Read the three factual scenarios and discuss whether the actions were done under color of state law. Please give reasons in support of your conclusion.

1. Two New York City police officers removed Campu-Laron from the grandstand at Yankee Stadium during a baseball game, because he left his seat during the playing of "God Bless America" during the seventh-inning stretch, in violation of team policy. The off-duty officers worked at the Stadium pursuant to the Police Department's "Paid Detail Program," through which private companies and events hired uniformed police officers to provide security at various venues, including ballgames. The primary purpose of the program was to "provide a highly visible police presence" at events and venues. An incidental benefit of the program was to provide off-duty officers an opportunity to earn additional income. Participating officers were required to wear full uniform; to carry handcuffs, service firearms, and a department radio; and to conform to all department grooming and appearance standards. They were subject at all times to department rules and regulations, including regulations regarding courtesy and contact with the public. At larger venues (such as a baseball stadium), the officers reported to a superior NYPD officer on the scene working in the detail program in a supervisory capacity. Officers were responsible for taking all "proper police action in accordance with the circumstances" in working these private events. The officers also were subject to control by the hiring business or venue, in this case the New York Yankees Baseball Team. Campu-Laron sues the officers who removed him from the stadium, as well as their superiors and New York City, claiming that removing him from the park violated his First Amendment rights.
2. Davidson is a citizen of Loudoun County, Virginia, active in local politics. Rand is Chair of the Loudoun County Board of Supervisors, the county governing body. Rand and Arnett maintain the Facebook page "Chair Phyllis J. Rand." Rand blocked Davidson from posting in the Comments section of the Facebook page, because she did not like the criticisms he directed towards the County School Board and its members. Rand retains full control over the page, which will not revert to the County when she leaves office. Rand is responsible for content on the page. Arnett, Rand's long-time friend and now her chief of staff and a County employee, has administrative access to the page, posts content, and helps to run the page. Neither Rand nor Arnett uses county-issued devices to post or manage the page, although posts from personal devices are made during both work and non-work time. All posts are addressed to "Loudoun," meaning Rand's constituents. The page primarily includes content and photographs describing, advertising, and promoting Rand's activities as Chair; Board meetings and activities; official county proclamations and announcements; and non-Board events and causes with which Rand is involved in her capacity as Chair. One post called on "ANY Loudoun citizen" to post in the Comments section of the page "on ANY issues, request, criticism, compliment, or just your thoughts." Rand has engaged with constituents in the Comments section about government matters, such as the County response to a snowstorm and an upcoming meeting with the head of the County health department. The "About" section of the page categorizes the page as that of a "Government Official," and the contact information links to Rand's County office phone, email, and website. Rand's office issues a monthly newsletter, distributed via a county mailing list and posted on the county web page; a link at the bottom of the newsletter brings readers to the Chair Phyllis J. Rand Facebook page. Rand also posts about personal, non-Chair related matters on the page, such as photos of a recent shopping trip or a discussion of her love for German. In addition, Rand maintains a second Facebook page, "Friends of Phyllis Rand," with a profile describing her family and personal life; Arnett does not have administrative access to that page. Davidson brings a 1983 action against Rand, claiming that blocking him from the Comments section violated the First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment due process.
3. Priceless is a city alderman who received numerous complaints from constituents about cars illegally parked in front of an auto-repair shop in his district. When the city failed to act on his requests to move the cars, Priceless went to the shop, where he found Wilson, a mechanic employed there. When Wilson refused to move the cars or to call the shop owner, Price punched Wilson in the head several times, leaving him unconscious and with a fractured jaw. Wilson files a 1983 action, alleging that Priceless used excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

Answer rating: 100% (QA)

In order to determine whether the actions described in the three scenarios were done under color of state law we need to assess whether the individual... View the full answer