Under 42 U.S.C. 1983, when can an officer be liable for not intervening?

• A. The officer knows a fellow officer is violating rights; has a reasonable opportunity to prevent harm; and chooses not to act.
• B. The officer knows a fellow officer is violating rights and intervenes to stop it.
• C. The officer lacks knowledge of any violation but chooses not to act.
• D. The officer's liability is limited to administrative discipline.

Answer: (A)

The key idea is that someone can be held civilly liable under 42 U.S.C. 1983 for not intervening when a fellow officer is violating someone’s rights. The necessary elements are: the officer has actual knowledge that a rights violation is occurring, there is a realistic opportunity to intervene to stop the harm, and the officer consciously chooses not to act. When all three are present, failing to intervene can make the bystander personally liable for the constitutional violation.

This is why the best answer states that the officer knows a fellow officer is violating rights, has a reasonable opportunity to prevent harm, and chooses not to act. Intervening to stop the violation would show action, so the liability for not intervening isn’t triggered there. If the officer lacks knowledge of the violation, there isn’t a basis to claim a duty to intervene. And liability under this statute isn’t about administrative discipline alone; it’s civil liability for failure to protect someone’s constitutional rights.