What is "Color of Law"?

Wikipedia has some interesting, general information about "Color of Law". 

"Color of law refers to an appearance of legal power to act but which may operate in violation of law. For example, though a police officer acts with the "color of law" authority to arrest someone, if such an arrest is made without probable cause the arrest may actually be in violation of law. In other words, just because something is done with the "color of law", that does not mean that the action was lawful. When police act outside their lawful authority and violate the civil rights of a citizen, the FBI is tasked with investigating. ^[2]

"... Under "color of law", it is a crime for one or more persons using power given to him or her by a governmental agency (local, state or federal), to willfully deprive or conspire to deprive another person of any right protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. Enforcement of "color of law" does not require that any racial, religious, or other discriminatory motive existed. Criminal acts under color of law include acts within and beyond the bounds or limits of lawful authority. Off-duty conduct may also be covered if official status is asserted in some manner. Color of law may include forced vaccinations for school aged children under threat of expulsion or placing the child's parents under arrest where no law exists to do so. Color of law may include public officials and non-governmental employees who are not law enforcement officers such as judges, prosecutors, and private security guards^."

I was particularly interested in the last quoted sentence:

So, when a government employee threatens, over a government telephone from a government office and during office hours, to have a person charged with a crime, when no crime had occurred, is that, in and of itself, an illegal act? And one that the FBI would investigate, if a complaint were lodged?

Sometimes an employee is just blowing off steam. Sometimes, they are upset about something else, and then just "take it out" on the next person in line. Sometimes, they might react if their office has been on the defensive about handling of some previous matters, even if the particular person was not directly involved.

Who knows what really caused this week's explosion on the phone?

It caused me to reach for my Atlas and to look to see whether Illinois is still in the United States, where the First Amendment is widely believed still to be in effect. My atlas is a number of years old, so maybe the newer ones show a vacant gap where Illinois use to be. I guess it's time to pick up a 2012 Atlas.