Abuse of authority in a police procedure: what to do when force becomes unlawful

Juan Antonio Matiz Monroy — Lawyer, Universidad de los Andes · Specialist in Criminal Law, Universidad Sergio Arboleda · Professional licence 294.746 (C.S.J.)

Bogotá D.C. · Published: July 2026 · Reading time: 15 min

After a police procedure that felt abusive, the commonest reaction is resignation. The asymmetry weighs: on the other side there is a uniform, a badge and the authority of the State; and on the victim, the sense that “it is their word against mine”, the fear of reprisals and the conviction that nothing can be done against the police. That resignation is understandable, but legally mistaken.

A police officer is a public servant subject to the law, not exempt from it. Where their action goes beyond the legal limits, Colombian law offers not one response but several, and they can be pursued at the same time: the criminal, the disciplinary, the constitutional and the State-compensation route.

It is worth saying from the outset, however: not every uncomfortable police action is an abuse; but where it is, the correct legal characterisation completely changes the response available, and because the evidence degrades very fast —injuries heal, cameras are overwritten—, documenting immediately and taking advice early is usually what separates a viable case from an account with nothing behind it. This article explains, rigorously and without demagogy, where the line lies between the legitimate use of force and abuse, what offences an abusive procedure can amount to and what routes the victim has.

1. Police abuse of authority in Colombia: the line between legitimate use of force and abuse

It is worth starting with what abuse is not, because the seriousness of any claim depends on it. The police are empowered to use force, and article 166 of Ley 1801 de 2016 (the National Code of Security and Citizen Coexistence) defines it as “the material means, necessary, proportionate and rational”, used as a last physical resort to protect life and physical integrity, with a duty to use the most effective means causing the least harm and to report it. Article 32 of the Criminal Code, for its part, covers the performance of a legal duty and self-defence.

That is why the yardstick for examining any procedure is not the impression it leaves on the person who undergoes it, but the principles of legality, necessity and proportionality, set out in Ley 1801 de 2016 and in the international standards on the use of force. From that follows a consequence that often goes unnoticed: an act can be lawful in origin —an identity check, a search— and become abusive in the way it is carried out, if the force turns out to be disproportionate, if it is prolonged without cause or if it is accompanied by degrading treatment.

Abuse begins, then, where that framework ends. It is not defined by the vigour of the procedure, but by its arbitrariness, disproportion or unlawfulness: unnecessary force, detention without basis, demands for money, ill-treatment, breach of the statutory limits and time periods.

Telling one from the other —a lawful detention from an arbitrary one, a proportionate restraint from a beating— is the first technical task of the defence, and it is what separates an emotional complaint from a solid case. Not every uncomfortable police action is an abuse; but where it is, giving it the exact legal name is what opens the doors that come next.

2. The offences an abusive procedure can amount to

One and the same procedure can give rise to several offences, depending on what happened. The general offence is abuse of authority by arbitrary and unjust act (article 416 of the Criminal Code): the public servant who, in connection with their functions or exceeding them, commits an arbitrary and unjust act. It is a subsidiary offence —it applies only where the act does not fit a more serious one— and, notably, it carries only a fine and loss of office, not imprisonment.

That is why it matters to identify the specific offences, which do carry imprisonment. Where there was physical violence, personal injury may arise (articles 111 and following), the penalty rising with the seriousness of the harm; and in extreme cases of severe suffering inflicted for punishment or intimidation, torture (article 178), carrying 128 to 270 months. If the officer demanded money in exchange for not acting, the conduct may be extortion in office (article 404), carrying 96 to 180 months. And if they used threats to force the person to do, tolerate or omit something, unlawful coercion (article 182).

The practical consequence of that range is direct: characterising an act as simple abuse of authority, which carries no imprisonment, or as injury, torture or extortion in office, which do, is not a technicality. It defines the seriousness of the response the law can give and the weight with which the victim arrives at any forum.

From that follows that rigorous criminal analysis of the procedure —what was done, how and with what consequences— is the step that allows each act to be given the legal name it really deserves. That characterisation is not a formal label: it is what determines, in practice, what response remains available.

3. When a hold becomes unlawful deprivation of liberty

A good part of abuses turn on liberty. The Criminal Code punishes unlawful deprivation of liberty by a public servant who, abusing their functions, deprives another of it (article 174, 48 to 90 months); the unlawful prolongation of that deprivation beyond the statutory period (article 175); and the special arbitrary detention by whoever receives a person without the statutory requirements being met (article 176).

The greatest friction is over the transfer provisions of Ley 1801 de 2016. Transfer for protection (article 155) is a protective measure —not a sanction or a detention— which lies where the person is at risk, and the law is explicit that it cannot be to places of deprivation of liberty and cannot exceed twelve hours. Transfer for police proceedings (article 157), for its part, is immediate and temporary, limited to the strictly necessary time, with the person’s right to contact someone close and with an obligation to leave a written report.

When these provisions are used as a covert “detention”, the line into unlawful deprivation is crossed. Holding someone “for protection” at a station beyond twelve hours, or without the risk the law requires, is not a valid procedure: it may amount to unlawful deprivation of liberty, with the criminal characterisation and consequences that entails.

The practical consequence is that a few apparently minor facts end up deciding the case. The time it started, the place of the hold and the existence —or absence— of the written report are what define the lawfulness of the procedure and, with it, the officer’s possible liability; and they are also the first things lost if no one records them in time.

4. Four routes that can be taken at once

Here is the key that dismantles the resignation: against abuse there is not one door, but four, and they are not mutually exclusive. They can be activated in parallel, because they pursue different aims.

