Source: https://www.dwyer-llc.com/insights/2018/5/7/hobbs-act-extortion-under-color-of-official-right-does-not-require-duress
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 07:02:26+00:00

Document:
The appellant was charged with extortion for making a deal to drop charges against two individuals charged with prostitution in exchange for a payment of $4,000 to a charity run by the police department (and from which the appellant paid personal expenses). When the police first raided the inn, one of the individuals admitted to the prostitution and offered to donate the proceeds to charity in order to avoid the charges. The police initially refused the offer. However, when the appellant became involved, he decided that he would accept payment to clear the individuals.
To secure the deal, the appellant presented an “Accord & Satisfaction” to the two individuals at a scheduled court appearance. The two individuals signed the document, paid the $4,000 to the charity, and the appellant dropped the charges.
The clerk-magistrate assigned to the matter questioned the decision to drop the charges, and the district attorney’s office agreed, asking the Massachusetts State Police to investigate. After the investigation, a grand jury indicted the appellant for several charges, including Hobbs Act extortion under color of official right. At trial, the appellant was acquitted of all charges except Hobbs Act extortion under color of official right. He appealed.
The crux of the appellant’s argument on appeal was that, as the two individuals accused of prostitution signed the “Accord & Satisfaction” agreement voluntarily, without coercion, and had originally suggested payment of the prostitution proceeds to a charity in order to dismiss the claims, the appellant could not be guilty of extortion. However, the First Circuit found that courts have previously rejected both claims.
The decision of the First Circuit is one that is consistent through the different federal circuits, in that public officials need not use “actual or threatened force, violence, or fear” to obtain money in order to be convicted with extortion under the Hobbs Act.(12) It is important to note, however, that significant questions remain as to what “under color of official right” means. The Hobbs Act does not define this phrase, so practitioners representing government officials should focus on that uncertainty rather than whether any threat was used to obtain money.
(1), --- F.3d ---, 2017 WL 3473600 (1st Cir. Aug. 14, 2017). (2)18 U.S.C. § 1951(a). (3)Buffis, at *1. (4)Id., at *5 (5)18 U.S.C. § 1951(a). (6)18 U.S.C. § 1951(b)(2). (7)Buffis, at *3, quoting United States v. Turner, 684 F.3d 244, 246 (1st Cir. 2012). (8)504 U.S. 255, 267-68 (1992). (9)Buffis, at *4. (10)Id., at *5 (11)United States v. Rivera-Medina, 845 F.2d 12, 14 (1st Cir. 1988). (12)18 U.S.C. § 1951(b)(2).

References: § 1951
 § 1951
 § 1951
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1951