The 4th Amendment and Excessive Force: A case that helps our clients!

The threshold to overcome by Plaintiffs in civil actions against Police Officers for "excessive force" is that, the force utilized on the date in question has to be excessive and not reasonable under the circumstances.

In all cases, the "reasonableness" of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight. The calculus of reasonableness must embody allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split–second judgments–in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly revolving–about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation. The "reasonableness" inquiry in an excessive force case is an objective one: the question is whether the officers’ actions are "objectively reasonable" in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them, without regard to their underlying intent or motivation.

This case bellow has been used by our law firm to time and time again to help our client's cases in federal court against police officers who used "excessive force." This is a 5th Circuit case.

Flores v. City of Palacios, 381 F.3d 391 (5th Cir. 2004)

 A police officer sought to detain a sixteen (16) year old woman because she was parked on the wrong side of the road and because, when he shined a spotlight on her car, several people fled from the vicinity. The woman did not respond to the officer’s repeated commands that she stop and instead drove away. The officer shot her car to prevent her escape. The officer’s shot entered the car’s bumper just above the tailpipe and ultimately lodged in the back of the muffler. The minor suffered no immediate physical injury, though her car was damaged.

When the woman stopped, the officer arrested her for evading detention. It was determined that the sixteen years old was in violation of a weeknight curfew for minors. Later investigation revealed alcohol in the area surrounding where the car was parked, though no evidence suggested she had been drinking. The woman sued the officer and the city pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming excessive use of force.

On appeal, the court held that the district court properly denied summary judgment on the excessive force claim. The officer used physical force by shooting at her car, and the termination of her freedom of movement was accomplished by the shot to her car. The suspect’s perception of her detention is not considered when it is accomplished by means of physical force. It was clearly established that shooting toward a person is a use of physical force. It was also clearly established that a use of physical force that succeeds in stopping a fleeing suspect constitutes a seizure. It was clearly established that stopping a moving car by intentionally shooting it constitutes a seizure.

It was clearly established at the time that psychological injuries can be sufficient to state a 4th Amendment excessive force claim. The officer was on notice that using force carrying with it a substantial risk of causing death or serious bodily harm is "deadly force." The officer was also on notice that deadly force would only be justified by a reasonable belief that he or the public was in imminent danger. The officer reasonably should have known that his action caused a substantial risk of death or serious bodily harm. As such, the officer is not protected by qualified immunity as to the minor’s Fourth Amendment excessive force claim.

Police Officers should not be deterred from using force, if necessary, while effectuating an arrest, but only when–the force utilized–is "objectively reasonable" under the circumstances and not "excessive." It is the burden of the Plaintiff to prove and show that the Police Officer was not entitled to Qualified Immunity on the particular date.

If you, or someone you know has been injured by a police officer, and you believe that the force was excessive give us a call (210) 979-9777. The Baez Law Firm has been helping people with their police brutality cases and has been successful in bringing great results.

Can a cop abuse his power?

In order to prevail in Federal Court against unethical, immoral or even abusive cops, you have to prove that an action occurred while the cop was acting "under color of law." This is particularly true when a cop uses his position of authority to obtain sexual pleasure against innocent civilians.

In Texas, many cops use that position of authority but get away with sexually assaulting civilians because their police departments will say that "the cops were not acting under color of law," since the police department did not hire them to have sex while on duty and because of "qualified immunity." Case close. Victory for the crooked cop...Not so fast!

The Fifth Circuit recently ruled on a case specifically about the abuse of power by a person clothed with such powers. The case of U.S. v. Dillon, 532 F.3d 379 (5th Cir. 2008) dealt specifically with that issue. A former city attorney used his position of authority to sexually assault women and the city argued that they did not hire the city attorney to have sex but to work as an attorney. The Fifth Circuit saw the confusion and cleared up the mess that Texas once had.

In the finding, the Court reasoned that "An action occurs under color of law, for purpose of statute prohibiting deprivation of civil rights under color of law, when there is misuse of power, possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because the wrongdoer is clothed with the authority of state law."

