Posted on 04/04/2022 4:17:08 PM PDT by Theoria
The Supreme Court ruled on Monday in favor of a Brooklyn man who said he had been falsely accused by police officers of resisting arrest, saying he could sue for malicious prosecution under a federal civil rights law.
The vote was 6 to 3, with the majority deciding only the narrow question of what the man, Larry Thompson, had to show to meet a requirement that there was a favorable termination of the prosecution against him. Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, writing for the majority, said it was enough that prosecutors had dropped the charges, rejecting the view that Mr. Thompson had to demonstrate that there had been some affirmative indication of his innocence.
The case started in 2014, as Mr. Thompson, a Navy veteran and longtime postal worker, was living with his fiancée, their newborn baby girl and Mr. Thompson’s sister-in-law who, Justice Kavanaugh wrote, “apparently suffered from a mental illness.”
When the baby was a week old, the sister-in-law called 911 and accused Mr. Thompson of sexually abusing the infant, citing a red rash on her buttocks that turned out to be diaper rash. When four police officers arrived, Mr. Thompson refused to let them in without a warrant.
Advertisement
They entered anyway, tackling Mr. Thompson and pinning him to the floor. The officers handcuffed and arrested him. While he was in jail for two days, one officer filed a criminal complaint charging Mr. Thompson with resisting arrest. Prosecutors eventually dropped the charges.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Criminal proceedings reach “favorable termination” when they end without conviction
A plaintiff bringing a damages claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for constitutional violations arising in the criminal-justice process “need only show that his prosecution ended without a conviction” and not “with some affirmative indication of innocence,” Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote for a six-justice majority in Thompson v. Clark. Justice Samuel Alito dissented, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch.
Larry Thompson was charged with resisting arrest and obstructing a government investigation when he attempted to stop police from entering his apartment in response to a false call about child abuse. The prosecution moved to dismiss “in the interest of justice” and a New York trial court dismissed the matter. Thompson sued for damages under Section 1983, which allows individuals to sue state actors for violating their constitutional rights. He alleged a variety of Fourth Amendment violations. The claim before the Supreme Court alleged malicious prosecution (also described as unreasonable seizure pursuant to legal process) against one responding officer, Pagiel Clark, who signed a criminal complaint during Thompson’s initial post-arrest detention.
Kavanaugh began by affirming that precedent from the court and lower courts recognized claims for unreasonable seizure pursuant to legal process under the Fourth Amendment. This constitutional claim is analogous to the tort of malicious prosecution, as the gravamen of both is initiation of criminal charges without probable cause. The elements of the constitutional claim match those of the tort. A Fourth Amendment plaintiff must show the criminal proceeding was initiated without probable cause, initiated for a purpose other than bringing the defendant to justice, and terminated in favor of the defendant. The final element serves multiple purposes. It avoids parallel civil and criminal proceedings, precludes inconsistent civil and criminal judgments, and prevents criminal defendants from using civil litigation as collateral attacks on criminal proceedings.
The parties disputed what favorable termination means — whether the plaintiff must show an affirmative indication of innocence (such as acquittal or dismissal of charges with an express judicial finding of insufficient evidence) or whether she must show that the proceedings did not produce a conviction. Looking at American tort law as of 1871 (when Congress enacted the Ku Klux Klan Act, of which Section 1983 was a part), the court found that American courts and treatises were largely in agreement: A malicious-prosecution claim was available when criminal proceedings ended and could not be revived, such as where the prosecutor abandoned the case or the trial court dismissed without explanation. Kavanaugh rejected contrary authority on malicious prosecution, including an outlier decision from the Rhode Island Supreme Court, modern understandings of malicious prosecution, and authorities defining when cases have or have not terminated. None alters the basic principle that if a proceeding has terminated (however terminated is defined), the termination is favorable when there is no conviction.
Because the 1871 tort-law consensus did not require affirmative indications of innocence, the court construed the Section 1983 Fourth Amendment claim in the same manner. This approach furthers Fourth Amendment purposes and values. Whether a defendant was unlawfully seized should not depend on the “fortuity” of whether the court or prosecutor explained why charges were dismissed. And the alternative approach would create a paradox — it would foreclose a Section 1983 claim when a weak prosecution was dismissed before trial while allowing a claim where the evidence warranted a trial that resulted in acquittal.
