The officer considering a civil suit may also encounter difficulty finding an attorney who is willing to bring the action. As noted above, many attorneys are not fully aware of the possibilities open to police plaintiffs in a civil court. In addition, the cost of good legal representation can be substantial, and the officer may not be willing to pay the fees required by the attorney., or the other costs associated with the civil litigation. In most localities, of course, plaintiffs' attorneys habitually accept cases on a contingent fee basis whereby an attorney will be paid an agreed upon percentage of the eventual recovery, if any. Unfortunately, for reasons described below, attorneys are often reluctant to accept police plaintiff cases because they fear that even if a favorable verdict is obtained in court, they will be unable to collect the judgment, so that the net recovery - and the resulting attorney's contingent fee - will be nil.

The Difficulty of Obtaining a Judgment

  An additional deterrent to civil action is the difficulty of obtaining a favorable judgment under the existing legal system. American tort law has, in some areas at least, developed a definite anti-police bias, which serves to block recoveries in many instances in which a wrong has unquestionable been done to the plaintiff officer. Thus, for example, the police officer may be confronted with complex legal defenses which deny to the officer the rights of the civilian citizen, or protect certain privileged defendants from the consequences of their wrongful acts. Because of these discriminatory rules, certain types of civil actions may see to the injured officer to present such difficulty as to become, if not impossible, at least unprofitable to pursue.

The Difficulty of Collecting a Judgment Even if the Officer Wins the Case

As noted in the discussion of the problems of obtaining legal representation, many attorneys shy away from the police-plaintiff cases because they believe that, while the officer has a strong legal case and will obtain a favorable verdict in court, they will be unable to collect anything from the defendant after the judgment is rendered.

In certain types of cases, at least, this is a significant consideration, as for example, in actions for battery. Unfortunately, those most likely to commit battery on police officer are also those least likely to have substantial pecuniary assets with which to satisfy a judgment even if one is obtained. Consequently, both the officer and the attorney may consider it a waste of time to bring an action when it seems likely that any resulting judgment will be a hollow victory, with no money ever actually being collected from the indigent defendant. In some instances, of course, the officer may wish to bring the suit as a matter of principle, or to obtain personal vindication; but these suits are relatively few, and in such instances the attorney will probably require payment by the officer of a flat fee in advance.

The Attitude of the Individual Officer

Although the difficulties discussed above are formidable, one of the most significant causes underlying the traditional lack of use of the civil courts by injured officers is the attitude of the officers themselves.

While individual officers are different, and therefore view the issues differently, certain common patterns of thought can be discerned. In the first place, as noted above, there is often an inherent distrust of the court system in general and of lawyers in particular. This leads to a feeling that there is no point in wasting time attempting to use a system which is basically hostile to the police officer, or which will place the officer's fortunes in the hands of lawyers, of which the police officer has not usually received a very favorable impression.

Secondly, there has quite commonly been a feeling among police officers that physical injury, or at least the risk of it, is just "part of the job," an occupational hazard which should be accepted without complaint. Most officers take pride in being members of the law enforcement fraternity, but this is unfortunately often accompanied by a feeling of isolation from the civilian world. This strong sense of in-group identity in turn often leads to the feeling that it is not proper to complain to persons or institutions outside it, or even to the department when an injury is received. Fear of loss of face or even open ridicule by brother officers may play a part here also, particularly where the injury is minor or of a strictly technical nature. In short, no one wants to appear to be a "crybaby."

This complex combination of pride and antipathy has historically discouraged many officers from filing civil suits; but, as will be noted later, this attitude seems to be changing rapidly today, especially where the case involves something other than the most minor physical or technical injury.

Trends in Civil Litigation by Police

Despite the difficulties described above, and the historical lack of use of civil remedies by law enforcement personnel, it appears that the trend is now toward increasing use of the civil courts by police plaintiffs. This trend has manifested itself in several ways. First, there is a distinct increase in the number of cases reaching both the trial and appellate courts in which police officers are the complainants. Secondly, law enforcement related publications are taking an increased interest in the subject. Even the news media have taken note of the development. There are several factors which have contributed to this, and, again, an understanding of these is important to anyone involved in this are of the law.

Increased Police Awareness of Civil Remedies

The past few years have brought about changes in the law enforcement personnel themselves. Today's officers have a greater awareness of social issues in general and of their own rights in particular. This increased awareness is evident in the internal relationships between officers and their departments as well as in the officers' increased use of civil remedies against persons outside of their agencies.

Continued on Page 4

Back to Page 2

Back to Your Rights