The facts of the case were as follows: Defendant, an assistant city attorney (ACA), was acting under color of law when he sexually assaulted two women, as required to support his convictions for depriving the women of their right to bodily integrity under color of law; one woman came to his office to have her traffic tickets fixed and her son released from jail, and, after he placed a call to judge who ultimately paroled the woman's son, defendant proceeded to kiss her and when she resisted he told her that he knew a lot of police officers and that he could have anybody arrested, and the second woman came to defendant's office to receive a drug test so she could have her pending marijuana charge dismissed, but defendant, before sexually assaulting her, told her that nobody would believe her if she reported him because she had a lewd conduct charge on her record, and thereafter warned her not to tell anyone about the assault or he would come after her and her family.

We believe that every person has a right against having anyone, including cops, from violating that person's right to bodily integrity. No person clothed with power should ever use his position of power to obtain sex while on duty. It is wrong and it should be punished.

Our law firm helps people throughout Texas that have been abused by police. You are not alone anymore! Our lawyers will fight for your rights so you don't have to.

Our law firm helps people in all areas of law including family, business, personal injury, bankruptcy appeals, medical malpractice, criminal law, and other areas of law. We also have a divorce website to help the people in Texas that cannot afford a lawyer.

How to obtain a judgment on the Pleadings in Federal Court

Our Law Firm has been representing victims of police violence in Federal Court with great success. Many times, our lawyers obtain judgments on the pleadings before going to a trial.

Our San Antonio Lawyers are here to help the victims of police brutality, specially when the victim is dead. Bellow is an example of pleading filed in Federal Court to help practitioners obtain a judgment on the pleadings pursuant the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

NOW COME Plaintiffs, Movants herein, and request the Court to enter Judgment on the Pleadings in favor of Movants on the claims set forth herein, and against Defendants (hereinafter Non-Movants), and in support thereof, show the Court the following:

After the pleadings are closed but within such time as not to delay the trial, any party my move for judgment on the pleadings. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(c).The standard for deciding a Rule 12(c) motion is the same as a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.

The court "accepts all well-pleaded facts as true, viewing them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff." In re Katrina Canal Breaches Litig., 495 F.3d 191, 205 (5th Cir. 2007), petition for cert. filed, (U.S. Nov. 26, 2007) (No. 07-713).

The plaintiff must plead "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, - U.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1974 (2007).

"Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level, on the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact). Id. at 1965.

Averments in a pleading which a responsive pleasing is required, other than those as to the amount of damage, are admitted when not denied in the responsive pleading. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(d).

When the facts of the case are such that a judgment on the pleadings can be obtain, practitioners need to be aware of them.

If you, or someone you know has been a victim of police brutality, give us a call at (210) 979-9777. We care about your legal needs!

12 (b)(6) Motions in Federal Court under Fourth Amendment

Our Law Firm has represented numerous clients in Federal Court with their Civil Rights case. We have consistently shown that the facts of the case are more important that precedent since it is those facts that changes the precedent.

Many time, our lawyers have been faced with 12(b)(6) motions in Federal Court and our response has been facts driven rather than law driven. An example of such is given herein for our readers perusal.

Public officials acting within the scope of their official duties are shielded from civil liability by the doctrine of qualified immunity. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 815-19 (1982). Qualified immunity “serves to shield a governmental official from civil liability for damages based upon performance of discretionary functions if the official’s acts were objectively reasonable in light of then clearly established law.” Thompson v. Upshur County, Tex., 245 F3d 447, 456 (5th Cir. 2001). A “defendant’s acts are . . . objectively reasonable unless all reasonable officials in the defendant’s circumstances would have then known that the defendant’s conduct violated the United States Constitution or the federal statute as alleged by the plaintiff.” Id at 457.

An excessive-use-of-force claim requires a plaintiff to prove 1) an injury, which 2) resulted directly and solely form the use of force that was clearly excessive to the need, and the excursiveness of which was 3) objectively unreasonable. Ikerd v. Blair, 101 F.3d 430, 433-34 (5th Cir. 1996). This determination “requires careful attention to the facts and circumstances of each particular case, including the severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight.” Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 396 (1989).

