Failure to intervene
An officer who watches another officer use unreasonable force, and who could have stopped it, may be liable too. In New York City the local civil rights law says so in terms for NYPD officers, and in New Jersey the Attorney General's statewide policy imposes a duty to intervene on every officer. Under Section 1983 the claim is built on the same Fourth Amendment violation as the force itself. The federal appeals courts for New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Florida have each recognized the duty. This page goes through where the claim comes from, the federal rule, what it adds to a force case, and the clocks.
Most force is used by one officer while others watch. The claim against the officer who used the force is on the excessive force page. This page is about the rest of them: the partner who held your arm while it happened, the sergeant who arrived and let it continue, the officers whose cameras recorded it from three angles and whose reports say they saw nothing. The law in New York City and in New Jersey names their duty in words. Under Section 1983 the claim exists as well, and the federal appeals courts have stated the rule plainly.
Where the claim comes from
Section 1983 gives a cause of action against "every person" who, under color of state law, subjects another to the deprivation of a federal right (42 U.S.C. § 1983). It does not say the person has to be the one whose hands did it. The underlying right is the same one the force claim rests on: the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable seizures during an arrest or stop, judged by objective reasonableness on the totality of the circumstances (Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989); Barnes v. Felix, 605 U.S. ___ (2025)), or the Fourteenth Amendment's objective standard for a person held before trial (Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 576 U.S. 389 (2015)). Deadly force against a fleeing person is unreasonable unless the officer had probable cause to believe the person posed a significant threat of death or serious physical injury (Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)).
So the claim has two layers. First, the force itself must have been unreasonable. If it was not, no one is liable for failing to stop it. Second, the other officer must have been in a position to do something about it. Everything in the second layer is about facts: where the officer was standing, what the officer could see, how long the force went on, and whether there was time to act.
The federal rule
In the Second Circuit, which covers New York, all officers have an affirmative duty to intervene against constitutional violations by other officers in their presence, and whether an officer had a realistic opportunity to intervene is a question for the jury (Anderson v. Branen, 17 F.3d 552 (2d Cir. 1994)). In the Third Circuit, which covers New Jersey and Pennsylvania, a corrections officer who fails to intervene in a beating can be liable if there was a realistic opportunity to do so, and rank is irrelevant: a junior officer is not excused because the one using force outranked him (Smith v. Mensinger, 293 F.3d 641 (3d Cir. 2002)). In the Eleventh Circuit, which covers Florida, an officer who is present with the time and ability to stop excessive force and does nothing is directly liable; in that case the officer watched a police dog attack a compliant, prone suspect for about two minutes (Priester v. City of Riviera Beach, 208 F.3d 919 (11th Cir. 2000)).
Two things follow. The opportunity has to be realistic, which is a question of time and position: force that goes on for a minute leaves room to step in where a single unexpected blow may not. And because the question belongs to the jury, a bystander officer's claim that there was nothing he could have done is tested against the video, not accepted on his word.
New York City: the law names the claim
Local Law 48 of 2021 added a chapter to the City's Administrative Code creating a civil right of security against unreasonable search and seizure and against excessive force, held by every person and enforceable against a "covered individual," meaning an NYPD employee or special patrolman (N.Y.C. Admin. Code §§ 8-801, 8-802). The enforcement section provides a civil action against the covered individual and the employer, in any court of competent jurisdiction, and it says the action lies "including for failure to intervene" (§ 8-803). That is the sentence this page is built on. For an NYPD officer, the duty to intervene is not an inference from Section 1983 case law; it is written into the statute that creates the claim.
What the City law adds
No qualified immunity: "it is not a defense to liability that a covered individual has qualified immunity or any other substantially equivalent immunity" (§ 8-804). The City as a defendant directly, without Monell. Compensatory damages, with punitive damages in the court's discretion, or at the plaintiff's election a statutory figure of $1,000, plus attorney's fees and costs (§ 8-805). A three-year limitation period, "notwithstanding section 50-k of the general municipal law or any other provision of law" (§ 8-806). No exhaustion of administrative remedies (§ 8-803). The chapter is construed consistently with the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments and article I, sections 6 and 12 of the State Constitution (§ 8-807). Whether a General Municipal Law § 50-e notice of claim is required for this claim is a question we have found no appellate decision on, and we do not publish an answer; we serve the notice within 90 days anyway. The city law page goes through the chapter section by section.
