This is an interesting lawsuit. The
suit has five counts. In the first three counts, the suit alleges that Justin Sharratt's constitutional rights were violated.
Count 1 - Violation of 5th Amendment under US Const. to Due Process of Law before being deprived of Life, Liberty and Property.
Count 2 - Violation of 6th Amendment - Presumption of Innocence and a Fair Trial.
Count 3 - Violation of Equal Right to Protection of the Law
The last two counts deal with Slander per Se (IV) and Tort of Invasion of Privacy - Putting Sharratt in a False Light (V)
The suit seeks monetary damages for the first three counts because Murtha was acting under the color of federal authority while allegedely violating Justin's constitutional rights. The case sited is
Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents.
Essentially the way I read that court's findings was that if a federal authority violated a citizen's constitutional rights, greater harm (and thus damages) could be found because of the power he held acting in the name of the United States.
In Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678 (1946), we reserved the question whether violation of that command by a federal agent acting under color of his authority gives rise to a cause of action for damages consequent upon his unconstitutional conduct. Today we hold that it does…
Respondents seek to treat the relationship between a citizen and a federal agent unconstitutionally exercising his authority as no different from the relationship [403 U.S. 388, 392] between two private citizens. In so doing, they ignore the fact that power, once granted, does not disappear like a magic gift when it is wrongfully used. An agent acting - albeit unconstitutionally - in the name of the United States possesses a far greater capacity for harm than an individual trespasser exercising no authority other than his own. Cf. Amos v. United States, 255 U.S. 313, 317 (1921); United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299, 326 (1941).
In Wuterich's
suit, there are three counts: Libel, Invasion of Privacy/False Light, and Republication by Third Parties. As far as I can tell, it does not address violating constitutional rights acting under the color of federal authority like Sharratt's first three counts do.
I'm assuming the DOJ will once again vouch for Murtha, that he was acting as a federal employee, thus attempting to substitute the federal govt. in the suit in place of Murtha. However, if Murtha as an "individual" used his federal authority to violate someone's constitutional rights, will this still fly?