Protest policing
Yes, it can be a claim, and usually more than one. An arrest at a protest needs probable cause as to you, not as to the crowd. Force at a protest is judged under the same Fourth Amendment test as force anywhere else. And an arrest made to punish speech is a First Amendment claim, with a probable cause rule that has two exceptions. New York City has agreed in a court-approved settlement to stop kettling without individualized probable cause. This page goes through the claims, the defenses, what cities have paid, and the clocks.
What police do at a protest is a claim when it would be a claim anywhere else: an arrest without probable cause, force that was objectively unreasonable, or an arrest made because of what a person was saying. A crowd does not change the rules. Probable cause is individual. Force is judged person by person. The First Amendment protects the person holding the sign and the person holding the camera.
It is not a claim merely because a lawful dispersal order was enforced or an arrest was made for an offense the officer actually saw. These cases are decided on video, and there is usually a great deal of it. The hard part is the defenses, one of which the Supreme Court strengthened in March 2026.
How it happens
- Kettling. Officers form lines at both ends of a block, close the exits, and hold everyone inside, marchers, residents and people walking home, then arrest them all.
- Mass arrests with no individual cause. Arresting officers are assigned to people they never saw do anything. The paperwork is filled in later from a template, and the charges are dismissed months afterward.
- Force on people who are not resisting. Batons, shoves, pepper spray at close range or tear gas are used on people who are standing, walking away or already penned in with nowhere to go.
- Arrests of people recording. Someone filming an arrest is ordered to stop, has the phone knocked away, or is arrested. The same happens to reporters and legal observers wearing identification.
- Zip-ties and long holds. Plastic cuffs are pulled tight and left on for hours. People charged with violations that call for a summons are held overnight.
- Pain holds on passive resisters. A person sitting or gone limp, threatening no one, is moved with wrist locks, pressure points or strikes.
The claim
Three constitutional claims travel together, all brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
False arrest. An arrest is a seizure, and the Fourth Amendment requires probable cause. The arrest is lawful if probable cause existed for any offense known to the officer, not only the one announced (Devenpeck v. Alford, 543 U.S. 146 (2004)), and probable cause is judged on the totality of the circumstances (District of Columbia v. Wesby, 583 U.S. 48 (2018)). At a protest the question is what the officer knew about you. The false arrest page covers the claim in full.
Excessive force. Force during an arrest is judged by objective reasonableness: the severity of the crime, whether the person posed an immediate threat, and whether the person was actively resisting or fleeing (Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989)). Most protest charges are violations or low-level misdemeanors, which puts the first factor on the protester's side. Officers who stand by can be liable for failing to intervene (Anderson v. Branen, 17 F.3d 552 (2d Cir. 1994)). See excessive force.
First Amendment retaliation. An arrest made to punish protected speech violates the First Amendment, but probable cause generally defeats the claim. The exception is where the plaintiff presents "objective evidence that he was arrested when otherwise similarly situated individuals not engaged in the same sort of protected speech had not been" (Nieves v. Bartlett, 587 U.S. 391 (2019)). That evidence is not limited to specific comparators; proof that no one has ever been arrested for the conduct can suffice (Gonzalez v. Trevino, 602 U.S. 653 (2024) (per curiam)). And probable cause does not bar the claim at all where the arrest was carried out under an official municipal policy of retaliation (Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, 585 U.S. 87 (2018)). See retaliatory arrest.
What New York City agreed to in 2023
On September 5, 2023 the City settled the protest cases brought by the Attorney General and private plaintiffs (People v. City of New York and Payne v. de Blasio, S.D.N.Y.). It is an injunctive settlement, about conduct rather than money, and the court approved it in February 2024. It sets up a four-tier response to protests, bans kettling without individualized probable cause, bars arrests made solely for recording, adds protections for the press, and creates an oversight committee. This page does not treat it as a source of damages. It is a written statement of what the NYPD has agreed its officers may not do.
Recording. In New York a person not under arrest has the right to record law enforcement activity and keep the recording; officers may not prevent it, order it stopped or arrest for it, and the statute gives a civil action with a three-year limit (N.Y. Civ. Rights Law § 79-p). The Third and Eleventh Circuits recognize a First Amendment right to record police in public (Fields v. City of Philadelphia, 862 F.3d 353 (3d Cir. 2017); Smith v. City of Cumming, 212 F.3d 1332 (11th Cir. 2000)). See the right to record police.
What they will argue
There was probable cause for something. Disorderly conduct, obstructing traffic, failure to disperse and violating a curfew are the offenses offered. Under Devenpeck any one of them supports the arrest if the officer had the facts for it as to the person arrested. In a kettle, that is usually what the officers cannot show.
Qualified immunity, after Zorn. On March 23, 2026 the Supreme Court reversed the Second Circuit's denial of qualified immunity to a Vermont officer who used a rear wristlock on a passively resisting sit-in protester after warnings. No precedent, the Court said, placed the question "beyond debate" (Zorn v. Linton, No. 25-297, 607 U.S. ___ (2026) (per curiam); three justices dissented). For protest cases in New York that is a direct hit on pain-compliance claims under federal law. The case concerned a person who was passively resisting after warnings. It says nothing about force against a person who was not resisting at all. See qualified immunity.
The NYPD, under city law: no qualified immunity
New York City's 2021 law creates a right against unreasonable search and seizure and against excessive force, enforceable against NYPD employees and the City as employer, including for failure to intervene. Qualified immunity "is not a defense to liability" (N.Y.C. Admin. Code §§ 8-802, 8-803, 8-804). The period is three years (§ 8-806). For an NYPD protest arrest this claim travels with the federal ones and is not touched by Zorn. The city law page explains it.
