Yeah, basically.
Yeah, this too. They shouldn’t have had to change their policies in the first place. They should have been following the law right from the start and should have been on the same page as the hospital. In fact, the hospital assumed they had an agreement with the police department that the police had signed off on. It’s part of the nurses’ job to be familiar with the law. It’s a shame the cops weren’t familiar with it, too.
Isn’t it fairly established case law that police can get away with all manner of depredations if they can but convince the judge that they “thought” they were acting properly? ISTM I see cases like that a lot.
IAAL. A short and simple definition of color of law (sometimes called “color of right”) would be the following:
Believing you have the lawful right to do something; when in fact, you do not.
So, in the matter being discussed, “The officer arrested the nurse under color of law,” translates to, “The officer believed he could lawfully arrest the nurse, and he did so, but he was ignorant of the fact that arresting the nurse wasn’t actually lawful.”
Does that help?
Not a lawyer here, but can’t “color of law” be done with full knowledge that the act is unlawful, but they claim it is? Your definition seems to suggest that the bad actor’s ignorance is an important element of the crime.
It sounds to me like standard CYA behavior. The police are likely to get sued if an innocent person is injured or killed during a high-speed chase. The blood might give them a card to play if that happens—i.e., “if that guy had been sober, he would have gotten out of the way.”
I’m wondering how many police agencies have unwritten, sub rosa policies about this.
Exactly.
Not in my view. It seems to me that we should file this one under wilful blindness: “I know what I’m doing is wrong, but I’m going to do it anyway.” If we stop here, we have wilful blindness. Knowledge of the act’s illegality is key in determining wilful blindness.
But ignorance takes us into color of law territory.
As I said, ignorance is an important element, but it is not the only one. Just as important is the actor’s belief that what he or she is doing is lawful.
For example, mopery is perfectly legal in your state. You commit mopery every day; it is part of your routine. You move to another state, get back into your usual routine, and promptly get arrested and charged with mopery.
If you knew mopery was illegal in your new state (knowledge), but did it anyway, you are wilfully blind.
If you did not know mopery was illegal in your new state (ignorance), but believed that the law was just like back home where mopery was legal (belief), then you were acting under color of law.
Of course, ignorance is no defense at any time; and neither is belief. But they can mark the difference between wilfully blind (which is quite serious), and color of law (which is still serious, but not as much as wilful blindness). Can you see the difference?
IANAL, but none of the references I can find make any mention of a restriction to cases of ignorance of the law.
According to these articles, the term simply describes actions taken with apparent legal authority.
From one of the early articles in CNN.
I mentioned this in the Pit thread but I used to work for campus security when I was a student, and worked closely with the University Police Department. We were part of the Department of Public Safety, so our lieutenant reported to the captain of the police department. Hospital security was a sister organization of ours with their own bosses. My sister worked a police dispatcher.
Unfortunately, I think that the nurse and her attorney are going continue to be disappointed if they want a different response from the security staff. I hate to use the term “officer” although we were technically some sort of peace officers, we had essentially zero training. Fortunately, we weren’t allowed to carry weapons. Our job was the follow the direction of the police officers and had zero idea if they were acting within reason or not. Had I been there, I would have been completely lost as how to proceed. I wouldn’t have liked how he handled the arrest, but would pretty much be powerless to intervene.
The university police department is pretty small and is in its own little bubble mostly solving mostly minor, unsolvable crimes such as bike theft. They would take reports and a detective would look into it.
The Salt Lake City police were always thought of as “real police” by the campus cops. The tone of the conversation at the coffee shop would change if they showed up. They had real police stories to talk about.
Unfortunately, I don’t think it’s realistic to expect security to do anything. They simply will never be trained enough. Obviously, it’s been multiple decades since I was there, but I don’t see how the University of Utah Police would have changed much either.
ISTM that the fault here lies with the Salt Lake City Police department in general. With whoever is supposed to be keeping up with changes in the law and with the training department, as well as that particular officer who has anger issues.
I’ve always thought of it in my head as “representing your actions as being lawful by virtue of your position as a duly-appointed (or deputized) enforcer of the law; when in fact, your actions are not lawful.”
I have difficulty conceiving of a hypothetical under color of law situation in which a mistaken LEO’s actions were performed with a good-faith belief that they were lawful.
ETA: Having read your response to Hurricane Ditka, I now find myself wondering If I am mistakenly conflating “under color of law” with “under color of authority.”
As regards your last point, yes, it is possible to confuse “under cover of law” with “under cover of authority.” But in my jurisdiction, they both amount to the same thing: somebody (authority or not) believes they have the right to do something unlawful, when they actually don’t, and they are ignorant of that fact.
Note that “under cover of law” situations arise even in private disputes. The “I thought he was going to hit me so I hit him back first” defense is one such, but it never works.
What is it called in your jurisdicion when the LEO intentionally deceives a victim into complying with a demand the LEO knows his position does NOT authorize him to compel compliance to?
(As an example, he wants to do a warrantless search of someone’s garage while the owner is on vacation. So he says to the house sitter [who is excellent at collecting the mail, watering the hanging spider plants, feeding the cat, and driving the Bentley around the block every other day; but knows diddly-squat about the Fourth Amendment], “By the authority vested in me as a duly-sworn LEO in this jurisdiction, I am ordering you to open that garage door or face arrest and prosecution.”)
They may be the same thing in your jurisidiction **spoons**, but they are different in the US. In your jurisdiction, "under color of right" is a defense.
Not in the US with “under color of law” or under “color of authority” . In the US it means someone who claims to act with legal authority. Someone earlier linked to the Wiki entry , and here is the definition of “under color of law” regarding civil rights used in the US code
It has nothing to do with the official believing he/she has he right to do something unlawful or even being ignorant that that they do not have the right to do something. It requires that the public official (and it must be a public official) act willfully to deprive a person of their rights.
What is it called in your jurisdicion when the LEO intentionally deceives a victim into complying with a demand the LEO knows his position does NOT authorize him to compel compliance to?
(As an example, he wants to do a warrantless search of someone’s garage while the owner is on vacation. So he says to the house sitter [who is excellent at collecting the mail, watering the hanging spider plants, feeding the cat, and driving the Bentley around the block every other day; but knows diddly-squat about the Fourth Amendment], “By the authority vested in me as a duly-sworn LEO in this jurisdiction, I am ordering you to open that garage door or face arrest and prosecution.”)
Really? She sure seemed surprised when things went downhill fast.
groan
2nd Utah police officer put on administrative duty over nurse arrest
So now defective Payne’s lieutenant is sharing some of the scrutiny (maybe).
She tried to remain calm, but when he manhandled her like that she was piste.
On the slalom occasion of being arrested?
Maybe - that’s more of a Bricker question.
But let me count all of the times that defense has worked for non-police.
Let’s see … 8 + 3 … carry the 6 … subtract 1 …
ZERO
It’s called 2 weeks paid admin leave, an apology and no official repercussions nor anything in his file.