From the Guardian, Wednesday morning…
Federal officials may use little-known civil rights statute in police shooting cases
Department of Justice and FBI have for weeks been examining the deaths of Michael Brown, Eric Garner, John Crawford III and now Dontre Hamilton
Paul Lewis in Washington
The Guardian
Wednesday 24 December 2014 08.39 EST
The families of at least four unarmed black men killed this year by police are pinning their hopes on possible federal prosecutions under a little-known civil rights statute that has only occasionally been used to indict officers in such cases.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), the FBI and local US attorneys’ offices have for weeks been examining the deaths of Michael Brown, Eric Garner and John Crawford III – all of whom were killed by police officers who grand juries later decided not to indict on state criminal charges.
Late on Monday, the DOJ announced it would review a fourth death: that of Dontre Hamilton, who was shot 14 times by a police officer following a confrontation in a park in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, in April.
The review was launched after the Milwaukee district attorney announced that Christopher Manney – the police officer who shot Hamilton, and who has since been fired – will not face charges.
In all four cases, federal officials are considering whether there is sufficient evidence to bring charges under a section of the US code that prohibits public officials from depriving an individual of constitutional rights under “color of law”…
Courtesy of the Cornell University Law School website…
18 U.S. Code § 242 -
Deprivation of rights under color of law
Cornell University Law School
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
Much more info on this law may be found by clicking upon the Cornell University link, above.
Per the Guardian story, “Police officers, prison guards, judges and care providers at public health facilities can all be prosecuted under this law,” a/k/a title 18, part I, chapter 13, section 242 of the US code, “more commonly known as the ‘color of law’ statute.”
However, today’s Guardian piece did make a point of focusing upon the fact that prosecutions of police shootings under this statute are “rare.”
Yet, in the same story, readers are reminded, “One notable exception was the federal prosecution of five New Orleans police officers over the shooting of unarmed people on Danziger bridge following Hurricane Katrina in 2005, two of whom died. The officers were convicted but later acquitted by a federal judge who ordered a retrial.”
Vice reporter Natasha Lennard noted on Christmas Day…
…the statue has "only occasionally" been used to indict officers in shooting and brutality cases. Notably, the LAPD officers who brutalized Rodney King were acquitted on state charges but later convicted under the federal statute for violating his Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable arrest and depriving him of his 14th Amendment due-process rights.
In the cases currently under consideration, federal prosecutors would have to show that the officers involved "acted with the specific intent to use more force than was reasonably necessary under the circumstances," as American University law professor William Yeoman's told the Guardian. Yeomans noted that it is "very rare" that deprivation of rights under the color of law in police in shootings is proven.
While the federal investigations specifically address whether the individuals' civil rights were violated, the impetus for prosecution under color of law cannot be racially driven. While Brown, Crawford, Garner, and Hamilton's deaths have all raised urgent questions of racism in US policing, the already unlikely federal charges would have to be brought without reference to race. In the King case, as political analyst Earl Ofari Hutchinson has pointed out on the Huffington Post, "There would have been absolutely no chance to bring, let alone get, convictions of the officers if there had been even the remotest public hint that race was the sole reason for the federal prosecution. The Justice Department had to bring, argue and try to win their convictions exclusively on the evidence and testimony that the cops violated the federal statutes in beating King."
Hutchinson argued that the same considerations applied to the King case should equally concern the Mike Brown shooting in Ferguson and should thus lead to federal charges against former cop Darren Wilson. "Brown as was King was unarmed. Brown and King were not charged with a crime when detained. Brown as King received injuries after he ceased resisting. Brown as King was abused during an official stop. These, as they were with King, are compelling civil rights violations," he wrote…
Of course, and as the
Guardian story also pointed out, it’ll be many months or years before
“…the federal inquiries come to any conclusions.”
Here’s more from Wikipedia on “color law” a/k/a “color of law”…
Color (law)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In United States law, the term color of law denotes the "mere semblance of legal right", the "pretense or appearance of" right; hence, an action done under color of law colors (adjusts) the law to the circumstance, yet said apparently legal action contravenes the law.[1] Under color of authority is a legal phrase used in the US[2] indicating that a person is claiming or implying the acts he or she is committing are related to and legitimized by his or her role as an agent of governmental power, especially if the acts are unlawful.
Color of law
Color of law refers to an appearance of legal power to act but which may operate in violation of law. For example, though a police officer acts with the "color of law" authority to arrest someone, if such an arrest is made without probable cause the arrest may actually be in violation of law. In other words, just because something is done with the "color of law", that does not mean that the action was lawful. When police act outside their lawful authority and violate the civil rights of a citizen, the FBI is tasked with investigating.[3]
The Supreme Court has interpreted the United States Constitution to construct laws regulating the actions of the law enforcement community. Under "color of law", it is a crime for one or more persons using power given to him or her by a governmental agency (local, state or federal), to willfully deprive or conspire to deprive another person of any right protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. Criminal acts under color of law include acts within and beyond the bounds or limits of lawful authority. Off-duty conduct may also be covered if official status is asserted in some manner. Color of law may include public officials and non-governmental employees who are not law enforcement officers such as judges, prosecutors, and private security guards.[4] Furthermore, in many states it is unlawful to falsely impersonate a police officer, a federal officer or employee, or any other public official or to use equipment used by law enforcement officers, such as flashing lights or a fake police badge. Possession of a firearm also can enhance the penalty for false impersonation of a police officer.[5]…
# # #