The law protects you from government abuse of power. Scott knows how to enforce it.

When a police officer uses excessive force, makes an unlawful arrest, conducts an illegal search, or denies someone in custody the medical care they need, it is not just a personal harm it is a constitutional violation. Federal law provides a specific remedy for exactly this situation. These are not easy cases. The law gives officers significant procedural protection. Government entities have experienced defense teams. But “difficult” and “not worth fighting” are not the same thing. Scott Reizen takes on police misconduct cases because civil rights enforcement matters, and because the people who are most often subjected to police misconduct are the ones who can least afford to fight back alone.

What Michigan Law Says About Police Misconduct

The primary federal vehicle for police misconduct claims is 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Civil Rights Act of 1871. Section 1983 creates a cause of action when a person acting under color of state law including a police officer deprives someone of a right secured by the Constitution or federal law. The most common rights at issue are the Fourth Amendment (unreasonable searches and seizures, excessive force during arrest) and the Fourteenth Amendment (substantive due process, equal protection, denial of medical care to detainees).

The primary obstacle in § 1983 claims against individual officers is qualified immunity. Under this doctrine, an officer is not personally liable unless the right they violated was “clearly established” at the time of the conduct meaning existing court precedent would have put a reasonable officer on notice that the specific conduct was unconstitutional. Qualified immunity is a significant procedural shield, and it requires careful legal analysis to overcome. Not every unconstitutional act gives rise to personal liability for the officer.

Claims against the government entity itself the city, the county, the police department are governed by Monell v. Department of Social Services (1978). Under Monell, a municipality is not liable for the acts of its employees simply because they were employees. Liability requires showing that the constitutional violation resulted from an official policy, a widespread practice or custom, or a failure to train or supervise officers in a way that amounts to deliberate indifference to constitutional rights. These are harder cases to bring, but they are also more consequential and they are the cases that drive institutional change.

On the state side, Michigan’s governmental immunity statute MCL 691.1407 provides broad protection to governmental entities and employees. The most important exceptions in police misconduct cases are the intentional tort exception (assault, battery, false arrest are intentional acts, not governmental functions) and the gross negligence exception. State law claims for assault, battery, false arrest, false imprisonment, and intentional infliction of emotional distress can run alongside federal § 1983 claims depending on the facts.

How Police Misconduct Cases Work in Michigan

Police misconduct cases are litigated in federal court under § 1983, in state court under tort theories, or most often in both simultaneously. The tactical decisions about where to bring the case, which claims to plead, and whether to target individual officers or the municipality (or both) depend on the specific facts.

Defense teams in these cases are experienced and well-funded. City and county attorneys defend officers aggressively. They file motions for qualified immunity early, attempting to get cases dismissed before discovery. They use expert witnesses from law enforcement to argue the use of force or the conduct at issue was reasonable and within department policy. They have access to the officer’s full employment and disciplinary history but getting that information on the plaintiff’s side requires aggressive discovery.

The evidence in police misconduct cases is increasingly documentary. Body camera footage, dashcam video, and surveillance video from surrounding businesses have changed what is provable. Dispatch records, Use-of-Force reports, and Internal Affairs investigation files can all be obtained through litigation. Early preservation demands including preservation letters sent to the department and the city are critical, because footage and records are subject to routine deletion.

What The Reizen Law Group Does Differently

Police misconduct cases require a different skill set than standard auto negligence litigation and they require an attorney willing to take on institutional defendants who fight hard. Scott Reizen brings a direct, straightforward approach to these cases: a clear-eyed assessment of the evidence, honest advice about the challenges, and aggressive advocacy for clients who were wronged.

The former defense background is especially relevant here. Scott knows how government attorneys build their defenses in misconduct cases the qualified immunity motion strategy, the use-of-force expert playbook, the narrative framing in early motions. He knows what the other side is doing, and he knows how to prepare a case to survive it.

He is admitted in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, where § 1983 cases are most commonly brought in the metro Detroit area.

Common Types of Police Misconduct Claims

  • Excessive force use of physical force, tasers, batons, or firearms that was unreasonable given the circumstances; the most common § 1983 claim
  • Unlawful arrest and false imprisonment arrest without probable cause; detention beyond what the law permits
  • Illegal search and seizure warrantless searches without a valid exception; seizure of property without legal basis
  • Denial of medical care to detainees failure to provide timely medical treatment to someone in custody; a recognized constitutional violation under the Fourteenth Amendment
  • Malicious prosecution prosecution initiated without probable cause and that resulted in a favorable outcome for the defendant
  • Racial profiling and discriminatory enforcement selective enforcement based on race or other protected class; equal protection claims
  • Retaliation for protected speech adverse police action taken against someone for exercising First Amendment rights

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I sue a police officer personally for excessive force?

