[Kevin]

Rereading the facts as the article presents them, I think there's a viable 42 U.S.C. 1983 action. The article is specific (and I'm just guessing the author got this info off of the pleadings) that the defendant here wore camoflauge, carried a walkie-talkie and a gun, and generally carried himself like a law enforcement officer (my conclusion). If the plaintiff can show that his rights were infringed upon by someone acting "under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage. . ." there may be a civil rights action even if that individual is not actually authorized to enforce those norms. Here, arguably, the freedom of movement (an ill-defined, but existant right) was arguably violated while the defendant was playing border patrol. This is why the weekend warriors who go 'play' Border Patrol only call in illegal sightings on their radios rather than attempting to have direct confrontations.

I also see, via pendant jurisdiction, a state law tort claim for false imprisonment.

The defendant is disputing the existance of the rifle because the presence thereof goes to the heart of the case -- if the plaintiffs felt free to leave the scene, their rights and liberties were never effected, end of case. That's going to be a question for the jury, hence the trial.

As to the damages being asked for, it all depends on the jury. If a jury finds this plaintiff guilty, it could just award nominal damages for each of the claims -- probably something on the order of $32.00 total. The stinger for the defendant here is that 42 U.S.C. 1988 is a fee shifting statute which would saddle the defendant with the burden of paying plaintiffs' attorneys fees should he be found to have violated their civil rights. That's something that very easily will be in the six-figure range.