Monell Claims Against Oklahoma Cities/Counties: 'Policy or Custom' Explained Without Fluff

When a police officer violates your constitutional rights, suing the officer individually is often frustrating: qualified immunity may block recovery, and even if you win, the officer may be judgment-proof.

But you can also sue the municipality—the city or county—that employs the officer. These Monell claims (named after Monell v. Department of Social Services) allow direct liability against governmental entities. The catch: you can't use respondeat superior. You must prove the constitutional violation resulted from a governmental "policy or custom."

Here's what that actually means.

The Basic Rule

Unlike private employers, municipalities cannot be held vicariously liable for their employees' constitutional violations. You can't simply prove "officer did wrong, city employs officer, therefore city is liable."

Instead, you must show the constitutional violation was caused by:

1. An official policy of the municipality, OR
2. A widespread practice or custom, OR
3. A decision by a final policymaker, OR
4. Deliberately indifferent failure to train or supervise

Let's break each one down.

Category 1: Official Policy

The clearest Monell case involves a written policy that itself causes constitutional violations.

Examples

• A policy requiring strip searches of all arrestees (regardless of offense)
• A policy allowing officers to search vehicles without probable cause
• A use-of-force policy that permits excessive force

How to Prove It

• Obtain the municipality's written policies through discovery
• Show the policy directed or authorized the unconstitutional conduct
• Demonstrate the violation occurred because officers followed policy

The Challenge

Municipalities rarely have policies that explicitly authorize unconstitutional conduct. Most written policies look fine on paper; the problem is how they're implemented.

Category 2: Custom or Practice

Even without a written policy, municipalities are liable when unconstitutional conduct is so persistent and widespread that it constitutes an unwritten "custom."

The Standard

The practice must be:

• Persistent and widespread (not isolated incidents)
• So settled as to have the force of law
• Known (or should be known) to policymakers who tolerate it

How to Prove It

• Compile evidence of similar prior incidents
• Show complaints about similar conduct went unaddressed
• Demonstrate supervisors knew about the pattern
• Prove the municipality failed to correct it

Example

Officers in a department routinely use excessive force during arrests. Complaints pile up but result in no discipline. Internal affairs investigations are perfunctory. Supervisors learn about the conduct and do nothing. Over time, this becomes the department's actual practice—regardless of what the policy manual says.

The Challenge

Proving "custom" requires evidence beyond your individual case. You need discovery into other incidents, complaints, and disciplinary records—which municipalities resist vigorously.

Category 3: Final Policymaker Decisions

When a "final policymaker" makes a decision that causes a constitutional violation, that decision binds the municipality—even if it's a one-time occurrence.

Who Is a Final Policymaker?

This is a legal question for the court. The inquiry is:

• Who has final authority over the subject matter?
• Is that authority delegated by law (not just workplace hierarchy)?

Sheriffs, police chiefs, city managers, and department heads may or may not be final policymakers depending on the municipality's structure and the issue involved.

How to Prove It

• Identify the relevant policymaker for the specific decision
• Prove that policymaker made or ratified the challenged decision
• Show the decision caused the constitutional violation

Example

A sheriff personally orders deputies to arrest protesters without probable cause. Even if this is a one-time decision, the sheriff's order—from a final policymaker—binds the county.

Category 4: Failure to Train or Supervise

Municipalities can be liable for constitutional violations caused by inadequate training or supervision, but only if:

1. The municipality was deliberately indifferent to an obvious need
2. That inadequacy was closely related to the ultimate injury

The "Deliberate Indifference" Problem

Negligent training isn't enough. The municipality must have been on notice that its training was inadequate and likely to cause constitutional violations.

How to Prove It

• Show prior incidents that should have alerted the municipality to training gaps
• Demonstrate the municipality knew its training was deficient
• Prove the municipality failed to act despite knowing the risk
• Connect the training deficiency to your specific injury

Example

Officers repeatedly use excessive force on mentally ill individuals. Training on mental health crisis response is minimal or nonexistent. Supervisors know about the gap but don't address it. When another mentally ill person is injured, the failure to train is the cause.

Causation Requirements

For any Monell theory, you must prove the municipal policy, custom, or decision was the "moving force" behind the constitutional violation.

This means:

• But for the municipal failure, the violation wouldn't have occurred
• The municipal conduct was closely connected to the harm
• The violation was a foreseeable result of the municipal action

Attenuated causation chains will fail.

Discovery in Monell Cases

Monell claims require extensive discovery:

Written Policies and Training Materials

• Policy manuals and standard operating procedures
• Training academy curricula
• In-service training records
• Policies on use of force, arrest, searches, etc.

Complaint and Disciplinary Records

• Prior complaints against the officer(s) involved
• Department-wide complaint data
• Disciplinary records and outcomes
• Internal affairs investigation files

Similar Incident Evidence

• Prior lawsuits against the department
• Settlement records
• Officer-involved shooting reviews
• Pattern-of-conduct evidence

Organizational Structure

• Who has final policymaking authority?
• How are policies adopted and changed?
• Who supervises and disciplines officers?

Why Monell Claims Matter

1. No qualified immunity — Unlike individual officers, municipalities can't claim qualified immunity
2. Deeper pockets — Municipalities can actually pay judgments
3. Systemic change — Monell verdicts pressure reform
4. Complete justice — When officers are immune, Monell may be the only viable claim

We Handle Monell Claims

Municipal liability claims require deep investigation, persistent discovery, and understanding of Monell's technical requirements. If you've suffered a constitutional violation by Oklahoma law enforcement, contact us to discuss whether a Monell claim against the city or county is viable.

Individual officer immunity doesn't mean no one is accountable.