The Bane Act in California: how a Civil Code 52.1 claim works against police

The Bane Act in California is a state civil rights law, found in Civil Code § 52.1. It lets a person sue when someone, including a police officer or deputy, interferes with their constitutional or legal rights by threats, intimidation or coercion. If an officer hurt you, arrested you without cause or used force on a family member, a Civil Code 52.1 claim is often one of the most important claims in the case.

This guide explains what the Bane Act requires, the intent rule courts apply in excessive-force cases, what you can recover, how the 2021 police reform law called SB 2 changed it, and why it matters when a federal claim runs into qualified immunity. It is general information, not advice about your case.

What is the Bane Act?

The statute is formally called the Tom Bane Civil Rights Act. It covers anyone, "whether or not acting under color of law," who interferes or tries to interfere by "threat, intimidation, or coercion" with rights secured by the U.S. Constitution, federal law, the California Constitution or California law (§ 52.1(b)–(c)).

Two parts of the law matter most for people harmed by police:

• The right to sue. A person whose rights were interfered with may bring their own civil action for damages, an injunction and other relief (§ 52.1(c)).
• The government's right to sue. The Attorney General, a district attorney or a city attorney may also sue for an injunction and may seek a civil penalty of $25,000 (§ 52.1(b)). That penalty belongs to the government case, not to a private lawsuit.

The law also says that "speech alone" is not enough unless the words themselves threaten violence against a specific person or group, the person reasonably fears the violence, and the speaker appears able to carry it out (§ 52.1(k)). In police cases, the claim usually rests on conduct, such as force or an arrest, not just words.

What do you have to prove in a Bane Act claim?

California's civil jury instruction for the Bane Act, CACI No. 3066, breaks the claim into a few questions. In plain words, a jury is asked whether:

1. The officer interfered, or tried to interfere, with your right (for example, your right to be free from an unreasonable seizure or excessive force) by threat, intimidation or coercion. This can mean acting violently against you, or making you reasonably believe violence would follow if you used your right.
2. The officer intended to deprive you of that right, or acted with reckless disregard for it.
3. You were harmed.
4. The officer's conduct was a substantial factor in causing that harm.

The right being violated is usually a constitutional one, such as the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches, seizures and force, or the matching rights in the California Constitution. That is why a Bane Act claim usually sits next to a federal civil rights claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state claims such as battery or negligence. Our guide to excessive force claims in California explains how courts judge whether force was reasonable.

The specific-intent issue in excessive-force cases

For years, courts disagreed about whether the "coercion" in a Bane Act claim had to be something separate from the force or arrest itself. Two decisions largely settled the question for police cases:

• In Cornell v. City and County of San Francisco (2017), a California Court of Appeal held that the coercion does not have to be independent of the constitutional violation. Instead, the plaintiff must show the officer had a specific intent to violate the right. The court said reckless disregard of the right is enough.
• In Reese v. County of Sacramento (2018), the federal Ninth Circuit followed Cornell. It held that a Bane Act excessive-force claim requires "a specific intent to violate the arrestee's right to freedom from unreasonable seizure," but no separate showing of coercion beyond the force itself.

What this means in practice: proving that force was unreasonable is not always enough on its own. The evidence should also show the officer acted deliberately, or with reckless disregard for your rights. Body camera video, repeated strikes after a person was restrained, ignored pleas, false reports written afterward and the officer's training records can all speak to intent. This is why we push early for the full video and records.

What can you recover under the Bane Act?

A person who wins a Bane Act claim may recover damages and equitable relief such as an injunction (§ 52.1(c)). Three points are worth knowing:

• Attorney's fees. The court "may award the petitioner or plaintiff reasonable attorney's fees" (§ 52.1(i)). Fee shifting matters because civil rights cases are expensive to try, and the possibility of fees gives the government a reason to take the claim seriously.
• The link to Civil Code § 52. The Bane Act allows damages "including, but not limited to, damages under Section 52." Section 52 is a separate civil rights damages statute. One part allows up to three times actual damages, with a $4,000 minimum, for certain discrimination claims; another allows exemplary damages and a $25,000 civil penalty for violence-based claims under § 51.7. Section 52 itself does not mention the Bane Act. The Judicial Council's notes to CACI No. 3066 say the cross-reference suggests damages may be recoverable under both parts of § 52. How much of § 52 carries over to a particular Bane Act case is a legal question your lawyer will need to analyze; it should not be assumed.
• Independent remedy. A Bane Act action "is independent of any other action, remedy, or procedure" available under other law (§ 52.1(h)), so it can be brought alongside federal and other state claims.

