Sexual misconduct by officers
Yes, it is a claim. An officer who uses a badge, a stop, an arrest or a cell to sexually abuse a person violates the Constitution, and commits a federal crime. In New York a person in police custody is legally incapable of consenting to sexual conduct with the officer, so there is no such thing as a consensual encounter in a patrol car or a precinct. This page goes through the civil claim, the defenses, what public bodies have paid, and the clocks in four states. You do not have to describe what happened to read it or to use the deadline tool.
Sexual misconduct by an officer is a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 whenever the officer was acting under color of law: on duty, in uniform, using the authority to stop, search, arrest, transport or guard. The Second Circuit has held that an officer's sexual or privacy violation offends the substantive due process right to bodily privacy (Poe v. Leonard, 282 F.3d 123 (2d Cir. 2002)). Where the abuse happened during a search or a seizure, the Fourth Amendment applies as well. For a person serving a sentence, the claim is under the Eighth Amendment.
There is no version of this conduct that is lawful, and no level of it that is too small to matter. A demand, a touch during a "search," and an assault in a cell are all on this page. What differs is the proof, and who besides the officer can be held to account.
How it happens
- The trade. An officer stops a driver or detains a person and makes clear that a ticket, an arrest or a call to immigration can go away in exchange for sexual contact.
- The search that is not a search. A pat-down or a search becomes groping. A person is told to lift or remove clothing at the roadside or in a back room for no reason connected to weapons or contraband.
- In the car, the precinct, the holding cell. A person in handcuffs or behind a locked door is assaulted by the officer who controls whether they go home.
- In jail or prison. Corrections officers abuse incarcerated people, or trade privileges, phone access or protection for sex, in places the cameras do not cover.
- Coming back later. An officer who met someone as a victim, a witness or a caller uses the address or phone number from the report to return, off the clock but still trading on the badge.
- The department that knew. Complaints against the same officer were made and even sustained, and the officer was left on the same assignment with the same access.
The claim
The constitutional right. Outside a jail, the claim rests on the Fourteenth Amendment's substantive due process right to bodily privacy (Poe v. Leonard) and, where the abuse was part of a stop, search or arrest, on the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. Inside a prison, the Eighth Amendment applies, and an official who knows of and disregards a substantial risk of serious harm to a prisoner is liable (Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994)). That reaches the officer who commits the abuse and the officials who knew it was happening and left the person exposed.
Consent is not available in custody. Under New York law a person who is detained or otherwise in the custody of a police officer is legally incapable of consenting to sexual conduct with the officer (N.Y. Penal Law § 130.05(3)(j), added in 2018). The statute answers the defense before it is raised. The corresponding rules in New Jersey, Florida and Pennsylvania are not in this site's verified ledger, so this page does not state them.
It is also a federal crime. Willful deprivation of rights under color of law is punishable by up to 1 year, by up to 10 years where bodily injury results or a weapon is involved, and by any term of years or life where the act includes aggravated sexual abuse or kidnapping (18 U.S.C. § 242). The Supreme Court has held that Section 242 reaches sexual assault by a state official where the unlawfulness is apparent from pre-existing law (United States v. Lanier, 520 U.S. 259 (1997)). A criminal investigation and a civil claim can run side by side, but the civil deadlines do not pause for the prosecutor.
Under color of law. The claim requires that the officer was using official authority, not acting as a private person. An officer on duty, or one who uses the badge, the car or information from police records to get access, is within it. The color of law page covers the off-duty cases.
Supervisors and the employer. There is no vicarious liability under Section 1983; each official answers for his or her own conduct (Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009)), and in the Second Circuit a supervisor must personally meet the elements of the claim (Tangreti v. Bachmann, 983 F.3d 609 (2d Cir. 2020)). The municipality is liable where its policy, custom or deliberate indifference caused the violation (Monell v. Dep't of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978); City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378 (1989)). The record for that claim is the officer's complaint history, which in New York has been open to public records requests since the repeal of Civil Rights Law § 50-a on June 12, 2020. See police disciplinary records.
If you are incarcerated now
A federal claim about prison conditions cannot be brought until available administrative remedies are exhausted (42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a)). A grievance process that is a dead end, that is too opaque to use, or that officials thwart is not "available" (Ross v. Blake, 578 U.S. 632 (2016)). The same statute bars claims for mental or emotional injury without physical injury, with an express exception for the commission of a sexual act (§ 1997e(e)). See jail and prison abuse.
What they will argue
It did not happen, or it was consensual. These cases often begin with one person's account against an officer's. They are proved with what surrounds the account: GPS and radio logs that place the car, body-worn camera gaps, phone and message records, jail movement logs, prior complaints, and medical and counseling records. In New York the consent argument is closed by statute for a person in custody.
He was acting on his own. The employer will say the officer was a private wrongdoer and the conduct was outside anything the job involves. That argument goes to the employer's liability, not the officer's. Against the employer, the reply is what the department knew and did about earlier complaints. A pattern of similar violations is ordinarily what shows deliberate indifference (Connick v. Thompson, 563 U.S. 51 (2011)).
Indemnification. New York City's duty to indemnify its employees does not arise where the injury resulted from intentional wrongdoing or recklessness (N.Y. Gen. Mun. Law § 50-k(3)), and Florida's authority to pay a judgment against an officer stops where the officer caused the harm intentionally (Fla. Stat. § 111.071(1)(a)). That is one reason the claim against the employer, for what it knew and tolerated, matters as much as the claim against the officer.