In Iderd, plaintiffs brought a 1983 action on behalf of their children claiming that a police officer used excessive force against the child during an arrest of her father. Iderd, 101 F.3d at 432. During the arrest, the police officer jerked the child out of her chair and dragged her into the kitchen, which resulted in her re-injuring a broken arm. Id. In determining the first and second elements required to establish an excessive force claim, the court maintained that “the extent of the injury suffered by a plaintiff is one factor that may suggest whether the use of force was excessive in a particular situation.” Id. at 434. In analyzing the third element, the court reasoned that “in gauging the objective reasonableness of the force used by a law enforcement officer, we must balance the amount of force used against the need for that force.” Id. In overruling the district court’s judgment as a matter of law for the officer, the Fifth Circuit held that the evidence presented as sufficient for a reasonable jury to conclude that the officer used objectively unreasonable force against the plaintiff. Id. at 435.

In Meaux v. Williams, 113 Fed. Appx. 593, 595 (5th Cir. 2004), the Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment, holding that a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether the police officer used excessive force when arresting the plaintiff. Id. at 594. Meaux alleged that when he answered the door, he was pulled out of his house and handcuffed.

In Heflin v. Town of Warrenton, 944 F.Supp. 472 (E.D.Va. 1996) the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia overruled defendant’s motion to dismiss a 1983 excessive force claim. After a domestic disturbance between brothers, several police officers responded to a residence and arrested several family members. Id. at 473. While effectuating the arrest, the police officers allegedly used excessive force against the plaintiff when he “proceeded to drag Heflin, by the handcuffs, up the concrete steps to the parking lot. In the course of this, Heflin suffered abrasions to his stomach and face, for which he subsequently sought medical treatment.” Id. at 474.

In Harper v. Harris County, Texas, 21 F.3d 597, 599 (5th Cir. 1994) the Fifth Circuit concluded that allegations that an officer grabbed plaintiff by the throat and bruised knee, were sufficient to withstand a summary judgment seeking dismissal of an excessive force claim. In Harper, the Fifth Circuit applied the test of excessive force in effect prior to the Supreme Court case of Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1 (1992), which eradicated the requirement of showing “significant” injury in order to prove an excessive force claim. Id. at 601.

Local Rule CV-12 provides, in pertinent part, that “. . . the opposing party shall have eleven days from the date the motion to dismiss is served on the opposing party, to file a response and to specify what, if any, discovery is necessary to determine the issue(s) of qualified immunity and the time period necessary for the specific discovery. Discovery needs to be conducted to see whether a good faith “qualified immunity” exist and whether the Officer Defendants acted reasonably under the circumstances in injuring a two year old child and a disabled veteran based on a “loud noise” dispatch. Plaintiffs should be allowed to obtain the video tape of the incident so they may investigate as to what threat, if any, was posed by Plaintiffs (especially the child) that caused the Officer Defendants to use excessive force. Plaintiffs would also need to depose the Officer Defendants, which can be done within 90 days, from the time the court order discovery.

Officer Defendants argue that the filling of a suit against a governmental entity pursuant to the Texas Tort Claims Act (“TTCA”) creates an irrevocable election and forever bars suit against any government employees in their individual capacity regarding the same subject matter. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 101.106(a). They argue that, if a suit is filed pursuant the TTCA against a government unit and any of its employees, the employees are entitled to immediate dismissal upon the filing of a motion by the government unit. Id. However, the Fifth Circuit recently rejected the Officers’ section 101.106 argument because the TTCA does not apply to intentional torts. Meadours v. Ermel, 483 F.3d 417 (5th Cir. 2007). The court concluded that section 101.106 cannot be construed as a statutory bar to intentional tort claims.


In most cases, an expert is not needed to bring a case in Federal Court for violations of the Fourth Amendment but sometimes is necessary if the Plaintiff is seeking to bring Municipalities into the suit.

Do you have a civil rights violation and do not know how to handle it, give us a call (210) 979-9777. Our lawyers are here to help you!

What is a "police brutality" case?

