GILBERTSONInvestigations Inc. (239) 571-1840
Gilbertson Investigations Inc. · California Casework

The California File,
Sacramento to Los Angeles

$42M
Plaintiff settlements & judgmentsSecured by retaining counsel in matters since 2014 · See the case file

Direct line: (239) 571-1840  ·  GregoryGilbertson@proton.me

Attorney and law-firm inquiries only

Use of force · Police practices · Police misconduct · State & Federal Courts

Professor Gilbertson is retained in California civil rights matters brought against city and county law enforcement agencies, most of them in federal court, with published recoveries in Sacramento and Los Angeles. Use of force and police practices carry that file between them, and the analysis turns on the paper and video the agency itself generated: dispatch records, incident and use of force reports, body-worn video and training files, measured against what the agency's own policy required and against Graham v. Connor.

From the Bench
U.S. District Court Western District of Washington

Ruling on a motion to exclude his testimony in Alvarez v. King County, No. C16-0721RAJ, 2017 WL 3189025 (W.D. Wash. July 27, 2017), Judge Richard A. Jones entered the following opinion.

“Mr. Gilbertson’s qualifications demonstrate extensive experience in policing. His expansive work as a police officer in Georgia, with assignments as a SWAT team officer, juvenile court investigator, school resource officer, stakeout squad officer, senior patrolman, and patrolman; then a career as a tenured college professor and university lecturer teaching criminal justice courses to degree-seeking students at colleges and universities, and as a licensed private investigator conducting felony pretrial investigations for attorneys in Washington State in dozens of criminal cases, makes him unique in the field of police expert witnesses. The Court finds that, based on his experience, Mr. Gilbertson’s testimony can be expected to have a reliable basis in knowledge and experience of police practices.”

The Hon. Richard A. Jones United States District Judge
The Ground

Video, dispatch and policy: how a California file is read.

The California matters in the practice file are civil rights claims against city and county law enforcement agencies, and most of those matters fall into two lanes of the same size. One is use of force; the other is police practices, the wider question of whether what an agency and its officers did matched what generally accepted police practice required of them. Failure to render aid, police misconduct and search and seizure claims appear alongside them. The published rows on this page sit in Sacramento and Los Angeles, and the case history page carries the rest of the published record.

A claim of either kind turns on a short list of documents:

  • Body-worn and dash camera footage, and any surveillance video that caught the encounter
  • Dispatch records and radio traffic, which fix what the officers had been told before contact, and when
  • The use of force report, the incident and supplemental reports written after it, and any internal affairs investigation that followed
  • What the officers said and what civilian witnesses said, in statements first and in deposition transcripts once discovery produces them
  • Training and discipline records for every officer involved
  • The agency's own written policy, as it read on the date of the encounter

Graham v. Connor governs the force lane and fixes the vantage point: what the officer knew at the instant force was used, with nothing that discovery produced afterward read back into that instant. The practices lane is measured against the agency's own written policy alongside the national body of standards behind generally accepted police practice.

A medical, scientific or technical question inside a California record is not answered by a police practices expert. The report says which discipline the question belongs to, then leaves it to a qualified expert there, on the record. Legal conclusions remain counsel's; the expert addresses police practices, on the totality of the facts and circumstances.

On the Record

The published California selection.

14California matters in the practice file
12Federal court matters
2State court matters
$2.4MRecorded recoveries
Matter types in the California fileUse of force6Police practices6Police misconduct1Failure to render aid1Search & seizure1A matter may carry more than one type.
  • Jane Doe v. City of Sacramento, Sacramento Cty. Super. Ct. Mar. 17, 2017, Police Misconduct, Assault, Battery.

    2017State courtPolice misconduct$1.4M recovered
  • Brooke Fortson, Plaintiff, v. City of Los Angeles, A Municipal Entity; Chief Michel Moore, Officer Nicholas Illsley, Officer Jovanna Hernandez; and Does 3-10, Case No. 2:21-CV-00384-CJC.

    Federal courtPolice practices$350,000 recovered
  • Fahren James, Plaintiff, v. City of Los Angeles, et al., case No. 2:21-cv-04525-CBM-AS, Excessive Force.

    Federal courtUse of force$500,000 recovered
  • Nicholas Stern, Plaintiff, vs. City of Los Angeles, a municipal entity; Chief Michel Moore; Christian Arrue; Nicholas Chacon; David Martin; and Shannon Paulson Does 3-100 inclusive, Defendants, Case No: 2:21-cv-03760-CBM-AS, Excessive Force.

