18 U.S. Code § 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law
CategoriesCase Studies
“Of critical significance is the fact that in holding § 20 constitutional the Court construed it to extend only to acts committed with the intent to deprive a person of a right made specific (1) by the express terms of the Constitution; or (2) federal laws; or (3) by pre-existing decisions interpreting the Constitution.
In doing so the Court stated in relevant part: “[T]he specific intent required by the Act is an intent to deprive a person of a right which has been made specific either by the express terms of the Constitution or laws of the United States or by decisions interpreting them. . . . He who defies a decision interpreting the Constitution knows precisely what he is doing. . . . Of course, willful conduct cannot make definite that which is undefined. But willful violators of constitutional requirements, which have been defined, certainly are in no position to say that they have no adequate advance notice that they would be visited with punishment. When they act willfully in the sense in which we use the word, they act in open defiance or in reckless disregard of a constitutional requirement which has been made specific and definite. When they are convicted for so acting, they are not punished for violating an unknowable something.” 325 U.S. at 104-105, 65 S.Ct. at 1037. (emphasis supplied).
In Screws v. United States, 325 U.S. 91, 93, 65 S.Ct. 1031, 89 L.Ed. 1495 (1945), two law enforcement officers were found guilty on a § 20 indictment of the Criminal Code which charged them with “willfully” depriving one Hall, a 30-year old negro, of his Fourteenth Amendment right “not to be deprived of life without due process of law” when they beat him to death, in effecting his arrest.
In United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299, 61 S.Ct. 1031, 85 L.Ed. 1368 (1941), it was held that §§ 19 and 20 of the Criminal Code, 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 51, 52, present §§ 241, 242, 18 U.S.C.A., (criminal counterparts, respectively, of §§ 1985(3), and 1983, 42 U.S.C.A.), permitted a criminal prosecution for violations of “rights” “secured” to qualified voters by Article I, § 2 of the Constitution, in a Louisiana primary election for nomination of candidates for the United States Congress.
“[T]he specific intent required by the Act is an intent to deprive a person of a right which has been made specific either by the express terms of the Constitution or laws of the United States or by decisions interpreting them. . . . He who defies a decision interpreting the Constitution knows precisely what he is doing. . . . Of course, willful conduct cannot make definite that which is undefined. But willful violators of constitutional requirements, which have been defined, certainly are in no position to say that they have no adequate advance notice that they would be visited with punishment. When they act willfully in the sense in which we use the word, they act in open defiance or in reckless disregard of a constitutional requirement which has been made specific and definite. When they are convicted for so acting, they are not punished for violating an unknowable something.” 325 U.S. at 104-105, 65 S.Ct. at 1037. (emphasis supplied).”
In particular, the panel in the published decision held that the offense of a deprivation of rights under color of law resulting in bodily injury or involving a dangerous weapon under 18 U.S.C. § 242 was a “crime of violence” for purposes of the offense of carrying a firearm during and in relation to any crime of violence, 470 F.3d at 136, and that the offense of conspiring to seek to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in connection with exercising or enjoying constitutional rights under 18 U.S.C. § 241 was a crime of violence. Id. at 136-37. The Supreme Court denied certiorari. Acosta v. United States, 552 U.S. 1037 (2007). Acosta v. United States Civil Case No. 1:16-cv-00401-MAT (W.D.N.Y. Sep. 2, 2019)
Defendant Cordell Fitts is charged with one count of deprivation of rights under color of law pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 242 and one count of filing a false report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 1519 and 2. United States v. Fitts 19 Cr. 341 (RA) (S.D.N.Y. Jul. 29, 2019)
Section 242 of Title 18 does not create a private right of action; this is a criminal provision for deprivation of civil rights under color of law. Brown v. Duggan, 329 F. Supp. 207 (W.D.Pa. 1971); Sinchak v. Parente, 262 F. Supp. 79 (W.D.Pa. 1966). Williams v. Halperin 360 F. Supp. 554 (S.D.N.Y. 1973)
Leave a Comments