Depending on which side of the spectrum (political, social, economical) you are in, you may either believe that there is no police brutality in Texas or yes there is. The Baez Law Firm has been fighting for injured Texans as a result of police brutality for some time, and so, we believe that there is way too much brutality!

42 U.S.C § 1983 is the main source of law when police brutality is at issue. The statute states: "Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable."

Based on this law, our law firm has successfully litigated numerous "police brutality" cases in Texas. If you or some one you love has been a victim of police brutality, give us a call (210) 979-9777.

Why does the police in Texas uses excesive force?

In Texas, the law allows a great deal of discretion to police officers simply because it has to. The concept of "qualify immunity" is a very powerful one. Since, officers deal with great danger on daily basis, the law allows them to use discretion when dealing with situations; however, many officers take this authority to a different level. The use of excessive force.

Public officials acting within the scope of their official duties are shielded from civil liability by the doctrine of qualified immunity. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 815-19 (1982). Qualified immunity “serves to shield a governmental official from civil liability for damages based upon performance of discretionary functions if the official’s acts were objectively reasonable in light of then clearly established law.” Thompson v. Upshur County, Tex., 245 F3d 447, 456 (5th Cir. 2001).

A “defendant’s acts are objectively reasonable unless all reasonable officials in the defendant’s circumstances would have then known that the defendant’s conduct violated the United States Constitution or the federal statute as alleged by the plaintiff.”

This creates an atmosphere of panic to the public, when officers can enter your house, shoot your child, and make all kinds of wrongful acts, knowing that they are mostly protected. That is why officers may use excessive force.

When you (or some one you love) are faced with acts done by police that are excessive, such as shootings, killings, broken bones, bleeding and others, contact our law firm.

Although the use of force by police is permitted in Texas, the use of "excessive force" or police brutality is not!Give us a call (210) 979-9777.

Serious injuries, come and see us

Our San Antonio Lawyers have been helping people in Bexar County when they suffer serious injuries as a result of some one's negligence. Auto Accidents are the main culprit, but also injuries caused by doctors, police officers and others.

The Baez Law Firm helps victims of car accidents, even when the victims don't have health insurance. Our lawyers will negotiate your settlement, and if needed, will go to trial for you. Let us help you with your case, do not do it alone.

Our Personal Injury Lawyers help victims of medical malpractice in Texas. The law is very rigit, and our lawyers know how to litigate a case under the new law. Give us a call (210) 979-9777 to set up a free initial consultation.

We have helped victims of police brutality in Texas successfully. If you have been a victim of police brutality in Texas, you need a law firm that is able to handle the police "qualify immunity" issues that could end your case. Let us fight for your rights in court.

Was your loved one shot and killed by police in Texas?

Our Law Firm represents numerous families in Texas with regards to police brutality cases. Although the law protects the police, our firm has been able to overcome the obstacles in "excessive force" litigation and successfully bring justice for the families of the victims.

Public officials acting within the scope of their official duties are shielded from civil liability by the doctrine of qualified immunity. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 815-19 (1982). Qualified immunity “serves to shield a governmental official from civil liability for damages based upon performance of discretionary functions if the official’s acts were objectively reasonable in light of then clearly established law.” Thompson v. Upshur County, Tex., 245 F3d 447, 456 (5th Cir. 2001).

This is the law in Texas, and it makes it almost impossible to sue a cop; however, our San Antonio Lawyers have been successful in bringing this cases in several Federal District Courts.

If your loved one was shot and killed by the police in Texas, give us a call.

We helped another family in Texas with their police brutality case

Our law firm has been helping people in Texas when they have a case of police abuse, police use of excessive force or when police use their power for the wrong reasons. We have helped thousands throughout Texas with this noble fight.

Recently, we settled a case for our clients when several county deputies abused their power simply because they thought they could. Although we cannot comment on the facts of the case, everyone should know that the deputies were fired and our clients were compensated. Several peace officers that thought they would get away abusing their power did not.

If your loved one has been killed by a cop, let us know. You may have a case against the police. Since we help people when others can't, this is why we say, we care about your legal needs.

P.S. help us select our logo for the firm from choices one, two or three. Thanks.

Had a police brutality case, come see us!