The limit is in the definition. A covered individual is an NYPD employee or special patrolman. A correction officer at Rikers, a State Trooper, a Nassau or Suffolk officer, a New Jersey officer: none of them is reached by this chapter. For those officers the failure-to-intervene claim exists only under Section 1983 and, in New Jersey, the Civil Rights Act, and the qualified immunity defense is back.
New Jersey: a duty written into policy
The New Jersey Attorney General's statewide Use of Force Policy (Directive 2020-13 of December 21, 2020, updated by Directive 2021-14 and most recently in September 2025) requires force as a last resort, imposes a duty to intervene and a duty to render aid, and bans chokeholds. It binds every law enforcement officer in the State. The policy is a rule for officers, not a statute creating a civil claim, and the civil claim is still brought under Section 1983 and the New Jersey Civil Rights Act (N.J.S.A. 10:6-2). What the policy does is fix the standard the officer was trained to and measured against, in writing, before the incident, which is the document the officer's deposition is built around.
Two other New Jersey rules make the facts easier to prove. Every use of force must be reported to the statewide Use of Force Portal within 24 hours, all agencies have reported since late 2020, and the dashboard and datasets are public. Body-worn camera recordings must be kept not less than 180 days, and for three years where the subject registers a complaint or a member of the public requests retention (N.J.S.A. 40A:14-118.5). A written request within the first months preserves every officer's camera, not only the one who used the force. Qualified immunity applies to the Civil Rights Act claim as it does under Section 1983 (Morillo v. Torres, 222 N.J. 104 (2015)). The New Jersey page goes through the rest.
A narrower federal cousin: Section 1986
Federal law has one statute that expressly punishes a failure to act, and it is narrower than it sounds. Where two or more persons conspire to deprive a person or class of equal protection of the laws, the conspiracy is actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3), and a person who knows of such a conspiracy, has the power to prevent it, and fails to do so is liable under § 1986. The claim requires an equal protection conspiracy, which is a different and harder thing to prove than an unreasonable use of force, and it carries its own clock.
One year
An action under 42 U.S.C. § 1986 must be commenced within one year after the cause of action accrued. It is the shortest federal clock on this site. Where the facts suggest officers acted together on the basis of race or another protected ground, this claim is evaluated in the first conversation, not the second year.
Proving who was there and what they saw
A failure-to-intervene claim is proved with the same record as the force claim, read for a different question: not what the first officer did, but what each other officer could see and for how long. Body-worn camera footage from every officer on the scene, not only the one who used the force, is the first request, and in New York City the Right to Know Act business card an officer must hand you tells you where to request it (Local Law 54 of 2018); the NYPD directs civilians to request footage by FOIL. The card also carries the officer's name, rank, command and shield number, which is how you identify the officers who did nothing. A person not under arrest has a statutory right to record the police and keep the recording (N.Y. Civ. Rights Law § 79-p). The evidence page goes through each request and its timing.
Two more records matter. Since the repeal of Civil Rights Law § 50-a in June 2020, officer disciplinary records are subject to FOIL, so each officer's history of force complaints can be requested (see the disciplinary records page). And a pattern of officers standing by supports a claim against the City itself, which is liable under Section 1983 where an official policy or custom causes the violation (Monell v. Dep't of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978)), including a failure to train that amounts to deliberate indifference (City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378 (1989)), ordinarily shown by a pattern of similar violations (Connick v. Thompson, 563 U.S. 51 (2011)). The Monell page goes through the routes.
If a criminal charge from the same incident is still open, talk to your defense lawyer before describing the arrest to anyone, and do not name officers in writing. The officers who watched will be witnesses in the criminal case too, and the criminal case and civil case page explains how the two cases are sequenced.