Punitive damages generally cannot be awarded against a city or county, but they may be sought against individual officers in some cases. We do not predict what any case is worth.

How SB 2 (2021) changed the Bane Act

In 2021 the Legislature passed Senate Bill 2 (Chapter 409, Statutes of 2021), signed September 30, 2021. It did two main things.

First, it amended the Bane Act. Subdivision (n) of § 52.1 now says three state immunity statutes, Government Code §§ 821.6, 844.6 and 845.6, do not apply to Bane Act claims against a peace officer or custodial officer, or against the public entity that employs them. Those immunities had been used to defend claims about prosecutions and investigations (§ 821.6), injuries to prisoners (§ 844.6) and failures to provide medical care to prisoners (§ 845.6). Removing them matters a great deal in arrest, prosecution and jail cases. The bill's findings also criticized the federal doctrine of qualified immunity.

Second, SB 2 created a system that lets California's police standards agency, POST, decertify officers for serious misconduct. Decertification is separate from a lawsuit and does not pay anything to the person harmed, but the records it creates can be relevant.

Why the Bane Act matters when qualified immunity blocks a federal claim

Qualified immunity is a federal defense. It can shield an individual officer from a § 1983 damages claim unless the officer violated "clearly established" law, which in practice often means a prior court decision with similar facts. Many strong federal claims are lost on this ground.

The Bane Act is a state-law claim, and federal qualified immunity does not apply to it. California still has its own immunities in the Government Code, but SB 2 removed several of them for Bane Act claims against officers. And under Government Code § 815.2, a city or county is generally liable for its employees' acts within the scope of their employment, unless the employee is immune. So when a federal court says the law was not clearly established, a Bane Act claim (along with battery, negligence or false imprisonment claims) can keep the case alive against both the officer and the agency. Our guide to qualified immunity in California explains the federal defense in more detail.

The deadline: six months for a claim against a city or county

Because the Bane Act is a state-law claim, a suit against a California city, county or the State usually requires a written government claim first. For death or personal injury, the claim must be presented within six months (Government Code § 911.2). Missing that deadline can end the Bane Act claim even when the facts are strong. Read our guide to the six-month government claim deadline for how it works.

A federal § 1983 claim has no claim requirement and generally a two-year limit in California, but the Bane Act claim depends on the six-month claim. If criminal charges are pending against you, talk to a lawyer before filing anything or giving any statement: what you say in the civil case can matter in the criminal case, and the claim deadline generally still runs.

Where the Bane Act shows up in police cases

• Excessive force, including shootings, beatings, Taser use and K9 bites. In a death case, the family's claims are explained in our guide to police shooting wrongful death claims.
• Arrests without probable cause. Cornell itself was a wrongful arrest case. See our guide to false arrest claims in California.
• Charges brought on false reports. With the § 821.6 immunity removed for Bane Act claims against officers, the Bane Act can be important in malicious prosecution and fabricated evidence cases.
• Jail and custody cases, where the prisoner-injury and medical-care immunities used to block many state claims.

How LaCour handles Bane Act cases

LaCour Trial Lawyers is a trial firm led by founding partner Jonathan P. LaCour. We take police misconduct and wrongful death in custody cases across California, with Spanish-speaking lawyers and staff, and we work on contingency: no fee unless there is a recovery. If you want us to look at what happened, ask for a free, confidential review.

Frequently asked questions

This guide is general information about California and federal law and about public records as of its date. It is not legal advice, and reading it or contacting us does not create an attorney–client relationship. Allegations in lawsuits are claims, not findings. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Attorney advertising.