The criminal route. A complaint to the Prosecution Service pursues the officer’s criminal liability for the offences described. It is the route of punishment and, within it, of redress for the victim. Whoever takes it does so as a special participant, with the rights set out in the article on the victim of a crime, and across the stages of Colombian criminal proceedings.

The disciplinary route. The officer’s conduct is examined under the Police Disciplinary Statute (Ley 2196 de 2022), which replaced the previous regime. It is exercised by the Police’s internal disciplinary control offices and, on a preferential basis, by the Procuraduría General de la Nación, which can displace the internal authority. It seeks a disciplinary sanction: from suspension to removal from office.

The constitutional route. Against unlawful or prolonged deprivation of liberty, habeas corpus lies (Ley 1095 de 2006), decided within a short period. Against the infringement of other fundamental rights —dignity, physical integrity, due process— the constitutional injunction lies (article 86 of the Constitution).

The compensation route. Where the harm comes from the act or omission of a State agent, the victim can sue the State directly through a direct reparation claim before the administrative courts (article 140 of Ley 1437 de 2011), so that it answers financially for the unlawful harm. That action is time-barred two (2) years from the day after the harmful event (article 164).

It is worth insisting on the point, because it is the most misunderstood: these four routes do not exclude each other. Taking one does not require giving up the rest or consume the possibility of taking the others. The criminal complaint, the disciplinary complaint, habeas corpus or the injunction, and the direct reparation claim against the State can be brought at the same time and advance simultaneously, because they pursue different objectives: punishing the officer, sanctioning them disciplinarily, restoring the infringed right and obtaining compensation from the State.

From that follows that the right question is not which route to choose, but which ones fit the case and in what order to activate them. And that decision depends, once again, on the legal characterisation of what happened and on the evidence that has been preserved.

5. The evidence: what really decides the case

The resignation feeds on one idea: “it is their word against mine”. And precisely for that reason the evidence decides everything. Against the account of a by-the-book procedure, whoever complains needs to reconstruct what happened with objective material, not with impressions.

What counts, and counts a great deal: videos and audio —your own, witnesses’ or from nearby cameras—; eyewitnesses; the clinical record and injury reports from the forensic institute; the report or record of the procedure —which the law requires in writing for transfers—; the identification of the officers and their badge numbers; and the exact time and place. The absence or alteration of these records is not a neutral gap: it is usually, in itself, a relevant indication that something was done wrong.

The problem is that this material has an expiry date. The evidence of an abuse deteriorates fast: injuries heal, cameras are overwritten and witnesses scatter. That is why the first hours and days weigh more than any later effort, and there are a few steps worth taking at once:

• Go to the forensic institute as soon as possible, so that the injuries are documented while still visible.
• Keep and back up your own recordings, and pursue nearby camera footage without delay before it is overwritten.
• Record the details of the procedure: start and end times, exact place, identification and badge numbers of the officers.
• Note the names and contact details of eyewitnesses, while they can still be traced.
• Record whether or not a written report or record of the transfer was drawn up.

Documenting immediately is, in that sense, the first defence: it is what turns a complaint into a case that can be sustained on any of the four routes. Without that support, even a real abuse risks being reduced to an account with no evidence; with it, the legal characterisation stops being a hypothesis and comes to rest on verifiable facts.

6. From the consultation to representation: a strategy across the four fronts

After police abuse, an orderly and early reaction decisively influences what can be done later. This is how the work is structured:

Stage 1 — Diagnosis and securing the evidence. The initial consultation reconstructs the procedure, assesses the lawfulness of each step and defines what evidence —medical reports, videos, witnesses, records— must be secured at once.

Stage 2 — Legal characterisation of the conduct. It is determined what offences the procedure may have amounted to and what rights were infringed, in order to choose the appropriate routes.

Stage 3 — Action on the relevant fronts. Depending on the case, the criminal complaint, the disciplinary complaint, habeas corpus or the injunction are filed, and the direct reparation claim is prepared, observing each one’s time limits.

Stage 4 — Redress. The sanction of the person responsible and compensation for the loss are pursued, through the criminal route and through the direct reparation claim against the State.

The calendar, however, does not wait. The direct reparation claim is time-barred after two years and the evidence of abuse degrades within days, so timely guidance allows the evidence to be secured and the relevant routes activated in time, before any of them closes. There lies, in the end, the difference between a case that can be sustained and one that arrives late to its own argument.

7. Conclusions

Not every uncomfortable police action is an abuse. The yardstick is legality, necessity and proportionality, as set out in article 166 of Ley 1801 de 2016. Even so, an act that is lawful in origin can become abusive in the way it is carried out. Where there is abuse, characterisation matters. Abuse of authority carries only a fine and loss of office; injury, torture or extortion in office carry imprisonment. And holding someone “for protection” beyond twelve hours may amount to unlawful deprivation of liberty.

Against abuse there are four routes that do not exclude each other: criminal, disciplinary, constitutional and a direct reparation claim against the State. That claim is time-barred after two years. All of them depend on the evidence, and it degrades within days: injuries heal and cameras are overwritten. That is why the forensic injury report, videos, witnesses, badge numbers and the transfer record should be secured early.

Reconstructing the procedure and deciding which routes to activate, and in what order, is the purpose of the initial consultation. In it we assess the lawfulness of each step and define what evidence to secure at once. From that diagnosis, the firm can take on victim representation on the criminal route. If the deprivation of liberty continues, it can bring a habeas corpus application.

Frequently asked questions

What people usually ask us

Legal and bibliographic references