What to do about police misconduct?

Answer 1

U.S.C. Title 42, Section 1983, Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law is the appropriate federal law used to address police misconduct as a civil matter. Depending on the situation, a person may have to start at the state level. If you believe that your state and/or federal civil and/or constitutional rights have been violated your action would be filed under the Color of State Law or the Color of Law. Section 1983 claims are difficult to win. The misconduct would have to be intentional and egregious. The Plaintiff has the responsibility of proving this. From a criminal perspective, police misconduct falls under U.S.C. Title 18, Section 242 Color of Law and Section 14141; the Federal Police Misconduct Statute. Title 18 is the federal criminal statute and therefore a prosecutor would be the person to file the complaint. For a more thorough explanation research 42, 1983 claims. There is an excellent scholarly article about 1983 that is available on-line. It was written by a law professor, Karen Blum from Sufflok University in Boston.

if its city police adrees the county. if its county address the state. if its state address the feds. ive dealt with law alot ive been through it.

Answer 2

Contact the State Attorney General.

THERE ARE SOME D.A., A.D.A, THAT ARE DOING PEOPLE HARM IN BUFFALO, BY NOT FOLLOWING THE LAW AND THINK THAT IF THEY ALL STAND TOGETHER IT WILL NEVER BE FOUND OUT THE MISJUSTICE THEY ARE HANDING OUT. THERE'S A CASE WHERE D.A KENNETH CASE & DIANE BOCCIO PROSECUTED DARRYL STOKES #04B2706 WHOM IS AN INMATE @ AUBURN CORRECTIONAL FACILITY. MR STOKES HAS BEEN FIGHTING HIS CASE TO KNOW AVAIL BECAUSE THOSE THAT MADE THE MISTAKES ARE STANDING TOGETHER. THERE IS SO MUCH EVIDENCE AGAINST THIS WRONGFUL CONVICTION, IF ONLY SOMEONE WOULD LISTEN AND LOOK INTO IT. I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT A FEW POINTS TO WHAT IS GOING ON. WE HAVE FOUND OUT SO MUCH WRONG DOING IN THIS MATTER, THAT IT WARRANT'S A REVIEW FROM YOUR OFFICE.

SHOPPING AROUND FOR THE RIGHT GRAND JURY, RESUBMITTING TO ANOTHER JUDGE. 2) MR STOKES IS SEARVING A FLAT 25 YEARS WITH 5 YEARS POST RELEASE SUPERVISION, MRS DONNA MILLING TOOK IT UPON HERSELF TO SEND A NOT NEEDED RECOMMENDATION TO NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF PAROLE @ AUBURN CORRECTIONAL FACILTY, SO THEREFORE WHEN HE COMES UP FOR PAROLE THE PAROLE BOARD THEY WILL SEE HER LETTER, ( FUNNY THING THAT SHE DIDN'T BOTHER TO FIND OUT THAT HE HAS A FLAT 25 SENTENCE. HE DOES NOT SEE A PAROLE BOARD. I HAVE ALL THE DOCUMENTS IF NEEDED. THAT IS JUST SOME OF THE BACK HAND STUFF THAT THEY ARE DOING.