As a citizen of the United States, you have constitutionally given rights that protect you. Texans are not an exception. When police uses excessive force "police brutality" you need a law firm that knows how to handle the case.

Regretably, the law in Texas protects police officers. In Texas, there is a force continuum that allows the cops to always be in a position superior to any other. The reason is simple, but the results are catastrophic. Because this false sense of security for the cops, some cops missuses that power, and that is when your rights can be violated.

If you suspect that your civil rights have been violated, give us a call (210) 979-9777. We handle federal cases all throughout Texas.

San Atonio Personal Injury Lawyers helping others with their cases

Although our main practice is personal injury law, The Baez Law Firm is a general practice law firm that cares about your legal needs. We have been doing this by providing you, our clients, with efficient legal representation and personalized treatment. Our clients are our number one priority, and we appreciate and treat them like people, not numbers.

If our clients suffer from the negligence of others, our senior attorney Mr. Baez handles their personal injury case with integrity and dignity, and our clients get the settlement that they desserve. We treat others as we would like others to treat us, and that is how we handle the personal injury case, period. When you need a personal injury lawyer in San Antonio, you need The Baez Law Firm on your side. We handle all aspects of personal injury law, medical malpractice, auto accidents, police brutality cases, truck accidents, nursing home negligence, products liability, defective tires, brain injuries, wrongful death and many more areas of personal injury litigation.

If our clients have financial problems, and the bills are getting out of hand, they come to see us to help them. Our bankruptcy lawyers will prepare a petition for bankruptcy on your behalf, to stop the harrazing phone calls from creditors. Ms. Sostre will handle your case expedently and to your satisfaction. Let us help you if your bills are getting out of hand. Ms. Sostre is currently a City Judge and a member of The Baez Law Firm.

If our clients have a family issue, whether is a divorce, child support, visitations, adoptions, cps case, grandparents rights, family abuse, or any other aspect of family law, they come to us so that we can help them. Our family law cases are handled by Mr. Fowler, and he is an attorney with over 20 years of experience. Mr. Fowler's compasion is felt by our clients and his patients will help you through even the most difficult aspects of your family law case.

If our clients have business issues our attorneys handle their legal problems for them. Our business law experience is vast and we will figure a way to solve the legal issue with the less amount of expenses for your business. We handle issues on a local and national level when it comes to your business. Your business needs an investement, you need our legal team on your side.

If our clients have been wrongfully accused of a crime, our legal team will prepare a defense that is honest and fact driven. In many cases, our attorneys will get an expert to prove that our clients were not the alleged perpetrators. Hector Gonzales III is the attorney handling criminal law for the firm. He has been in practice for over 15 years, and he handles murder cases, manslaughter, sex offences, internet offences, white collar offences, DWI cases, assault cases, any other other alleged crimes that our clients may be charged with. When you need a criminal defense lawyer in San Antonio, you need The Baez Law Firm on your side.

There are other areas of law that our firm handles for our clients. We would love for you to stop and give us a visit, so that you can see the difference of our legal team, and this is why we say "we care about your legal needs."

San Antonio Civil Rights Lawyers

The Baez Law Firm has been handling civil rights cases in Texas for our clients, specially when it comes to excessive force. The United States Constitution guarantees every American citizen certain civil rights of personal liberty. Many times, the power given to entities or individuals infringes upon other's civil rights.

Among these fundamental civil rights and liberties are the freedoms of speech, religion, assembly, and to petition the government, and the rights to bear arms, to procedural due process, and to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures and cruel and unusual punishments.

But these rights are truncated on a daily basis by officers that exceed their power and use excessive force when not necessary. That is not to say that, every arrest in San Antonio is a police brutality case, but viewed in the "totality of circumstances," some arrest could have been handle more appropriately, and that is when we come in.

Not a single cop in the world would find it reasonable for another cop to shoot 13 times from behind to a group of teenagers that were speeding. Yet, it happened in San Antonio. The list is long and we rather not talk about ongoing cases. Those responsible for violating your civil rights are not going to willfully turn themselves in to be held accountable. If your rights have been violated, you need a powerful legal advocate on your side. We can help you take on at-fault parties and ensure that nobody is above the law.

