Document: 341 U.S. 97 71 S.Ct. 576 95 L.Ed. 774 WILLIAMSv.UNITED STATES. No. 365. Argued and Submitted Jan. 8, 1951. Decided April 23, Mr. Bart A. Riley, Miami, Fla., for petitioner. Philip Elman, Washington, D.C., respondent. Justice DOUGLAS delivered the opinion of Court. 1 The question in this case is whether a special police officer who his official capacity subjects person suspected crime to force violence order obtain confession may be prosecuted under § 20 Criminal Code, 18 U.S.C. (1946 ed.) 52, now U.S.C.A. 242. 2 Section provides pertinent part: 'Whoever, color any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects, causes subjected, inhabitant State, Territory, District deprivation rights, privileges, immunities secured protected by Constitution laws United States * shall fined not more than $1,000, imprisoned one year, both.' 3 facts are these: Lindsley Lumber Co. suffered numerous thefts hired petitioner, operated detective agency, ascertain identity thieves. Petitioner held officer's card issued City Florida, had taken an oath qualified as officer. others over period three days took four men paint shack on company's premises used brutal methods from each them. A rubber hose, pistol, blunt instrument, sash cord other implements were project. One man was forced look at bright light fifteen minutes; when he blinded, repeatedly hit with hose finally knocked floor. Another chair stomach again again. He put back procedure repeated. backed against wall jammed chest club. Each beaten, threatened, unmercifully punished several hours until confessed. Ford, policeman, sent superior lend authority proceedings. And committed assaults, went about flashing badge. 4 indictment charged among things that petitioner acting law make victim confess guilt implicate others, victims denied right tried due process if found guilty sentenced accordance state. jury instructions which conformed rulings Court Screws v. States, 325 91, 65 1031, 89 1495. Appeals affirmed. 179 F.2d 656. case, companion 26, Williams, 70, 581, 134, 58, 595, decided day, here certiorari. 5 We think it clear 'under color' within meaning 20, least could properly so find. interpreted phrase Classic, 313 299, 326, 61 1043, 85 1368. 'Misuse power, possessed virtue state made possible only because wrongdoer clothed action of' law.' see supra, pages 107—111, 1038—1040, It common practice, we noted National Labor Relations Board Jones & Laughlin Co., 331 416, 429, 67 1274, 1281, 91 1575, private guards detectives vested policemen's powers. know record policy Florida. Moreover, investigation conducted aegis evidenced fact regular detailed attend it. need go no further conclude lower court, whom give deference local matters, Gardner State New Jersey, 329 565, 583, 467, 476, 504, correct holding mere interloper but semblance policeman's power There was, therefore, evidence acted Florida law; manner conduct interrogations makes asserting granted him role person. In event charge drew line between unofficial explored page 111, 1040, 1495, gave all protection 'color offers. 6 main contention application sustain conviction obtaining use unconstitutional. argument majority rejected runs follows: 7 statutes must have ascertainable standard they fall vagueness. See L. Cohen Grocery 255 81, 41 298, 516; Winters People York, 333 507, 68 665, 92 840. argued, lacks necessary specificity rights Due Process Clause Fourteenth Amendment involved. pointed course decisions proof vague fluid 'rights, Constitution' 20. referred where been closely divided violated process. More specifically cited many instances has conspicuously disagreement illegal character confessions Clause. If cannot agree what violate Amendment, how can risks criminal prosecutions acts sure standard? Thus sought show officers such walk ground far too treacherous responsibility. 8 Many might extended circumstances extreme their Conversely, close construction will often save act vagueness fatal. present good illustration any. plain pikestaff would allowed whatever school thought concerning scope This classic testify himself. result rack, wheel, thumb screw—the ancient securing torture, Brown Mississippi, 297 278, 285—286, 56 461, 464—465, 80 682; Chambers 309 227, 237, 60 472, 477, 84 716—were compel confession. Some day less obvious coercion presented doubts adequacy presented. similar doubt beating death. That stirred case; reason purpose plain, constitutional willful. But take matters own hands, seize victims, beat pound them confess, there slightest deprived Constitution. accused legally constituted kangaroo court. Hence wring violence, some most fundamental, basic, well-established every citizen enjoys. associates purposely; aim precisely deny affords.1 arrogant guarantees. high service designed palpably its protection. Only casuistry nebulous our scheme specific. 9 An effort, however, free Williams extremely technical charge, condemn grounds 10 petitioners designated persons privileges Amendment. These deprivations defined include 'illegal' assault battery. these context viz. immunity count charges Purnell following respects: '* privilege liberty without secure while custody subjected punishment immune, battery exercising said Florida; say, 28th March, 1947, defendants arrested detained caused Frank J. Purnell, Jr., brought into certain building sometimes called near 3810 N.W. 17th Avenue, did detain then illegally strike, bruise, batter, beat, torture coerce admission connection alleged theft personal property, property name accuse participants imposing summary upon Jr.' 11 trial judge summarized Count 'for forcing him.' 'not violation assault' nor States.' reading whole imagined. therefore strains technicalities say issue construed applied case. Our concern substantial justice done, search errors defeat great Congress enacting 12 Affirmed. 13 BLACK dissents. 14 FRANKFURTER, JACKSON MINTON, dissenting. 15 Experience effort apply doctrine leads MINTON dissent reasons set forth part phase case: 'The denies anyone regulation custom try ordeal; is, himself inflict thinks should receive. Now determining requisite willful intent counts, you gentlemen entitled consider attendant circumstances: malice, any, toward men; weapon assault, any; duration investigation, time carried out. All consideration submitted deliberate depriving Constitutional just like everyone else.'

Category: 1