Potentially, but qualified immunity makes this harder than it sounds. To overcome qualified immunity, the right the officer violated must have been clearly established at the time meaning prior court decisions would have put a reasonable officer on notice that the specific conduct was unconstitutional. If the conduct was extreme enough, or if there is clear prior precedent, qualified immunity can be defeated. An honest assessment of the specific facts is the first step.

Can I sue the city or the police department, not just the individual officer?

Yes, but a different legal standard applies. Under Monell, a municipality is only liable under § 1983 if the constitutional violation resulted from a policy, a widespread custom, or a failure to adequately train or supervise officers. If the department had a pattern of similar conduct, inadequate training on use-of-force, or a custom of not disciplining officers who cross the line, those facts support a Monell claim against the entity itself.

What about state law claims alongside the federal civil rights claim?

State law claims assault, battery, false arrest, false imprisonment can often be brought alongside § 1983 in the same lawsuit. Michigan’s governmental immunity statute at MCL 691.1407 provides protection to government employees, but intentional torts are generally not protected by immunity. The specific facts determine which state law claims are available.

Do I need to file a notice of claim before suing the police department?

In some circumstances, yes. Claims against Michigan governmental entities may require advance notice under the Michigan Tort Claims Act. For highway defect claims, the notice period is 120 days. For police misconduct claims specifically, the notice requirements depend on how the claim is framed and which entity is being sued. This is a case-specific question that needs to be addressed early missing a notice deadline can forfeit state law claims.

The officer was never disciplined internally. Does that mean my case is weak?

No. Internal affairs investigations and disciplinary proceedings use different standards than civil litigation. Many officers who were not disciplined internally have been found liable in civil court. The absence of internal discipline can actually be evidence in support of a Monell failure-to-supervise claim.

How long do I have to bring a police misconduct claim?

Federal § 1983 claims in Michigan borrow the state’s general personal injury limitations period three years under MCL 600.5805 running from the date of the constitutional violation. State law claims carry their own deadlines and notice requirements. Act promptly evidence preservation is especially critical in these cases.

Talk to Scott

Police misconduct cases are hard, but they matter. If you were subjected to excessive force, unlawful arrest, an illegal search, or mistreatment while in custody, call (248) 554-3440 for a free, honest consultation about what happened and what your options are. No fee unless we win.

Police Misconduct

The law protects you from government abuse of power. Scott knows how to enforce it.

When a police officer uses excessive force, makes an unlawful arrest, conducts an illegal search, or denies someone in custody the medical care they need, it is not just a personal harm it is a constitutional violation. Federal law provides a specific remedy for exactly this situation. These are not easy cases. The law gives officers significant procedural protection. Government entities have experienced defense teams. But “difficult” and “not worth fighting” are not the same thing. Scott Reizen takes on police misconduct cases because civil rights enforcement matters, and because the people who are most often subjected to police misconduct are the ones who can least afford to fight back alone.

What Michigan Law Says About Police Misconduct

The primary federal vehicle for police misconduct claims is 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Civil Rights Act of 1871. Section 1983 creates a cause of action when a person acting under color of state law including a police officer deprives someone of a right secured by the Constitution or federal law. The most common rights at issue are the Fourth Amendment (unreasonable searches and seizures, excessive force during arrest) and the Fourteenth Amendment (substantive due process, equal protection, denial of medical care to detainees).

The primary obstacle in § 1983 claims against individual officers is qualified immunity. Under this doctrine, an officer is not personally liable unless the right they violated was “clearly established” at the time of the conduct meaning existing court precedent would have put a reasonable officer on notice that the specific conduct was unconstitutional. Qualified immunity is a significant procedural shield, and it requires careful legal analysis to overcome. Not every unconstitutional act gives rise to personal liability for the officer.

Claims against the government entity itself the city, the county, the police department are governed by Monell v. Department of Social Services (1978). Under Monell, a municipality is not liable for the acts of its employees simply because they were employees. Liability requires showing that the constitutional violation resulted from an official policy, a widespread practice or custom, or a failure to train or supervise officers in a way that amounts to deliberate indifference to constitutional rights. These are harder cases to bring, but they are also more consequential and they are the cases that drive institutional change.

On the state side, Michigan’s governmental immunity statute MCL 691.1407 provides broad protection to governmental entities and employees. The most important exceptions in police misconduct cases are the intentional tort exception (assault, battery, false arrest are intentional acts, not governmental functions) and the gross negligence exception. State law claims for assault, battery, false arrest, false imprisonment, and intentional infliction of emotional distress can run alongside federal § 1983 claims depending on the facts.

