisions, courts can also order the government to pay attorney fees separately — meaning more of the recovery stays with your family.
What if I cannot travel to Los Angeles or Chicago for meetings?
We handle cases nationwide and conduct consultations virtually. We have the flexibility to work with clients regardless of location.
The Fight Is Not Over Until You Say It Is
The institution that harmed you has lawyers. It has a union. It has a communications department and a legal budget that does not run out.
You deserve an attorney who has stood in federal court against exactly that kind of institutional power — and won.
Call us. Tell us what happened. We will tell you honestly whether we can help and what the path forward looks like. No obligation. No pressure. Just an honest conversation with attorneys who have been in this fight before.
Need a Consultation? We Are Here to Help You!
Feel free to contact us to schedule a consultation.