The court identified open issues to be resolved on remand, including whether Thompson was seized for Fourth Amendment purposes, whether Clark had probable clause, and whether Clark is entitled to qualified immunity.
Alito rejected the “chimera of a constitutional tort” that combined the “very different” claims of Fourth Amendment unreasonable seizure and common-law malicious prosecution. (He cited Homer’s description of the chimera as a “grim monster” of “all lion in front, all snake behind, all goat between,” recalling his invocation of the centaur during argument). Alito criticized the majority’s reliance on lower-court cases and lack of independent analysis, insisting that the Fourth Amendment and malicious prosecution have almost nothing in common and that the court’s precedents do not support such a claim. He feared the decision will sow more confusion, as lower courts try to make sense of the precise elements and the disconnect between the tort and the Fourth Amendment.
Rather than a new hybrid claim, Alito argued the court should have held that a malicious-prosecution claim cannot be brought under the Fourth Amendment. Thompson could pursue available constitutional claims for false arrest, excessive force, and unlawful entry — as he did in losing on those claims at trial.
Posted in Featured, Merits Cases
Cases: Thompson v. Clark
Recommended Citation: Howard M. Wasserman, Criminal proceedings reach “favorable termination” when they end without conviction, SCOTUSblog (Apr. 4, 2022, 5:27 PM), https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/04/criminal-proceedings-reach-favorable-termination-when-they-end-without-conviction/
.
IMHO, Not all of the constitution originally applicable only to the feds scales down well to the local level. It’s created a lot of confusion but overall a good thing.
“Resisting arrest” should NEVER be a stand alone charge. NEVER.
Because the first thing that must be asked is, “Resisting arrest for WHAT?”
Just because some jacktard who abuses steroids wants to arrest someone isn’t justification for an arrest. And absent a reason for the arrest then that’s why we have the Second Amendment along with the Fourth, Fifth, Fourteenth, and etc.
This is a good ruling by the Court as it helps to prevent further such arbitrary abuses of authority.
I can see a lot of potential for abuse of this. Think of all the BLF people arrested and then had the charges dropped. They now fall under this ruling. And that is only one example.
“Stop resisting!” WHAM
“I’m not resisting!”
Until these false charges and arrests start coming out if their paychecks, it will continue.
Paywall....
Damnit
KAVANAUGH, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which R OBERTS, C. J., and B REYER, SOTOMAYOR, KAGAN, and BARRETT, JJ., joined. ALITO, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which THOMAS and GORSUCH, JJ., joined Kind of interesting that Alito and Thomas dissented. Should make some interesting reading, but I suspect I will be disagreeing with the dissenters on this.
Because the first thing that must be asked is, “Resisting arrest for WHAT?”
Absolutely. It is a bogus made-up charge.
I was arrested for resisting arrest and 2 other bogus charges, all 3 were dropped. I’m looking to sue the city of San Jose as a result.
Let me guess, you were doing video of cops from a public location in accordance with CA PC 148(G)?
Nope. I was trying to report 3 violent crimes against me, which I have on my cellphone. Cop was a d!ck, and when I criticized him about just doing his job, he arrested me for resisting arrest. Know any good lawyers? This seems to be an area of law that very few practice in.
By chance did you get Officer Douchebag’s actions towards you on video or do you think there was a bodycam?
If so then here’s your winning team:
https://www.dhillonlaw.com/first-amendment-attorney/
No I did not get the officer’s actions. But there was probably a bodycam.
Then that’s the law firm to go to. Give it a go. They love to humiliate cops who go off the rails.
I have contacted them. We’ll see how it goes.
At this point it’s more about making money off the humiliating incident, but it has changed the way I view interacting with police.
Good luck, Sue to get every cop involved fired. They really don’t care how they screw up other folks. This is simply the “Golden Rule” in action. They treat others as they want to be treated, so give them what they want.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.