The California File,
Sacramento to Los Angeles
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.
Three experts. Over 110 years.
Professor Gregory Gilbertson (Ret.), FBI Special Agent Christopher Holland (Ret.), and Sheriff Robert Snaza consult with attorneys nationwide regarding police practices and procedures, use of force, false arrest, police misconduct, criminal, and self-defense casework.
CEO & OwnerThirty-eight years in four uniforms: street cop, soldier, professor, investigator. More than 220 matters in 42 states and D.C. since 2014.
Full biography
ConsultantMore than thirty-five years in public safety: Sheriff of Lewis County, Washington, since his election in 2015, and six years as a commissioner of the state board that sets peace-officer training standards.
Full profile
ConsultantForty years of investigative casework, from patrolman in St. Louis County to the FBI in Chicago, and on to task forces in Afghanistan and Liberia. His work on the Idaho student murders is examined in Broken Plea, the New York Times bestseller by Christopher Whitcomb.
Full profileThe Hon. Richard A. Jones United States District Judge“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.”
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.
The published California selection.
Jane Doe v. City of Sacramento, Sacramento Cty. Super. Ct. Mar. 17, 2017, Police Misconduct, Assault, Battery.
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.
Fahren James, Plaintiff, v. City of Los Angeles, et al., case No. 2:21-cv-04525-CBM-AS, Excessive Force.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Counsel ask about California.
Is a California retention reserved for counsel suing a city or county?
Is each California matter type on this page counted separately?
When a California claim names the city or the county, what does the analysis address?
Does the practice take California matters from outside Sacramento and Los Angeles?
Discuss a California matter.
Attorney and law-firm inquiries only. Conflicts are checked before anything substantive, and you will hear about a conflict immediately.
Inquiry sent.
You will hear back directly. If the matter is urgent, call (239) 571-1840.
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.