The clocks
The claim against the officer who watched runs on the same clocks as the claim against the officer who acted. In New York the federal claim has three years from the incident (Owens v. Okure, 488 U.S. 235 (1989); CPLR 214(5)) and needs no notice (Felder v. Casey, 487 U.S. 131 (1988)). A state-law claim against the City or another municipality needs a notice of claim within 90 days of the incident (N.Y. Gen. Mun. Law § 50-e(1)(a)) and suit within one year and 90 days (§ 50-i(1)); the City-law claim against an NYPD officer has three years (N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-806). A claim against the State for what State Troopers did goes to the Court of Claims within 90 days (N.Y. Court of Claims Act § 10(3)). The notice of claim page and the New York page go through each.
New Jersey and Florida
In New Jersey the federal claim and the Civil Rights Act claim have two years (N.J.S.A. 2A:14-2; 10:6-2). The state tort claim needs a Tort Claims Act notice within 90 days of accrual, a six-month wait before suit, and suit within two years (N.J.S.A. 59:8-8), with a late notice possible within one year on a showing of extraordinary circumstances (59:8-9). The notice does not apply to the Civil Rights Act claim (Owens v. Feigin, 194 N.J. 607 (2008)). In Florida the federal claim has four years (Fla. Stat. § 95.11(3)), the state claim needs a written claim to the agency, and except for a city or county to the Department of Financial Services, within three years with a six-month wait (Fla. Stat. § 768.28(6)), and damages against the agency are capped at $200,000 per person and $300,000 per incident, which are statutory caps (§ 768.28(5)(a)). An officer has no personal liability under Florida law unless the officer acted in bad faith, with malicious purpose, or with wanton and willful disregard (§ 768.28(9)(a)). The New Jersey and Florida pages go through each.
The force itself
The Graham factors, deadly force, the whole-encounter rule from Barnes, and qualified immunity after Zorn.
Excessive force →The City law of 2021
A local civil right with no immunity defense and the City as a defendant. What it changes and what it does not.
The city law →Every camera on the scene
Body-worn cameras, the Right to Know card, FOIL, and the requests that go out in the first week.
Evidence and body cameras →Common questions
Only one officer hit me. Why would I sue the others?
Because the officers who stood there are witnesses at best and defendants at worst, and naming them changes what they say. A failure-to-intervene claim asks whether an officer who saw unreasonable force and had a chance to stop it did nothing. It also reaches the officers whose body cameras recorded the force from a second angle, and whose reports either match the footage or do not.
Is this a separate claim or part of the excessive force claim?
It is a separate theory against a different officer, built on the same underlying violation. There is no failure-to-intervene claim unless the force itself was unreasonable. If the force claim fails, this one fails with it. If the force claim succeeds, the question for each other officer is what he saw and what he could have done.
Does the New York City law cover this?
Yes, for NYPD officers. Administrative Code section 8-803 provides a civil action against an NYPD employee and the City as employer, including for failure to intervene, with no qualified immunity defense and a three-year limitation period. It does not cover the Department of Correction, the State Police or departments outside the City.
How long do I have?
The same clocks as the force claim. In New York the federal claim has three years from the incident, the state-law claim against the City needs a notice of claim within 90 days, and the City-law claim has three years. In New Jersey the federal and Civil Rights Act claims have two years and the tort notice is due in 90 days. In Florida the federal claim has four years and the state notice three. The deadline tool counts each from your date.
Tell us what happened.
One conversation with an attorney, in your language. We tell you which claims the facts support, which deadline runs first for the agency involved, what evidence to preserve this week, and whether a pending criminal case changes the timing. If it is not a case we can take, we say so and tell you where to go.
(718) 484-7510If a criminal charge is still open, talk to your defense lawyer before you describe the arrest to anyone, including us. English, Russian and Spanish in-house; an interpreter for any other language. Contingency fee, confirmed in writing before we begin.