How Police Misconduct Cases Work in Michigan

Police misconduct cases are litigated in federal court under § 1983, in state court under tort theories, or most often in both simultaneously. The tactical decisions about where to bring the case, which claims to plead, and whether to target individual officers or the municipality (or both) depend on the specific facts.

Defense teams in these cases are experienced and well-funded. City and county attorneys defend officers aggressively. They file motions for qualified immunity early, attempting to get cases dismissed before discovery. They use expert witnesses from law enforcement to argue the use of force or the conduct at issue was reasonable and within department policy. They have access to the officer’s full employment and disciplinary history but getting that information on the plaintiff’s side requires aggressive discovery.

The evidence in police misconduct cases is increasingly documentary. Body camera footage, dashcam video, and surveillance video from surrounding businesses have changed what is provable. Dispatch records, Use-of-Force reports, and Internal Affairs investigation files can all be obtained through litigation. Early preservation demands including preservation letters sent to the department and the city are critical, because footage and records are subject to routine deletion.

What The Reizen Law Group Does Differently

Police misconduct cases require a different skill set than standard auto negligence litigation and they require an attorney willing to take on institutional defendants who fight hard. Scott Reizen brings a direct, straightforward approach to these cases: a clear-eyed assessment of the evidence, honest advice about the challenges, and aggressive advocacy for clients who were wronged.

The former defense background is especially relevant here. Scott knows how government attorneys build their defenses in misconduct cases the qualified immunity motion strategy, the use-of-force expert playbook, the narrative framing in early motions. He knows what the other side is doing, and he knows how to prepare a case to survive it.

He is admitted in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, where § 1983 cases are most commonly brought in the metro Detroit area.

Common Types of Police Misconduct Claims

  • Excessive force use of physical force, tasers, batons, or firearms that was unreasonable given the circumstances; the most common § 1983 claim
  • Unlawful arrest and false imprisonment arrest without probable cause; detention beyond what the law permits
  • Illegal search and seizure warrantless searches without a valid exception; seizure of property without legal basis
  • Denial of medical care to detainees failure to provide timely medical treatment to someone in custody; a recognized constitutional violation under the Fourteenth Amendment
  • Malicious prosecution prosecution initiated without probable cause and that resulted in a favorable outcome for the defendant
  • Racial profiling and discriminatory enforcement selective enforcement based on race or other protected class; equal protection claims
  • Retaliation for protected speech adverse police action taken against someone for exercising First Amendment rights

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I sue a police officer personally for excessive force?

Potentially, but qualified immunity makes this harder than it sounds. To overcome qualified immunity, the right the officer violated must have been clearly established at the time meaning prior court decisions would have put a reasonable officer on notice that the specific conduct was unconstitutional. If the conduct was extreme enough, or if there is clear prior precedent, qualified immunity can be defeated. An honest assessment of the specific facts is the first step.

Can I sue the city or the police department, not just the individual officer?

Yes, but a different legal standard applies. Under Monell, a municipality is only liable under § 1983 if the constitutional violation resulted from a policy, a widespread custom, or a failure to adequately train or supervise officers. If the department had a pattern of similar conduct, inadequate training on use-of-force, or a custom of not disciplining officers who cross the line, those facts support a Monell claim against the entity itself.

What about state law claims alongside the federal civil rights claim?

State law claims assault, battery, false arrest, false imprisonment can often be brought alongside § 1983 in the same lawsuit. Michigan’s governmental immunity statute at MCL 691.1407 provides protection to government employees, but intentional torts are generally not protected by immunity. The specific facts determine which state law claims are available.

Do I need to file a notice of claim before suing the police department?

In some circumstances, yes. Claims against Michigan governmental entities may require advance notice under the Michigan Tort Claims Act. For highway defect claims, the notice period is 120 days. For police misconduct claims specifically, the notice requirements depend on how the claim is framed and which entity is being sued. This is a case-specific question that needs to be addressed early missing a notice deadline can forfeit state law claims.

The officer was never disciplined internally. Does that mean my case is weak?

No. Internal affairs investigations and disciplinary proceedings use different standards than civil litigation. Many officers who were not disciplined internally have been found liable in civil court. The absence of internal discipline can actually be evidence in support of a Monell failure-to-supervise claim.

How long do I have to bring a police misconduct claim?

Federal § 1983 claims in Michigan borrow the state’s general personal injury limitations period three years under MCL 600.5805 running from the date of the constitutional violation. State law claims carry their own deadlines and notice requirements. Act promptly evidence preservation is especially critical in these cases.

Talk to Scott

Police misconduct cases are hard, but they matter. If you were subjected to excessive force, unlawful arrest, an illegal search, or mistreatment while in custody, call (248) 554-3440 for a free, honest consultation about what happened and what your options are. No fee unless we win.