Document: 429 U.S. 118 97 S.Ct. 514 50 L.Ed.2d 269 Raymond BELCHER, petitioner,v.Casey D. STENGEL et al No. 75-823 Supreme Court of the United States November 30, 1976 On Writ Certiorari to Appeals for Sixth Circuit. Nov. 1976. PER CURIAM. 1 This case grew out a barroom affray in Columbus, Ohio, course which petitioner, an off-duty Columbus police officer, shot and killed two people permanently disabled third. The injured victim representatives deceased victims, who are respondents here, brought action against petitioner Federal District under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.1 A jury awarded them monetary damages, judgment based upon that verdict was affirmed by 522 F.2d 438. 2 petition certiorari, we granted on April 5, 1976, 425 910, 96 1505, 47 760, presented single question: 3 "Does fact uniform, is required department regulation carry weapon at all times, establish any use person another, even though officer engaged private conduct time, (is) act 'under color law' within meaning 1983?"2 4 having now been fully briefed orally argued, it appears question framed certiorari not record before us. For addition said regulation, there evidence showed: (1) had workmen's compensation benefits injuries he received affray, ground incurred his employment; (2) after official leave account "in line duty circumstances relating Police duties"; (3) Board Inquiry convened investigate episode determined petitioner's "actions were duty." 5 Now plenary consideration has shed more light this than nature things afforded time considered, have concluded writ should be dismissed as improvidently granted. See Monrosa v. Carbon Black, Inc., 359 180, 183-184, 79 710, 723 (1959). 6 It so ordered. 7 Mr. Chief Justice BURGER, concurring. 8 I join opinion Court. note, however, several additional factors came during disclosed certiorari. three mentioned Court, ante, 119, tending prove acted duties, determinations made incident question. There are, least contemporaneous factors, possession gun, colored officer's official: testified formed intention would arrest men when stood up intervene altercation; intervened using can mace issued him department; acting pursuant intervention disturbance peace, whether or off duty. 9 These seem me important because possible negative inference otherwise created only objective evidencing state presence state-required gun. While, course, subsequent officials, such action, they could transform something into deemed conduct. Thus, unclear what result wish make clear passing today, case. Section 1983 provides: "Every who, statute, ordinance, custom, usage, State Territory, subjects, causes subjected, citizen other jurisdiction thereof deprivation rights, privileges, immunities secured Constitution laws, shall liable party law, suit equity, proper proceeding redress." At no litigation questioned respondents' claim that, if "under law," "rights, laws" 1983.

Category: 8