Police Brutality Is Not Just Wrong. It's Unconstitutional.

Under Graham v. Connor, courts use an 'objective reasonableness' standard—whether a reasonable officer in the same situation would have used similar force. Factors include the severity of the crime, whether the suspect posed an immediate threat, and whether they were actively resisting. Force that exceeds what's necessary under these factors is unconstitutional.

Yes. Even if you were resisting, officers can only use force proportional to your resistance. Once you stop resisting or are restrained, any additional force becomes excessive. We analyze body camera footage frame-by-frame to identify the moment force became unjustified.

An officer's subjective fear is not enough—the fear must be objectively reasonable. If body camera footage, witness testimony, or forensic evidence contradicts the officer's claimed fear, we can prove the force was unjustified.

We research 10th Circuit precedent to find prior cases with similar facts that established the conduct as unconstitutional. We also argue that some violations are so obvious that no prior case is needed—a concept called 'obvious clarity.'

We immediately issue preservation letters for body camera and dashcam footage, 911 recordings, dispatch logs, the officer's personnel file and complaint history, department use-of-force policies, and training records. We also interview witnesses and obtain your medical records.

Compensatory damages cover medical bills, lost wages, pain and suffering, and emotional distress. Punitive damages punish officers for malicious conduct. Under Section 1988, the government must also pay your attorney's fees if you win.