    Federal courtUse of force$150,000 recovered
About this selection. The California matters above are a selection: civil engagements that produced a recovery for the client, and criminal engagements that ended in the defense’s favor. They are not the complete California record, and they are not offered as a success rate. Figures are the amounts recorded in each engagement, and citations are reproduced as filed; no result is promised or implied for any other matter. The nationwide selection is on the case history page, and the complete table of cases is provided to retaining counsel on request.
Courts & Admission

A federal civil rights docket, and a smaller state court lane.

The California file is weighted toward federal court, and the claims there are pleaded against officers and the city or county agencies that employ them. A smaller part sits in the state courts, including the superior court in Sacramento County. Where a claim runs under Section 1983, the constitutional question is for counsel and the court; what the expert supplies is the police practices measure underneath it: the officer's knowledge at the time as the record shows it, the instruction given to that officer by policy and training, and what generally accepted practice called for.

A California criminal matter would ask something else of records much like these: how the encounter was policed before any charge existed, meaning the basis recorded for the stop or the arrest, the way a search was run, how an interview was conducted and documented, and whether the reports agree with the video. That work feeds a suppression hearing or the defense at trial, and criminal defense casework sets it out in full.

Admissibility in any particular matter remains retaining counsel's responsibility. The courts where testimony has been admitted are listed on the Library page on how many matters and where.

Practice Areas

Where the California force and practices lanes lead.

The force lane runs to excessive force casework. The police practices lane divides by what the claim is about: a claim that names the city or the county for its policy, its training or its supervision is failure to train and supervise work, and a claim about how an incident was reported, investigated and followed up, including whether aid was rendered, is police misconduct casework. A search and seizure question belongs with false arrest, search and seizure casework.

That map is the practice's, laid over a California file; it is not a California method. The Library's note on which jurisdictions a nationwide expert covers sets out how state lines figure in the practice as a whole.

The Engagement

Retaining from California.

Retaining from California runs on the same terms as every engagement. It opens with a conflict check, and counsel hears about a conflict immediately. A first inquiry holds the case type and posture, the jurisdiction and case number, the governing deadlines, what the record contains so far, and the parties for the conflict check. Nothing privileged travels with a first inquiry, and privileged material is never exchanged by email.

After retention the record travels on physical media, a computer flash drive or an external hard drive by mail or courier; online sharing services are not used. Depositions are taken by Zoom or a similar platform, so a California deposition does not wait on a travel calendar. Expert reports require sixty days of advance notice, and a bullet-point outline of the report is approved with retaining counsel before writing begins.

The practice is based in Naples, Florida, and trial testimony is offered in California on the published travel terms. The fee schedule and the travel terms are set out in full on the For Counsel page, and the Library note on what to send with a first inquiry covers the first step item by item.

Questions

Counsel ask about California.

Is a California retention reserved for counsel suing a city or county?
No. The practice is retained by counsel for civil rights plaintiffs and by counsel for officers and agencies, as well as by counsel for the accused in criminal matters, and a California matter can arrive from any of them. The measure applied to the record is fixed in advance and is not adjusted for the party who retained the analysis. The Library's note on retention by both sides covers that ground at length.
Is each California matter type on this page counted separately?
Yes. The panel counts the California matters in Professor Gilbertson's own table of cases and sorts them by court and by the matter types each one carried, so a matter that raised two kinds of question appears under both. The matter counts describe retentions rather than results, in the file as it stands.
When a California claim names the city or the county, what does the analysis address?
The agency's side of the record: the written policy in force, the training the agency in fact gave its officers on the point at issue, the supervision and review that followed the encounter, and how each compares with what generally accepted police practice expects of an agency. Whether that record makes out a claim against the city or the county is a legal question and stays with counsel. The opinion stays on what the agency did and did not do.
Does the practice take California matters from outside Sacramento and Los Angeles?
Yes. Sacramento and Los Angeles are named on this page because the published California rows sit there, and the panel counts the whole California file without placing its matters by city. The city or county behind a claim does not change how its record is read: the same documents and the same measure, wherever in the state the encounter happened.
Retain

Discuss a California matter.

Attorney and law-firm inquiries only. Conflicts are checked before anything substantive, and you will hear about a conflict immediately.

Counsel inquiry

Use the form below for a California matter in either court system, from either side of the case.

Inquiry sent.

You will hear back directly. If the matter is urgent, call (239) 571-1840.

(239) 571-1840Direct line, Naples, Florida GregoryGilbertson@proton.meDirect email, prefilled for this matter.
Nationwide practiceRetained in 42 states and D.C. · Based in Naples, FL

Conflicts are checked before any substantive discussion. Please do not send privileged material with a first inquiry; after retention the record is exchanged on physical media. Gregory consults for attorneys and their staff only, and does not provide legal advice or attorney referrals to individuals.