Law enforcement officers are given authority, but that authority has limits.
While police misconduct is not new, ongoing complaints about officers using excessive force in New York reflect a broader effort to define lawful limits on the use of force and to ensure accountability when those limits are exceeded. When those limits aren’t respected and police use excessive force, rights are violated and people are seriously harmed.
Subin Law represents people who have been seriously harmed by excessive force in New York. These cases rely on a clear understanding of the legal standard, the evidence needed, and the institutional defenses raised against it.
What Makes Force Legally Excessive
Not every use of force by a law enforcement officer is excessive under the law. The constitutional standard, established by the Supreme Court in Graham v. Connor, asks whether the force used was objectively reasonable in light of the facts and circumstances confronting the officer at the moment it was applied.
That analysis considers the severity of the alleged offense, whether the person posed an immediate threat to the officer or others, and whether they were actively resisting or trying to flee. Force disproportionate to those factors, applied after resistance ceased, or used where no meaningful threat existed, crosses the constitutional line.
The standard is objective, not subjective. What the officer believed about the situation matters less than what the facts actually showed at the time.
Legal Responsibility
Excessive force claims are brought under federal civil rights law, which provides a remedy for constitutional violations committed by those acting under color of state law. Establishing a claim requires demonstrating that the force used violated constitutionally protected rights and that the violation caused the plaintiff’s injuries.
These claims can extend beyond the individual officer to the institutions and policies behind the conduct. Where a constitutional violation results from official policy, a widespread practice, or a failure to train that reflects deliberate indifference to the rights of the people officers encounter, institutional accountability becomes part of the case.
Cases involving government defendants carry strict procedural deadlines, and early legal involvement is essential to protecting the claim.
Building the Case
Excessive force cases are contested from the start. Officers file post-incident reports quickly, often framing events to minimize or justify the force used. Building a case that withstands this requires securing independent evidence before the official narrative solidifies.
Body camera footage, surveillance recordings, witness accounts, and communications must be obtained legally and preserved before retention schedules allow overwriting. Additionally, the officer’s prior complaints and disciplinary history help establish patterns of conduct. Medical records documenting injuries are essential to link the constitutional violation to the harm.
Every case at Subin Law is built for trial from the start. In excessive force cases with significant institutional defenses and time-sensitive evidence, preparation begins immediately upon retention.
What These Cases Involve
Excessive force causes physical injuries, psychological harm, and lasting consequences that affect a person’s ability to work, function independently, and move through daily life without fear. Furthermore, the legal work is about establishing that the force crossed the constitutional line and that the people and institutions responsible for it are held accountable for the full consequences.
Subin Law takes a limited number of serious cases so each receives focused attention and a strategy built around its specific facts. Consultations are free and confidential. No attorney fees are charged unless compensation is recovered.
Contact Subin Law to discuss your case.
