06 / CIVIL RIGHTS & §1983
When the government oversteps, the Constitution still matters.
Constitutional violations by police and government actors. False arrest. Excessive force. Unlawful searches. Retaliation for protected speech. 42 U.S.C. §1983 provides the remedy when state and local government actors deprive you of constitutional rights. We take this work because few attorneys do it competently — and the people who need it most are often the people least able to navigate the system alone.
2010
Published thesis on §1983 & surveillance
~15
Years in Missouri legal practice
4th
Amendment — fundamental, not optional
WHY THIS PRACTICE MATTERS
Constitutional rights are not abstract.
Fourth Amendment
Protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. When police search your home, vehicle, or person without proper authority — or use excessive force in seizing you — §1983 provides the remedy.
First Amendment
Protection of speech, assembly, and the right to petition. Retaliation by government actors for protected speech is actionable. Restrictions on protest, on recording police, on religious practice — all constitutional questions.
Due Process
Government cannot deprive you of life, liberty, or property without proper process. When the process fails — wrongful detention, lack of hearing, denial of representation — there are claims worth pursuing.
Equal Protection
Selective enforcement. Discriminatory treatment by government actors. When the government applies the law differently to different people based on who they are, that’s a constitutional violation.
DIFFERENTIATED EXPERIENCE
I wrote about this convergence years before it was current.
My 2010 law school thesis examined the convergence of constitutional law, data privacy, and government surveillance — analyzing how the Fourth Amendment, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the Stored Communications Act, and the Privacy Act interact (and fail to interact) with modern data collection.
Written in 2010, it identified issues — predictive profiling, government use of telecommunications data, ‘guilt by association’ data mining, algorithmic surveillance — that have only grown more central to constitutional law since. For matters at the intersection of constitutional rights and technology, we bring genuinely differentiated expertise.
WHAT WE HANDLE
Constitutional violations by government actors.
01
Fourth Amendment Claims
Unlawful searches of homes, vehicles, persons, and digital devices. False arrest and false imprisonment. Excessive force. Civil asset forfeiture matters. Wrongful detention.
02
First Amendment Claims
Retaliation for protected speech — including by government-actor employers. Restrictions on protest. Right to record police. Religious freedom matters.
03
Due Process & Equal Protection
Procedural and substantive due process violations. Selective enforcement claims. Public employment matters for government employees facing constitutional issues.
04
Surveillance & Digital Privacy
Government surveillance challenges. National Security Letter responses. Public records and Missouri Sunshine Law matters. §1983 claims involving technology — body cameras, facial recognition, automated systems.
05
Police Misconduct
Excessive force claims. False arrest. Wrongful detention. Retaliation against citizens. The matters where individuals need representation against well-funded government defendants.
06
Section 1988 Fee Recovery
42 U.S.C. §1988 allows prevailing plaintiffs in civil rights cases to recover attorney fees from the government defendant. This affects fee structure — we discuss it at engagement.
HOW IT WORKS
Civil rights cases are different.
They involve qualified immunity defenses, complex causation, and damages that are hard to quantify. They take time. They face well-funded government defendants. Our process reflects that reality.
1
Honest assessment
Not every constitutional violation produces a viable lawsuit. Qualified immunity, statutes of limitations, and procedural requirements eliminate many cases. We tell you honestly whether your matter has a realistic path.
2
Investigation
If we proceed, we investigate carefully — records requests, witness interviews, video footage, internal affairs files. Building the factual record is the foundation of a §1983 case.
3
Demand or filing
Some matters resolve through pre-litigation demands to the government entity. Most do not. We file when filing is required to get to resolution.
4
Litigation
Discovery, motions, summary judgment, trial. §1983 cases run longer than typical civil matters. We prepare for the long haul from engagement.
HONEST SCOPE
What we are not yet equipped to handle.
We do not yet have federal court admissions in the Eastern or Western Districts of Missouri or the Eighth Circuit. We are pursuing those admissions. In the meantime, we can co-counsel with admitted attorneys on federal matters or refer where appropriate. We also do not handle prison conditions cases requiring PLRA exhaustion without specific arrangement, or criminal defense in matters where related civil rights claims are pending (conflict).
WHY HAAKE LAW GROUP
Built around your situation, not our office hours.
Published scholarship
Derek’s 2010 University of Akron law school thesis examined constitutional law, data privacy, and government surveillance — issues now central to §1983 practice. Few civil rights attorneys have published academic work in this area.
Technology-fluent
Modern civil rights cases increasingly involve digital evidence, body cameras, facial recognition, and automated systems. Derek’s pre-law technology background means we read this evidence the way it actually works.
Honest qualified-immunity analysis
Qualified immunity is a significant hurdle. We assess it at intake and tell you honestly how it affects your matter — not after a year of pre-trial work.
Contingent fee arrangements available
Many civil rights matters can be handled on contingent or hybrid fee arrangements. Some — particularly injunctive relief cases — may be hourly. Structure is disclosed in writing at engagement.
MEET DEREK HAAKE
Real legal work. Modern delivery.
I have been a licensed Missouri attorney since September 27, 2011. Before law school, I spent more than a decade in telecommunications and technology — including leading the acquisition of Corning Cable Systems’ fiber optic monitoring division, and helping create Valor Telecom, which became part of Windstream Communications.
After law school, I spent years as an Estate Settlement Officer at Bank of America, administering taxable estates including a single estate exceeding $100 million in value. That experience — actually settling estates and working in technology before that — is what I bring to every matter today.
WHAT CLIENTS SAY
Outcomes for Missouri clients.
Testimonials section ready for your shortcode when you collect client testimonials. Edit this section to add the shortcode from your testimonials plugin.
COMMON QUESTIONS
What clients ask before they hire us.
What is qualified immunity?+
A judge-made doctrine that protects government officials from liability unless they violated ‘clearly established’ law. It is a significant hurdle in many civil rights cases. We assess qualified immunity issues at intake and tell you honestly how it affects your matter.
What is the deadline to file?+
Missouri’s general personal injury statute of limitations (5 years) applies to most §1983 claims. Some federal claims have their own deadlines. Some have shorter notice requirements. Contact us as soon as possible after the violation.
Will the police investigate themselves?+
Internal affairs investigations are not legal proceedings and do not affect your civil rights claim. You can pursue a §1983 lawsuit regardless of the outcome of any internal investigation.
Will I have to face the officer in court?+
Possibly — in deposition and at trial. We prepare clients carefully for both. Many cases resolve before trial.
How long does a §1983 case take?+
Civil rights cases typically run longer than ordinary civil matters — often 2 to 4 years. Government defendants are well-resourced and willing to fight. We prepare for the duration at engagement.
How are fees handled?+
Many matters can be handled on contingent or hybrid fee arrangements. Some — particularly cases seeking injunctive relief — may require hourly billing. 42 U.S.C. §1988 allows fee recovery from government defendants when you prevail. Structure is disclosed in writing at engagement.
READY TO START?
Tell us what happened.
Initial consultations are free and confidential. We will tell you honestly whether you have a viable §1983 claim, what it would take to pursue, and what realistic outcomes look like.