Rossignol v. Voorhaar
316 F.3d 516 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Public officials act under color of state law for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 when they engage in seemingly private conduct that is motivated by a desire to suppress criticism of their official duties and where their official status provides an intimidating asset that facilitates the execution of their actions.
Facts:
- Kenneth Rossignol's newspaper, St. Mary's Today, frequently published articles critical of St. Mary's County Sheriff Richard Voorhaar, his deputies, and Richard Fritz, a candidate for State's Attorney.
- Anticipating a critical election day issue, several off-duty deputies, with the approval and financial support of Sheriff Voorhaar and candidate Fritz, planned to buy all available copies of the newspaper to prevent its distribution.
- The election day issue was published with articles detailing a past rape conviction for Fritz and an EEOC complaint against Voorhaar.
- On the night before the November 1998 election, six off-duty, plainclothes deputies drove personal cars to approximately 40 stores and 40 newsboxes, buying up at least 1,300 copies of the newspaper.
- When Rossignol attempted to restock the vendors, the deputies followed him and purchased the newly delivered papers as well.
- During the mass purchase, some deputies carried their service weapons, one wore a Fraternal Order of Police sweatshirt with the word 'Sheriff' on it, and they were recognized as deputies by many store clerks.
- At least one store clerk testified that he sold the deputies his entire stock of the newspaper because he felt intimidated by their status as police officers and feared they could make his life 'a living hell.'
- Sheriff Voorhaar personally approved the plan, contributed $500 to the effort, and wished the deputies 'good luck,' while Fritz also approved, helped plan the logistics, contributed funds, and offered legal advice on the plan's legality.
Procedural Posture:
- Kenneth Rossignol and Island Publishing Company filed suit against Sheriff Richard Voorhaar, Richard Fritz, and several deputies in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland.
- The complaint alleged violations of constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as well as violations of the Maryland Constitution and Maryland common law.
- Following discovery, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.
- The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on the federal § 1983 claims, ruling that their conduct did not constitute action 'under color of state law.'
- Having dismissed the federal claims, the district court dismissed the plaintiffs' state law claims without prejudice.
- Rossignol and Island Publishing Company, as Plaintiffs-Appellants, appealed the district court's summary judgment ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do off-duty law enforcement officers act under color of state law for the purposes of a § 1983 claim when they organize and execute a mass purchase of a newspaper's election day issue to prevent its circulation, motivated by a desire to suppress criticism of their official performance and fitness for office?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Judge Wilkinson
Yes, the off-duty officers acted under color of state law. An official's seemingly private actions are fairly attributable to the state when the conduct is motivated by and directed at the official's public role. The court reasoned that the deputies' actions were not a purely personal dispute but arose directly from the newspaper's criticism of their official conduct and fitness for office. Their status as law enforcement officers provided an intimidating presence that facilitated the mass purchase, as evidenced by clerks who felt coerced into selling the papers. Furthermore, the active approval, financial support, and implicit promise of protection from prosecution by Sheriff Voorhaar constituted significant state encouragement, creating a 'sufficiently close nexus' between the private conduct and the state. The court concluded that this type of quasi-private conspiracy by public officials to suppress core political speech is precisely the kind of constitutional violation § 1983 was enacted to prevent.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the 'under color of state law' doctrine as it applies to the off-duty conduct of public officials. It establishes that an official's motivation—specifically, the intent to suppress criticism of their public duties—is a key factor in transforming private acts into state action. The ruling puts officials on notice that they cannot shed their constitutional obligations simply by taking off their uniforms, especially when their official status is perceived by the public and used to achieve their objective. This precedent strengthens First Amendment protections against censorship by making it more difficult for government actors to use nominally 'private' means to silence critics.
Unlock the full brief for Rossignol v. Voorhaar