Failure to Supervise

What It Is

A failure-to-supervise claim alleges that a supervisor or municipality failed to adequately monitor and control subordinate officers, and that this failure led directly to a constitutional violation. It is closely related to failure to train and supervisory liability, but focuses specifically on the ongoing oversight of officers’ conduct.

The idea: if a police department knows (or should know) that an officer is a ticking time bomb — racking up complaints, using excessive force, violating rights — and does nothing, the department’s inaction can itself be a constitutional violation.

The Legal Standard

Failure-to-supervise claims require showing deliberate indifference — a very high bar. You must prove:

1. The supervisor or municipality knew of a pattern of similar constitutional violations by subordinates
2. The response was clearly inadequate — they failed to investigate complaints, discipline officers, or take corrective action
3. The failure was “closely related” to the violation — the inadequate supervision actually caused or enabled the specific harm you suffered
4. The need for better supervision was obvious — a reasonable policymaker would have recognized that the lack of supervision would lead to violations

Simple negligence — “they should have been paying closer attention” — is not enough. You need to show the supervisory failure was so egregious that it amounted to a deliberate choice to allow violations to continue.

Individual vs. Municipal Claims

Failure to supervise can support two types of claims:

• Against individual supervisors — A sergeant, lieutenant, or chief who personally knew about an officer’s pattern of misconduct and did nothing. This ties into personal participation and supervisory liability.
• Against the municipality — Under Monell, a city can be liable if its policy or custom of inadequate supervision caused the violation. This is sometimes easier because you’re attacking a systemic failure, not just one person’s knowledge.

Evidence That Helps

• Prior complaints against the officer — especially if they were ignored or dismissed without investigation
• Prior lawsuits involving the same officer or similar misconduct in the department
• Internal affairs records showing a pattern of sustained complaints with no discipline
• Lack of any supervision system — no regular reviews, no use-of-force tracking, no early warning systems
• Supervisor knowledge — emails, reports, or testimony showing supervisors were aware of problems

Common Scenarios

• An officer with dozens of excessive force complaints keeps working the street with no intervention
• A department has no system for tracking officer complaints or use-of-force incidents
• A supervisor witnesses misconduct and takes no corrective action
• Officers with known substance abuse or behavioral issues receive no monitoring

Key Cases

• City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378 (1989) — Established the deliberate indifference standard for failure-to-train/supervise claims
• Connick v. Thompson, 563 U.S. 51 (2011) — Pattern of violations generally required; single incident usually insufficient
• Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) — Supervisors need personal involvement; no vicarious liability in § 1983