Color (law)

Last updated

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 adjusts (colors) the law to the circumstance, yet said apparently legal action contravenes the law. [1] [2]

Contents

In English and American jurisprudence, an act done “under color of law” is an act done by an official as if authorized by law, but which is in fact not authorized. It was first used in English statutory law in the 13th century. It originated in the fact that the crown's officials and soldiers carried the sovereign's flag and coat of arms as an indication that they were acting under the sovereign's authority. [3] This meaning is preserved in modern American usage in the term "color guard" to describe a small number of people ceremonially presenting the flag at an official ceremony. “Through the first half of the nineteenth century, colore officii was a common law term of art referring to the illegal or unauthorized actions of governmental officials,” and was used by the U.S. Congress is several laws, including the authorization of federal officials to seek removal of state criminal charges brought against them to federal courts. [4]

Under color of authority is a legal phrase used in North America [5] [ dubious – discuss ] indicating that a person is claiming or implying the acts they are committing are related to and legitimized by his or her role as an agent of governmental power.

Color of law

Color of law refers to an appearance of legal power to act that may operate in violation of law. For example, if a police officer acts with the "color of law" authority to arrest someone, the arrest, if it is made without probable cause, may actually be in violation of law. In other words, just because something is done with the "color of law" does not mean that the action was lawful. When police are suspected of acting outside their lawful authority and violating the civil rights of a citizen, the FBI may be tasked with investigating. [2]

The US Supreme Court has interpreted the US 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 by a governmental agency (local, state or federal), to deprive or conspire willfully 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. [2]

Deprivation of rights under color of law

The deprivation of rights under color of law is a federal criminal offense which occurs when any person, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person on any U.S. territory or possession 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 (18 U.S.C.   § 242). When two or more persons conspire to prevent the exercise of constitutional rights, or to punish an individual for having exercised them, it is deemed a conspiracy against rights (18 U.S.C.   § 241). The death penalty is applicable in extreme cases when the crimes cause the death of the individual being deprived of statutory or constitutional rights. [2] Remedy by civil action is also possible: 42 U.S.C.   § 1983.

Color of office

"Color of office" refers to an act usually committed by a public official under the appearance of authority but exceeds such authority. An affirmative act or omission, committed under color of office, is sometimes required to prove malfeasance in office.

Color of title

"Color of title", in property law, refers to a claim to title that appears valid but may be legally defective. Color of title may arise if there is evidence, such as a writing, suggesting valid legal title. The courts have ruled that deeds are mere color of title; the actual title to land is secured with an irrefutable instrument, like a land patent. When that land is subsequently conveyed to another owner by a deed, the deed colors the title to show the new owner. Thus, the chain of title from the land patent to the present may include many deeds. The actual title remains with the land patent and lawful deeds show the chain of title to the present landowner. Because the ownership in land is a very specific thing, requiring precise and proper transfers of ownership, it used to be that people always required a certified abstract be provided with a deed to ensure the deed was not merely a color of title fiction. Today, title companies offer title insurance to secure such documents. Still, only a proper and lawful title, like the land patent, provides actual title to land; and only a proper and lawful chain of title (deeds, etc.) from such a patent to the present can secure land rights to the landowner.

However, even with land secured by patent, the proper grant of title can be implied by adverse possession, which is the basis for claims exemplified in Torrens title. The Torrens system operates on the principle of "title by registration" in which the act of registering an interest in land in a state-operated registry creates an indefeasible title in the registrant, which, like the land patent, can be challenged only in very limited circumstances.

Appropriation of name or likeness

Although it is a common-law tort, most states have enacted statutes that prohibit the use of a person's name or image if used without consent for the commercial benefit of another person. A person's exclusive rights to control his or her name and likeness to prevent others from exploiting personal information without permission is protected in similar manner to a title or trademark action with the person's likeness and personal information, rather than the trademark or title, being the subject of the protection. [6]

The tort of false light involves a misappropriation or "major misrepresentation" of a person's "character, history, activities or belief". [7] Some bodies of law also explicitly mention the estate of a person; false claims of nobility are most common. In the US, one who gives publicity to a matter concerning another that places the other before the public in a false light is subject to liability for invasion of privacy if

  1. The false light would be highly offensive to a reasonable person; and
  2. The actor acted with malice —had reason to know of or acted with reckless disregard as to the falsity of the publicized matter and the false light in which the other would be placed.