We handle 42 U.S.C 1983 cases, 1981, 1985, 1988 and many more. Our civil rights lawyers are here for you. Our civil rights attorneys get the job done. Come see us, and you will see the difference from the moment that you walk through our doors.

We were asked to help on other police brutality cases in San Antonio and Brownsville Texas

Recently, The Baez Law Firm was asked by two renowned trial lawyers in Texas Ed Goldner and Rosie Alvarado to help them and to take the lead with their federal cases against two police departments unreasonable use of force when dealing with the public. The city of Los Fresnos and City of San Antonio both have been sued in Federal Court for allegations of wrong doing by its police force.

In both cases, the victims were disable individuals that were cowardly and utterly assaulted, raped and bitten by the police. In both cases, the police fabricated police reports and lied to cover up their wrong doings. This type of incident, although not common, does happens and when it does, some one has to defend the rights of the victims.

We believe that in both cases, the cops were given too much power, not enough training and not enough supervision thus allowing the cops to overstep their authority and misuse their otherwise legally granted powers given by the state.

Texas has seen an increase in Police brutality allegations and cases filed from those allegations. We must all stand together and fight for any injustice, including the abuse by some police officers that have forgotten that they were given authority to serve and protect not to antagonize and overpower on people's constitutional rights.

If you have a case in Federal Court, let us help you obtain the justice for your client that they deserve. That is why we say "we care about your legal needs!"

Why does police brutality happen?

In the years that The Baez Law Firm has litigated police brutality cases in Texas, the lingering question remains on our clients mind. Why did the police abused me? To understand the problem, one must go deep into the past, the present and perhaps into the future of our police force.

From the inceptions, police forces were not looked favorably. Since, police are agents or agencies empowered to use force and other forms of coercion and legal means to effect public and social order, where in many cases, the law becomes the lawless, many officers take that power to another level. But why?

Perhaps you have been a witness of reverse bully's. We have come to find out that, many officers who commit violations of civil rights, do so because they over exercise their power as a result of the phenomena that we will call “reverse bullysm.” Nearly 95% of officers that have committed violations were bullied by others when young. Since, now they have the power to use force, they are not going to be bullied again, thus the phenomena occurs.

According to the experts, "In order for police officers to do their job, they may be vested by the state with a monopoly in the use of certain powers. These include the powers to arrest, search, seize, and interrogate; and if necessary, to use lethal force. However, police organizations must sometimes deal with the issue of police corruption, which is often abetted by a code of silence that encourages unquestioning loyalty to one's police unit."

Again, as we litigate these cases, we find that many cops know that their fellow officers are violating the law, but because of the code of silence, they do not speak out. Sometimes without wanting to do so, other officers participate in the police brutality simply because of the code or simply because it is a way to release all pressure that they have build up from the job.

We are not saying that all cops are bad, but we are saying however, that the system that monitors our cops is obsolete. There has to be better technology to employ in monitoring police officers and harsher punishments for those who violate the law, specially of those officers who violate the rights of victims that did not commit a crime.

As of today, many police departments only suspend or terminate the offenders without ever having to face any criminal charges. And the worse part is, that since the department terminated the offender, now they say that they are not responsible for the victim’s damages since the bad cops was acting alone, and not under the color of law. We see these tactics over and over again.

If you have been a victim of police brutality, call us (210) 979-9777 we can help.

What is Police Brutality

Originally, 42 USC § 1983 was created as the (Ku Klux Act of 1871, § 1). This was done so that private citizens could have a way to protect and recover from the acts of the Klan. Today, this section is the main frame of civil suits against police officers who "under color of law" are acting with excessive or unreasonable force.

Before a lawsuit is filed, there needs to be a determination as to who to sue. Since the statute does not allow vicarious liability, cities and municipalities can only be sued if they have foster a custom that indicates violations of constitutional law on its face. For example, if the city allows its cops to use Taser guns on all citizens without making some exceptions, that would be a custom that indicates violations of your rights.

