×
You have no more free articles available this month. Subscribe today.
Off Duty CA Jail Guard Acted Under Color of State Law by Saying He Was a Cop
On July 30, 2001, Thomas Anderson accidentally rear-ended Charles Warner's vehicle. Warner, a Mendocino County Jail Guard, went to Anderson's car and assaulted him. When a crowd gathered, Warner ordered people to disperse, saying he was a cop. Anderson sued Warner in federal district court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming that Warner violated his constitutional rights by assaulting him under color of state law. The district court dismissed and Anderson appealed.
On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit had to determine whether Warner was acting under color of state law by representing himself as "a cop," even though state law didn't authorize him to detain Anderson because he was not on duty. The appellate court found that Warner used "the badge of [his] authority" to influence others not to interfere while he was beating Anderson; thus, the court held that Warner was acting under color of state law when he assaulted Anderson. The district court was reversed and the case remanded. See: Anderson v. Warner, 451 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 2006).
On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit had to determine whether Warner was acting under color of state law by representing himself as "a cop," even though state law didn't authorize him to detain Anderson because he was not on duty. The appellate court found that Warner used "the badge of [his] authority" to influence others not to interfere while he was beating Anderson; thus, the court held that Warner was acting under color of state law when he assaulted Anderson. The district court was reversed and the case remanded. See: Anderson v. Warner, 451 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 2006).
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
Anderson v. Warner
| Year | 2006 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 451 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 2006) |
| Level | Court of Appeals |
| Injunction Status | N/A |