See Section 652E of the Restatement (Second) of Torts.

Public disclosure of private facts arises if a person reveals information which is not of public concern, the release of which would offend a reasonable person. [8]

See also

Related Research Articles

Perjury is the intentional act of swearing a false oath or falsifying an affirmation to tell the truth, whether spoken or in writing, concerning matters material to an official proceeding.

Defamation, at a first approximation, is any form of communication that can injure a third party's reputation. This can include all modes of human-understandable communications: gestures, images, signs, words. It is not necessarily restricted to making assertions that are falsifiable, and can extend to concepts that are more abstract than reputation – like dignity and honour. For a communication to be considered defamatory, it must be conveyed to someone other than the defamed. Depending on the permanence or transience of the communication medium, defamation may be distinguished between libel and slander. It is treated as a civil wrong, as a criminal offence, or both. The exact definition of defamation and related acts, as well as the ways they are dealt with, can vary greatly between countries and jurisdictions; for example, whether they constitute crimes or not, to what extent insults and opinions are included in addition to allegations of facts, to what extent proving the alleged facts is a valid defence.

A tort is a civil wrong that causes a claimant to suffer loss or harm, resulting in legal liability for the person who commits the tortious act. Tort law can be contrasted with criminal law, which deals with criminal wrongs that are punishable by the state. While criminal law aims to punish individuals who commit crimes, tort law aims to compensate individuals who suffer harm as a result of the actions of others. Some wrongful acts, such as assault and battery, can result in both a civil lawsuit and a criminal prosecution in countries where the civil and criminal legal systems are separate. Tort law may also be contrasted with contract law, which provides civil remedies after breach of a duty that arises from a contract. Obligations in both tort and criminal law are more fundamental and are imposed regardless of whether the parties have a contract.

Trespass is an area of tort law broadly divided into three groups: trespass to the person, trespass to chattels, and trespass to land.

Personality rights, sometimes referred to as the right of publicity, are rights for an individual to control the commercial use of their identity, such as name, image, likeness, or other unequivocal identifiers. They are generally considered as property rights, rather than personal rights, and so the validity of personality rights of publicity may survive the death of the individual to varying degrees, depending on the jurisdiction.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Privacy Act of 1974</span>

The Privacy Act of 1974, a United States federal law, establishes a Code of Fair Information Practice that governs the collection, maintenance, use, and dissemination of personally identifiable information about individuals that is maintained in systems of records by federal agencies. A system of records is a group of records under the control of an agency from which information is retrieved by the name of the individual or by some identifier assigned to the individual. The Privacy Act requires that agencies give the public notice of their systems of records by publication in the Federal Register. The Privacy Act prohibits the disclosure of information from a system of records absent of the written consent of the subject individual, unless the disclosure is pursuant to one of twelve statutory exceptions. The Act also provides individuals with a means by which to seek access to and amendment of their records and sets forth various agency record-keeping requirements. Additionally, with people granted the right to review what was documented with their name, they are also able to find out if the "records have been disclosed" and are also given the right to make corrections.

False imprisonment or unlawful imprisonment occurs when a person intentionally restricts another person's movement within any area without legal authority, justification, or the restrained person's permission. Actual physical restraint is not necessary for false imprisonment to occur. A false imprisonment claim may be made based upon private acts, or upon wrongful governmental detention. For detention by the police, proof of false imprisonment provides a basis to obtain a writ of habeas corpus.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Privacy laws of the United States</span>

Privacy laws of the United States deal with several different legal concepts. One is the invasion of privacy, a tort based in common law allowing an aggrieved party to bring a lawsuit against an individual who unlawfully intrudes into their private affairs, discloses their private information, publicizes them in a false light, or appropriates their name for personal gain.

Nuisance is a common law tort. It means something which causes offence, annoyance, trouble or injury. A nuisance can be either public or private. A public nuisance was defined by English scholar Sir James Fitzjames Stephen as,

"an act not warranted by law, or an omission to discharge a legal duty, which act or omission obstructs or causes inconvenience or damage to the public in the exercise of rights common to all Her Majesty's subjects".