On the other hand, many of these cases bring with them state causes of actions. In those cases, attorneys need to be careful that the election of remedies would not prevent them from suing the principal actors and tortfeasors. In other words, the Texas Tort and Claims Act covered under the Civil Practice and Remedies Code prevents employees from being sued if the city or municipality is a defendant in the suit, once this election of remedies has been made.

In 1983 cases, cities do not have the qualify immunity that individuals have for purposes of affirmative defense. Conversely, cities cannot be held to pay punitive damages for their actions, only compensatory damages as indicated by the statute. However, if the police officers are found to have violated your rights intentionally and with malice, then punitive damages can be sought.

If you have a police brutality case, give us a call (210) 979-9777 or visit our website. We have helped many individuals throughout Texas with their cases. Let us help you win your case.

Wrongful death in police brutality cases

During our time helping people in Texas litigate their disputes against the police departments, we have found that, in many instances, police brutality leads to wrongful death of the victims. In these cases, there may be criminal charges involved but also, there are civil liabilities that attach with the wrongful actions of the police departments.

To handle a wrongful death case against the police department, a violation of constitutional law (by the department itself) has to happen; otherwise, the individual cop would be personally liable for the actions, which would create the criminal liability spoken off above, but would leave the family members stranded without compensation.

Our law firm has successfully litigated numerous cases against police departments, including wrongful death cases. We are here to help the little people against the big gigants, that no one else is helping.

When you contact us, your case would be personally reviewed by Mr. Baez and would be handled with respect and dignity by our staff. Although many other attorneys will see the case through, if needed, Mr. Baez will take your case to trial. See what others are saying about Mr. Baez here.

We are San Antonio litigation attorneys that care about your legal needs.

Abuse of authority by police

According to the bible, everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Romans 13:1. However, what happens when people in power abuse that authority? From this abuse of authority, comes the infamous "police brutality."

Police brutality is a term used to describe any excessive and unnecessary physical force, assault, or battery used by law enforcement officials when dealing with the public. Section 42 of The United States Code states that "... any person working under the authority of a state law enforcement body who violates the civil rights of individuals in the U.S. is liable to pay for any damages they cause."

Police agencies have been given a new way to express their aggressions towards the public, without the fear of killing so many, or so they thought. The invention of the taser has created a new way for the police to over power the public, and the use of taser is increasing in alarming numbers.

The name Taser is an acronym for "Thomas A. Swift’s Electric Rifle". Arizona inventor Jack Cover designed it in 1969; naming it for the science fiction teenage inventor and adventurer character Tom Swift.

Modern taser-type weapons fire small dart-like electrodes with attached metal wires that connect to the gun, propelled by small gas charges similar to some air rifle propellants. The maximum range is up to 10 meters (30 feet). Earlier models of Taser needed the dart-like electrodes to embed in the skin and superficial muscle tissues layers; newer versions of the projectiles use a shaped pulse/arc of electricity which disrupt nerve and muscle function without needing the metal prongs on the projectile to penetrate the skin. Early models had difficulty in penetrating thick clothing, but the ‘pulse’ models are designed to bring down a subject wearing up to a Level III body armor vest.

There are some widely known cases of police brutality, but there are thousands more that never receive nationwide media attention. Any time a police officer abuses his or her authority and inflicts undue suffering on any person it is an affront to not only the victim of the pain, but to society as a whole.

Our latest client was so proud that he was going to fix his son’s car, that he decided to go to a 24 hour auto part store, in retrospect, this was a mistake. He was eventually tased several times and he had to be hospitalized because he developed a fatal cardiac condition, atrial fibrillation. From a proud moment to shameful and fatal consequences, his case is one of thousands that teaches us a lesson: the people we depend on to protect us from criminal aggressors should never become the aggressors themselves.

If you or some one you know has been a victim of police brutality, please contact The Baez Law Firm, P.C. We have experienced police brutality lawyers that will handle your case with respect and dignity. Please contact us at our websites: http://www.thebaezlawfirm.com http://www.sanantoniopersonalinjurytriallawyers.com http://www.baezlaw.com or call us at (210) 979-9777 for a free initial consultation.