When a law enforcement officer uses more force than was reasonably necessary, you may have a civil rights claim and the right to seek justice through a civil lawsuit. Bur Oak Injury Law represents people in Columbia, Missouri, Boone County, and Central Missouri who have been harmed by excessive force, false arrest, unlawful search, racial profiling, and other police misconduct.
Civil rights cases against government officers are complicated by qualified immunity, tight evidence windows, and institutional resistance. Attorney Chris Miller handles every excessive force case personally — no associates, no handoffs. From the first call through final resolution, your case stays with Chris.
If a law enforcement officer used more force than was reasonably necessary during an arrest, detention, or encounter, you may have a civil rights claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 — the federal statute that allows individuals to sue government officials who violate constitutional rights. Bur Oak Injury Law represents residents of Columbia, Missouri, Boone County, and across central Missouri who have suffered physical harm, emotional trauma, or civil rights violations at the hands of law enforcement.
These cases are not easy. Officers are protected by the doctrine of qualified immunity, which shields them from personal liability unless the constitutional violation was "clearly established" at the time of the incident. Government agencies resist disclosure of internal records, body camera footage, and disciplinary histories. Acting quickly — before evidence disappears — is critical.
Chris Miller has argued before the Missouri Supreme Court and understands how government institutions operate from the inside. He handles every civil rights case personally, coordinating with civil rights investigators, forensic experts, and medical professionals to build the strongest possible record for your claim.
Excessive force cases are among the most challenging civil rights matters an attorney can handle. Police departments, municipalities, and their insurers have experienced defense counsel working against you from the moment an incident is reported. Here is what an experienced excessive force attorney does that makes the difference between a dismissed complaint and a successful civil rights recovery.
Qualified immunity is the primary defense raised in § 1983 cases. Successfully defeating it requires showing that prior court decisions clearly established that the specific conduct violated the Constitution. An experienced civil rights attorney knows how to frame the facts against existing precedent.
Body camera footage, dashcam video, dispatch recordings, medical records, witness statements, and internal affairs files are all subject to retention schedules and disclosure deadlines. Evidence can be overwritten, lost, or withheld unless formal preservation demands are sent promptly after the incident.
The Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments protect citizens from unreasonable seizures and deprivations of liberty. Understanding how courts evaluate reasonableness — including the Graham v. Connor standard and its three-part balancing test — is essential to evaluating the strength of your claim.
Excessive force claims may proceed in federal court under § 1983, in Missouri state court under state tort law, or both. Each path carries different rules for pleading, discovery, immunity defenses, and damages. An attorney experienced in civil rights litigation knows which approach best fits the facts of your case.
Successful civil rights plaintiffs may recover compensatory damages for medical costs, lost income, pain, suffering, and emotional distress — as well as punitive damages and attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. Without experienced counsel, many victims accept inadequate early settlements or have their claims dismissed on procedural grounds.
Many excessive force victims also face related criminal charges. Statements made in civil proceedings can affect criminal defense strategy, and vice versa. Coordinating both proceedings — or working alongside a criminal defense attorney — protects your rights in both arenas simultaneously.
42 U.S.C. § 1983 is the primary legal vehicle for holding individual law enforcement officers accountable in federal court. When an officer acts under color of state law and deprives a person of rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution or federal law, § 1983 creates a private right of action for damages. Bur Oak Injury Law evaluates every case for both individual officer liability and broader municipal liability under the Monell doctrine.
We represent clients in claims involving excessive force during arrests, unreasonable use of weapons, denial of medical care in custody, and other constitutional violations by police officers, sheriff's deputies, and other law enforcement personnel in Columbia, Boone County, and throughout central Missouri.
Under Monell v. Department of Social Services, a municipality or police department can be held liable when a constitutional violation results from an official policy, a longstanding custom or practice, or a failure to properly train or supervise officers. Institutional claims require evidence of patterns — prior complaints, disciplinary records, use-of-force audits, and training deficiencies. This type of litigation is time-intensive and data-driven, and it is the kind of case Chris Miller is prepared to take on.
When Columbia Police Department data shows 181 use-of-force incidents in a single year, the question is not just whether your individual incident was excessive — it is whether systemic failures in policy, training, or supervision created the conditions that led to your injury.
Not all police force is unlawful — officers are permitted to use force that is objectively reasonable under the circumstances. What law does not permit is force that is disproportionate, unnecessary, or deployed with reckless disregard for human safety. Bur Oak Injury Law handles the full range of excessive force cases across central Missouri.
Officer-involved shootings that were not justified by an immediate threat of serious harm or death to the officer or others. These cases often involve intense scrutiny of the officer's perception of threat and available alternatives to lethal force.
Deployment of conducted energy devices against individuals who posed no threat, were already restrained, or who suffered serious injury or death as a result of multiple shocks. Taser injuries include cardiac arrest, falls, and burns.
Restraint techniques applied to the neck or throat that restrict breathing or blood flow to the brain. Many jurisdictions have restricted or banned these techniques following high-profile deaths, yet incidents continue to occur.
Use of fists, batons, or other impact weapons against an individual who was not actively resisting, was already subdued, or was restrained in handcuffs or on the ground at the time force was applied.
Police dog deployments that resulted in serious bite injuries when the subject was compliant, had surrendered, or when the dog was not promptly recalled after the threat was neutralized.
Use of OC spray, tear gas, or other chemical agents against compliant individuals, peaceful demonstrators, or people in medical distress — or deployment in quantities far exceeding what the situation required.
Takedowns that result in head injuries, broken bones, or spinal trauma when the individual posed no active physical threat. The force used to bring a person to the ground must be proportionate to the threat they present.
Pursuit tactics involving deliberate vehicle contact — PIT maneuvers, roadblocks, or ramming — that caused serious injury when the fleeing individual posed no threat to public safety sufficient to justify the risk.
Failure to provide timely medical treatment to an injured or ill person in custody, which courts have recognized as a constitutional violation under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments when officers show deliberate indifference to a serious medical need.
Sexual misconduct by a law enforcement officer who exploited their position of authority during an arrest, detention, or traffic stop. These cases carry both civil and criminal dimensions and require sensitive, experienced legal representation.
Chris Miller handles every excessive force and civil rights case personally from the first call through resolution. No associates. No paralegals taking over your case. Here is what to expect when you contact Bur Oak Injury Law.
The primary federal statute governing excessive force claims is 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which allows any person whose constitutional rights were violated by a government official acting under color of state law to sue for damages and injunctive relief. Courts evaluate whether force was excessive using the objective reasonableness standard established in Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989), which weighs the severity of the crime, whether the suspect posed an immediate threat, and whether the suspect was resisting arrest or attempting to flee.
Missouri's general personal injury statute of limitations at §516.120 RSMo provides a five-year window for most civil rights claims. Some state tort claims may have shorter deadlines. Do not wait — the longer you delay, the harder it becomes to recover critical evidence such as body camera footage, dispatch recordings, and witness accounts. If the incident involved a fatality, Missouri's wrongful death statute (§537.100 RSMo) provides a three-year window for surviving family members.
Under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, a prevailing plaintiff in a civil rights lawsuit is entitled to recover reasonable attorney's fees from the defendant — which means the municipality and its insurers, not you, pay your legal costs if the case is successful. Bur Oak Injury Law handles excessive force cases on a contingency fee basis: no fee unless we win. Call (573) 499-0200 for a free consultation.
No fee unless we win. Free consultation. One attorney handles your case from the first call through final resolution. Call (573) 499-0200.