Supreme Court: Malicious Prosecution Claims Don’t Require Showing Innocence
This case law update was written by Michael J. Sgarlat, an attorney at the law firm of Shaw Bransford & Roth, where he has practiced federal personnel and employment law since 2015. Mr. Sgarlat works with federal employees to respond to proposed disciplinary and adverse actions, and has experience litigating cases before the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board.
Mandel Ngan | Getty
Recently, the Supreme Court held that a plaintiff bringing a claim of malicious prosecution for a Fourth Amendment violation under 42 U.S.C. §1983 only needs to show that the prosecution ended without a conviction and does not need to show that it rendered an indication of innocence.
In January 2014, Larry Thompson lived with his fiancé and newborn daughter in a Brooklyn apartment. His fiancé’s sister, who suffered from mental illness, was also staying there at the time. She called 911 and claimed that Thompson was sexually abusing the newborn, and EMT and police arrived at the apartment. Thompson denied the police entry without a warrant, but they entered the apartment anyway. A brief scuffle ensued, and the officers arrested Thompson.
Medical examinations showed that there were no signs of abuse on the newborn. Meanwhile, Thompson remained arrested for resisting the officers’ entry into his apartment. He remained in police custody for two days, and was charged with obstructing governmental administration and resisting arrest. A judge then released him on his own recognizance.
Before trial, prosecution moved to dismiss the charges against Thompson, and a trial judge dismissed them. Neither explained the reason for dismissal. Thompson then brought suit for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the officers who arrested and charged him. One claim brought was for “malicious prosecution,” as Thompson asserted that the officers maliciously prosecuted him and subjected him to unlawful detention in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights.
Under Second Circuit precedent, Thompson had to show that his criminal prosecution ended without a conviction and with some indication of innocence. Thompson had no evidence that would explain why the case was dismissed. Thus, the district court ruled that there was no indication of Thompson’s innocence, and entered judgment in favor of the defendant officers. On appeal, the Second Circuit adhered to its precedent and affirmed the dismissal of the Fourth Amendment claim.
Thompson filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to address a split in the circuit courts over how to apply the favorable termination requirement of a malicious prosecution claim. While some circuits, like the Second Circuit, have held that favorable termination requires some affirmative indication of innocence, other circuits have held that favorable termination occurs so long as the criminal prosecution ends without a conviction.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh delivered the majority opinion for six of the Court’s justices. In the opinion, the Court described the gravamen of a Fourth Amendment malicious prosecution claim as the same as the gravamen of the tort of malicious prosecution. In both, the plaintiff must show that the suit was instituted without probable cause and that there was a favorable termination of the underlying criminal case against him.
The Court reviewed precedent and historical practice in American courts regarding claims of malicious prosecution in tort law dating back to 1871. Based on that body of law, the Court found that American courts did not limit favorable terminations to those that suggested a plaintiff’s innocence. The Court applied this body of law to the Fourth Amendment context here, and held that a Fourth Amendment claim under § 1983 for malicious prosecution does not require the plaintiff to show that the criminal prosecution ended with some affirmative indication of innocence, and that a plaintiff only needs to show that the prosecution ended without a conviction.
In addition to its review of tort law precedent, the Court provided a more practical explanation for its holding, stating that “[t]he question of whether a criminal defendant was wrongly charged does not logically depend on whether the prosecutor or court explained why the prosecution was dismissed.” Likewise, the Court noted that requiring an indication of innocence would produce illogical results, as would be seen when the government dismisses a weak criminal case without explanation before trial which would foreclose a §1983 claim as compared to when the government brings a stronger criminal case to trial that ultimately renders an indication of innocence permitting a §1983 claim.
Because the prosecution did not end in a conviction, this was enough for Thompson to establish the basic element of a “favorable termination” to support his malicious prosecution claim under the Fourth Amendment. The Court therefore reversed the Second Circuit’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.
Read the full case: Thompson v. Clark.
For over thirty years, Shaw Bransford & Roth P.C. has provided superior representation on a wide range of federal employment law issues, from representing federal employees nationwide in administrative investigations, disciplinary and performance actions, and Bivens lawsuits, to handling security clearance adjudications and employment discrimination cases.