Qualified immunity. The defense exists for reasonable mistakes about unsettled law (Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982)). Lanier treated the unlawfulness of sexual assault by an official as apparent from pre-existing law, and Poe has recognized the right in the Second Circuit since 2002. It is raised anyway, particularly by supervisors.
State-law immunity. In Pennsylvania, local agencies are immune from state-law damages except under listed exceptions, all of which require negligent acts; sexual abuse was added as an exception in 2019, and the $500,000 cap on damages against a local agency does not apply to those claims (42 Pa.C.S. §§ 8542(b), 8553). An employee loses official immunity on a judicial finding of a crime, actual malice or willful misconduct (§ 8550).
What people have recovered
Edna Mahan Correctional Facility
A settlement of 20 lawsuits and a class action over sexual abuse of incarcerated women by corrections officers. The figure includes attorney's fees.
Source: The Philadelphia Inquirer. A public record of other people's cases, not a result of this firm and not a prediction.
Victims of a Philadelphia police officer
Sexual abuse by an officer the department had kept on despite sustained complaints against him.
Source: The Philadelphia Inquirer. A public record of other people's cases, not a result of this firm and not a prediction.
Both matters were about the institution as much as the individual: a prison that let it continue, a department that kept an officer after complaints were sustained. These are other people's cases; what a case is worth depends on the injury, the evidence and the defenses. No verified public figure for New York or Florida is published here for this kind of case. See what a case is worth and the public settlements page.
The clock
Many people do not tell anyone for months. The federal periods below allow for that. The state-law notice periods mostly do not. This site's ledger does not contain any special extension for sexual abuse claims against government bodies, so none is stated here; ask a lawyer whether one applies to you.
| State | Federal claim, Section 1983 | State-law claim: notice | State-law claim: suit |
|---|---|---|---|
| New York | Three years (N.Y. CPLR 214(5); Owens v. Okure, 488 U.S. 235 (1989)) | Notice of claim within 90 days to a city or county (N.Y. Gen. Mun. Law § 50-e(1)(a)); against the State, a claim or notice of intention in the Court of Claims within 90 days (Court of Claims Act § 10(3), (3-b)) | One year and 90 days against a municipality (§ 50-i(1)) |
| New Jersey | Two years (N.J.S.A. 2A:14-2), the same for the Civil Rights Act claim, which needs no tort notice (Owens v. Feigin, 194 N.J. 607 (2008)) | Tort Claims Act notice within 90 days (N.J.S.A. 59:8-8) | No suit until six months after the notice; barred after two years (N.J.S.A. 59:8-8) |
| Florida | Four years (Fla. Stat. § 95.11(3)) | Written claim to the agency, and for a state agency to the Department of Financial Services, within three years (Fla. Stat. § 768.28(6)) | The agency has six months to act; suit within four years (§ 768.28(6), (14)) |
| Pennsylvania | Two years (42 Pa.C.S. § 5524; Kach v. Hose, 589 F.3d 626 (3d Cir. 2009)) | Written notice to the government unit within six months, and to the Attorney General for a Commonwealth agency (42 Pa.C.S. § 5522(a)) | Two years for assault and battery (42 Pa.C.S. § 5524(1)) |
No state notice rule applies to the federal claim (Felder v. Casey, 487 U.S. 131 (1988)). The New York, New Jersey, Florida and Pennsylvania pages go through each rule.
If the encounter ended in a charge against you that is still open, talk to your defense lawyer before you describe it to anyone, including us. The criminal case and civil case page explains why. Our consultation form asks for a date, an agency and a kind of incident. It does not ask you to write down what happened.
Strip search
When a search of the body is lawful, when it is not, and the open questions in jails.
Strip search →Jail and prison abuse
Force, neglect and abuse behind the wall, and the grievance rule that comes first.
Jail and prison abuse →Supervisors who let it happen
What it takes to hold the people above the officer responsible.
Supervisor liability →Common questions
The officer says it was consensual. Does that defeat the claim?
In New York, not if you were detained or in custody. Penal Law 130.05(3)(j), added in 2018, makes a person who is detained or in the custody of a police officer legally incapable of consenting to sexual conduct with that officer. The equivalent rules in New Jersey, Florida and Pennsylvania are not in this site's verified sources, so they are not stated here.
Can the officer be prosecuted as well as sued?
Yes, and the two are separate. Willful deprivation of rights under color of law is a federal crime under 18 U.S.C. 242, punishable by any term of years or life where it involves aggravated sexual abuse. In United States v. Lanier the Supreme Court confirmed that Section 242 reaches sexual assault by a state official. A prosecution is brought by the government. The civil claim is yours, and it has its own deadlines that do not wait for the criminal case.
I am still incarcerated. Do I have to file a grievance first?
For a federal claim about prison conditions, yes: the Prison Litigation Reform Act requires exhaustion of the administrative remedies that are available. Under Ross v. Blake a remedy that is a dead end, that no one can understand, or that officials block, is not available. The same Act's bar on claims for emotional injury without physical injury has an express exception for a sexual act.
Can the city or the department be held responsible, or only the officer?
Under Section 1983 the employer is liable only where its own policy, custom or deliberate indifference caused the abuse, for example by keeping an officer on the street after sustained complaints. Under state law the rules differ. Pennsylvania added sexual abuse to the exceptions to local agency immunity in 2019, and its damages cap does not apply to those claims.
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.