The city is not responsible. A municipality answers under Section 1983 only for its own policy or custom (Monell v. Dep't of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978)). The plaintiff's argument in a protest case is that crowd tactics are planned and ordered from above, not improvised by one officer. See Monell liability.
You pleaded to something. A plea to a violation to end the case can bring in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), which bars a damages claim that would necessarily imply a standing conviction is invalid. Talk to a civil rights lawyer before the criminal case resolves.
What people have recovered
Sow v. City of New York
A class settlement over arrests and force at the 2020 racial justice protests. About 1,300 people were eligible. The City admitted no liability.
Source: Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse. A public record of other people's cases, not a result of this firm and not a prediction.
Brigid Pierce
A traumatic brain injury at a Brooklyn protest. A federal jury found the City liable for assault and battery.
Source: The Legal Aid Society. A public record of someone else's case, not a result of this firm and not a prediction.
Philadelphia 2020 protest cases
A settlement for about 350 plaintiffs over tear gas used on Interstate 676 and in the 52nd Street neighborhood, plus $500,000 for a counseling fund.
Source: The Philadelphia Inquirer. A public record of other people's cases, not a result of this firm and not a prediction.
These are other people's cases. Two of the three are group settlements, and this page does not divide them into a per-person figure, because the sources do not support one. What a case is worth depends on the injury, the evidence and the defenses: a few hours in zip-ties and a brain injury are different claims. See what a case is worth, and the state lists at New York and Pennsylvania.
The clock
A Section 1983 false arrest claim accrues when the person is held under legal process or released, not when the criminal case ends (Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384 (2007)). The state-law notice periods run from the arrest, which means the 90 days usually expire while the summons or desk appearance ticket is still pending.
| State | Federal claim, Section 1983 | State-law claim: notice | State-law claim: suit |
|---|---|---|---|
| New York | Three years (N.Y. CPLR 214(5); Owens v. Okure, 488 U.S. 235 (1989)). The NYPD city-law claim and the recording claim under Civil Rights Law § 79-p are also three years | Notice of claim within 90 days to a city or county (N.Y. Gen. Mun. Law § 50-e(1)(a)); within 90 days to the State in the Court of Claims (Court of Claims Act § 10(3)) | One year and 90 days against a municipality (§ 50-i(1)) |
| New Jersey | Two years (N.J.S.A. 2A:14-2), the same for the Civil Rights Act claim, which needs no tort notice (Owens v. Feigin, 194 N.J. 607 (2008)) | Tort Claims Act notice within 90 days (N.J.S.A. 59:8-8) | No suit until six months after the notice; barred after two years (N.J.S.A. 59:8-8) |
| Florida | Four years (Fla. Stat. § 95.11(3)) | Written claim to the agency within three years (Fla. Stat. § 768.28(6)) | The agency has six months to act; suit within four years (§ 768.28(6), (14)) |
| Pennsylvania | Two years (42 Pa.C.S. § 5524; Kach v. Hose, 589 F.3d 626 (3d Cir. 2009)) | Written notice to the government unit within six months (42 Pa.C.S. § 5522(a)) | Two years for false arrest, assault and battery (42 Pa.C.S. § 5524(1)) |
No state notice rule applies to the federal claim (Felder v. Casey, 487 U.S. 131 (1988)). The New York, New Jersey, Florida and Pennsylvania pages go through each rule, and the notice of claim page explains the 90 days.
If your protest charge is still open, talk to your defense lawyer before you describe the arrest to anyone, including us, and before you accept any plea or adjournment offer. See the criminal case and the civil case.
Retaliatory arrest
Arrested for what you said. The probable cause rule and its two exceptions.
Retaliatory arrest →The right to record police
The New York statute, the federal cases, and what to do when the phone is taken.
Right to record →Cover charges
Disorderly conduct, obstruction and resisting: the charges that appear after force is used.
Cover charges →Common questions
I was arrested with a whole group and the charge was dropped. Do I have a claim?
Possibly. A false arrest claim asks whether the officer had probable cause to arrest you, on what the officer knew at that moment. A dismissal does not decide that, but a mass arrest in which nobody can say what any one person did is the kind of record these claims are built on. In New York City the 2023 injunctive settlement bars kettling without individualized probable cause.
Police had probable cause for a minor violation. Can I still claim the arrest was retaliation for protesting?
Generally probable cause defeats a retaliatory arrest claim under Nieves v. Bartlett. There are two exceptions in the verified law: objective evidence that people doing the same thing without the protected speech were not arrested (Nieves, and Gonzalez v. Trevino in 2024), and an arrest carried out under an official municipal policy of retaliation (Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach).
I went limp and an officer used a pain hold. Is that excessive force?
It may be, but the officer is likely to receive qualified immunity. On March 23, 2026, in Zorn v. Linton, the Supreme Court reversed the Second Circuit and held that an officer who used a rear wristlock on a passively resisting sit-in protester after warnings was immune, because no precedent placed the question beyond debate. The New York City law claim against NYPD officers does not allow that defense.
I was arrested for filming the police at a protest. Is that lawful?
In New York a person not under arrest has a statutory right to record law enforcement activity, and officers may not arrest someone for recording (Civil Rights Law 79-p). The 2023 New York City settlement also bars arrests solely for recording. The right to record page covers the First Amendment cases.
Tell us what happened.
One conversation with an attorney, in your language. We tell you which claims the facts support, which deadline runs first for the agency involved, what evidence to preserve this week, and whether a pending criminal case changes the timing. If it is not a case we can take, we say so and tell you where to go.
(718) 484-7510If a criminal charge is still open, talk to your defense lawyer before you describe the arrest to anyone, including us. English, Russian and Spanish in-house; an interpreter for any other language. Contingency fee, confirmed in writing before we begin.