For those that have been families victimized by the lethal use of force by cops, I recommend that you seek a good attorney.  Proceed with the assumption that the police, the city and state will cover up their crime(s). 

For those of you that have had someone video tape the police in the act of assault and battery against your person, then I also recommend that you seek an expert in the field.  You may be able to get a settlement.

For the rest of you victims, I also recommend first seeking a legal expert.

If you’ve had ten expert lawyers tell you that they cannot win a settlement on your behalf, then there are several other things you can do.

The best way to attack the police is to attack their dog.  The real force behind the police is their prosecutor.  Attack him with gusto, especially if he filed exaggerated charges against you. 

Visit the site of the Board of Bar Overseers of the Supreme Judicial Court:

http://www.mass.gov/obcbbo/board.htm

See the Massachusetts rules of professional conduct: at the following site:

http://www.mass.gov/obcbbo/rpcnet.htm

Rule 8.4 seems particularly attractive for frivolous criminal complaints intended primarily to keep a victim of police brutality from filing suit.

File the complaint in writing at this address:

Office of the Bar Counsel
99 High Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02110
(617) 728-8750

Suing the police from Amnesty International

http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/engAMR510361996#FPF

5. 9 Federal prosecutions for police misconduct

The US Justice Department or local federal prosecutors (US Attorneys), may also bring federal criminal civil rights charges against state officials who violate the constitutional rights of others while acting under color of law (While acting in their official capacity.) (section 242 of Title 18 of the U.S.Code). Officials from the US Attorneys Office for the Southern District of New York told Amnesty International that they file between two and five civil rights cases a year against New York state officials. US Attorneys had cooperated with some of the investigations into police corruption in New York City and several prosecutions had taken place in the federal courts (for violations, for example, related to thefts of money during illegal searches and seizure). However, federal attorneys said it was difficult to get a conviction for excessive force where police officers were acting in the course of their duty. They had prosecuted a state police brutality case in Yonkers (New York State) in 1993, where one of the victims had sustained a serious injury, but the officer defendants were acquitted. (The US attorneys said that they usually asked for a jury trial in such cases as the verdict was less assailable.)
Under federal criminal civil rights statutes the prosecution must prove that the accused had acted with specific intent to violate the victims federal civil rights. Amnesty International was told that this sets a very high standard of evidence which can be difficult to meet. Cases which may involve other offences under state law (e.g. negligent manslaughter) cannot be pursued under federal criminal civil rights statutes.
It is rare for the federal authorities to prosecute a police officer who has been acquitted in a state court. The US attorneys said that they rarely prosecute state police shooting cases which are already routinely presented to grand juries by the state district attorneys. However, at the time of writing the Justice Department was investigating one NYC police shooting case where a state grand jury had earlier failed to return an indictment (see Rosario/Vega case above).

back to the top

5. 10 Civil actions

The most common remedy in cases of alleged abuses by law enforcement officials is for the victim to bring a civil lawsuit for damages against the officer and/or authority responsible.
More than 3,000 lawsuits were filed against New York City from 1992 to 1995, most alleging brutality or excessive force. In the past five years the city has paid out damages for police misconduct in some 300-400 cases a year, usually as a result of out-of-court settlements agreed by the City Counsel. (More than $82m was paid in damages to alleged victims of police misconduct in 1,352 cases between 1992 and 1995.)
Unlike criminal cases, where juries must find evidence of misconduct beyond a reasonable doubt, damages in a civil trial may be awarded based on a preponderance of the evidence. The City does not admit liability in cases which are settled out-of court and officials have said that such cases do not prove misconduct but that many are settled simply to avoid the further costs involved in defending them. However, settlements - which are usually arranged through a judge and are therefore subjected to impartial scrutiny - are most likely to be reached in cases where there are injuries consistent with the claim made or some other corroborative evidence. Amnesty International therefore considers that, taken as a whole, they are important indicators of police abuse.
Civil lawsuits provide only a limited remedy for police misconduct, especially where there are allegations of widespread or systematic abuse. As with complaints filed to the CCRB, the onus is on the victim to initiate a lawsuit, whereas international standards require a prompt and impartial investigation wherever there is reasonable ground to believe that an act of torture or ill-treatment has been committed (Articles 12 and 16 of the Convention Against Torture). Although there may be a remedy for the individual in the form of compensatory damages this may not prevent similar abuses from occurring in the future or an underlying pattern of abuse. Amnesty International was told that in many cases victims of police brutality do not file civil actions because there is no independent evidence or their injuries are too minor to be worth the costs of litigation. Also, although a court or jury may impose damages against individual police officers, the city may indemnify the officer against payment of such damages. The majority of cases are resolved by settlement, where payment is made only by the city, not by the individual officers.