False arrest, unlawful arrest or wrongful arrest is a common law tort, where a plaintiff alleges they were held in custody without probable cause, or without an order issued by a court of competent jurisdiction. Although it is possible to sue law enforcement officials for false arrest, the usual defendants in such cases are private security firms.

A land patent is a form of letters patent assigning official ownership of a particular tract of land that has gone through various legally-prescribed processes like surveying and documentation, followed by the letter's signing, sealing, and publishing in public records, made by a sovereign entity.

In law, an alien is any person who is not a citizen or a national of a specific country, although definitions and terminology differ to some degree depending upon the continent or region. More generally, however, the term "alien" is perceived as synonymous with foreign national.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Canadian tort law</span> Aspect of Canadian law

Canadian tort law is composed of two parallel systems: a common law framework outside Québec and a civil law framework within Québec. Outside Québec, Canadian tort law originally derives from that of England and Wales but has developed distinctly since Canadian Confederation in 1867 and has been influenced by jurisprudence in other common law jurisdictions. Meanwhile, while private law as a whole in Québec was originally derived from that which existed in France at the time of Québec's annexation into the British Empire, it was overhauled and codified first in the Civil Code of Lower Canada and later in the current Civil Code of Quebec, which codifies most elements of tort law as part of its provisions on the broader law of obligations. As most aspects of tort law in Canada are the subject of provincial jurisdiction under the Canadian Constitution, tort law varies even between the country's common law provinces and territories.

Privacy law is the body of law that deals with the regulating, storing, and using of personally identifiable information, personal healthcare information, and financial information of individuals, which can be collected by governments, public or private organisations, or other individuals. It also applies in the commercial sector to things like trade secrets and the liability that directors, officers, and employees have when handing sensitive information.

Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989), was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court, in which the Court held that States and their officials acting in their official capacity are not persons when sued for monetary damages under the Civil Rights Act of 1871.

The following outline is provided as an overview of and introduction to tort law in common law jurisdictions:

Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693 (1976), is a United States Supreme Court case in which a sharply divided Court held that the plaintiff, whom the local police chief had named an "active shoplifter," suffered no deprivation of liberty resulting from injury to his reputation. In the case, the court broke from precedents and restricted the definition of the constitutional right to privacy "to matters relating to 'marriage procreation, contraception, family relationships, and child rearing and education".

Trespass in English law is an area of tort law broadly divided into three groups: trespass to the person, trespass to goods, and trespass to land.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Tort law in India</span> Aspect of Indian law

Tort law in India is primarily governed by judicial precedent as in other common law jurisdictions, supplemented by statutes governing damages, civil procedure, and codifying common law torts. As in other common law jurisdictions, a tort is breach of a non-contractual duty which has caused damage to the plaintiff giving rise to a civil cause of action and for which remedy is available. If a remedy does not exist, a tort has not been committed since the rationale of tort law is to provide a remedy to the person who has been wronged.

Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court first introduced the justification for qualified immunity for police officers from being sued for civil rights violations under Section 1983, by arguing that "[a] policeman's lot is not so unhappy that he must choose between being charged with dereliction of duty if he does not arrest when he had probable cause, and being mulcted in damages if he does."

References

  1. ↑ Law Dictionary Fourth Edition, Steven H. Gifis, p. 86
  2. 1 2 3 4 "Deprivation of rights under color of law". U.S. Dept. of Justice. 6 August 2015.
  3. ↑ Steven L. Winter, The Meaning of "Under Color of" Law, 91 MICH. L. REV. 323, 326 (1992).
  4. ↑ Steven L. Winter, The Meaning of "Under Color of" Law, 91 MICH. L. REV. 323, 326 (1992).
  5. ↑ Judicial and Statutory Definitions of Words and Phrases. West Publishing Company, West Publishing Co., St. Paul. 1914. p.  763.
  6. ↑ Invasion of Privacy Archived May 14, 2012, at the Wayback Machine , Appropriation of Name or Likeness. CSE/ISE 334 "Introduction to Multimedia Systems" Lectures and Recitations, Stony Brook University.
  7. ↑ Gannett Co., Inc. v. Anderson, 2006 WL 2986459 at 3 (Fla. 1st DCA Oct. 20, 2006).
  8. ↑ Common Law Privacy Torts Archived April 24, 2013, at the Wayback Machine
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.