California Lawsuits

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Parliament/2398/police_lawsuits.htm

Riders' Cop Case Settlement Will Cost $10.9 Million
POSTED: 6:05 a.m. PST February 19, 2003
UPDATED: 1:41 p.m. PST February 20, 2003 
OAKLAND, Calif. -- City officials have agreed to pay nearly $11 million and implement police reforms to settle civil rights lawsuits brought by more than 100 people who claimed they were victimized by a group of rogue police officers known as The Riders. While some reforms were in place before The Riders scandal broke, Oakland Police Chief Richard Word said Wednesday the policies will strengthen the department's supervision, training and internal affairs. 

CIVIL ACTIONS BY VICTIMS OF POLICE MISCONDUCT

The Commission has concluded in various reports that civil lawsuits against individual police officers may help deter police misconduct.[3] While there are several avenues one may pursue when using civil lawsuits as a remedy, state and federal law limit the effectiveness of this remedy.[4]

http://www.theppsc.org/Archives/Liability/General.Perspectives/USCRC-Who_Is_Guarding_The_Guardians/Chapter-Five.htm

Civil Remedies under State Law

The most common avenue of redress available to victims of police abuse is initiating a civil action for damages under state law.[5] Police misconduct may constitute a tort for which a victim may sue for damages. In general, these lawsuits involve allegations of false arrest, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, assault, battery, or wrongful death.[6] As pointed out in Guardians, there are advantages and disadvantages to the victim when filing a state civil lawsuit. Advantages include a lower burden of proof than required in a criminal case, the fact that the victim may personally initiate the action, and the possibility of direct compensation to the victim.[7] Disadvantages include costly and time-consuming litigation and the fact that police officers ultimately may be judgment-proof and protected by sovereign immunity.[8] Even in cases where the victims of police misconduct are successful in their lawsuits, they rarely work to hold police departments or individual officers accountable for their actions.[9]

Civil Remedies under Federal Law

Most civil actions against police officers for misconduct are filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.[10] However, it is difficult to succeed in § 1983 claims against police officers, and the successes in § 1983 claims do not necessarily result in changes in police practices.[11] Further, judicially imposed barriers limit the value of remedies under § 1983. One barrier is the doctrine of immunity that protects individual police officers from lawsuits.[12] As Robert Louden and Hubert Williams discussed at the Commission’s June 2000 briefing on national police practices and civil rights, defendant officers are usually indemnified by the municipalities or unions if an alleged misconduct is within the line of duty.[13] Therefore, there is no real incentive for police officers to change their practices to ensure that individual rights are protected. In Guardians, the Commission argued that § 1983 claims have not been effective in deterring police misconduct[14] and without much change in police practices, § 1983 continues to be ineffective in deterring police misconduct.

http://www.legalcasedocs.com/120/250/059.html

ERNEST WILLIAMS v CITY OF PITTSBURGH             

Keywords & Phrases

CaseNo: EWVCOP192809, Plaintiff: ERNEST WILLIAMS, State: PA Pennsylvania, UniqueCaseRef: LCD>EWVCOP192809, CourtName: ON APRIL 16, 1997, THIS COURT ENTERED A CONSENT DECREE BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND, Police, City, Pittsburgh, Officers, Troy Wilson, Grinage, Consent Decree, Misconduct, United States, Williams, Complaint, Police Officers, Omi, Thomas, Neidig, John, Doe, Car, Jones, Pennsylvania, Amici, Discipline, Pbp, African-american, Excessive Force, Paragraph, Investigations, Bryant, Charles, Law Enforcement Officers, Compliance, Provisions, Rights, Constitution, Constitutional Rights, Decree, Complaints, Senior Supervisors, Reports, John Immekus, Civil, Larnell Bulls, Civil Rights, Aclu , ContentID: 120250059

http://www.law.sc.edu/linnan/spell.htm

SPELL v. MCDANIEL, 824 F.2d 1380 (4th Cir. 1986)

PHILLIPS, Circuit Judge:

This is a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action in which after two trials Henry Spell was awarded substantial damages against the City of Fayetteville, North Carolina (the City), and Charles McDaniel, a City police officer, as a result of physical injury inflicted on Spell by McDaniel while Spell was in McDaniel's custody following Spell's arrest. McDaniel and the City have appealed, assigning various trial rulings as error and challenging as unreasonable the amount of attorney fees awarded to Spell as prevailing party.

We find no reversible error in the trials and therefore affirm the judgment on the merits against McDaniel and the City. Except for its inclusion of a "contingency multiplier," we also affirm the district court's award of attorney fees.

Officer Counter Sues to No Avail

http://www.law.com/regionals/ca/opinions/nov/e029822.shtml

http://www.casp.net/gritch1a.html