The Supreme Court released a decision Tuesday making it easier for Americans to bring “malicious prosecution.” lawsuits against Police Departments… for their errors. The 6-3 ruling stems from legal action in New York City after an innocent man was imprisoned for 48 hours after officers erroneously charged him with abusing a two-year-old girl.
“The 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,” Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote for the majority.
“And the individual’s ability to seek redress for a wrongful prosecution cannot reasonably turn on the fortuity of whether the prosecutor or court happened to explain why the charges were dismissed.”
“We conclude as follows: To demonstrate a favorable termination of a criminal prosecution for purposes of the Fourth Amendment claim under §1983 for malicious prosecution, a plaintiff need only show that his prosecution ended without a conviction. Thompson satisfied that requirement in this case.”
The Supreme Court’s minority viewpoint was penned by Justice Samuel Alito.
“What the Court has done is to recognize a novel hybrid claim of uncertain scope that has no basis in the Constitution and is almost certain to lead to confusion,” Alito wrote. Alito was joined in his dissent on constitutional grounds by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch. He explained,
“Today, the Court creates a chimera of a constitutional tort by stitching together elements taken from two very different claims: a Fourth Amendment unreasonable seizure claim and a common-law malicious-prosecution claim. The Court justifies this creation on the ground that malicious prosecution is the common-law tort that is most analogous to an unreasonable seizure claim. And because a common-law malicious-prosecution claim demanded proof of a favorable termination, the Court holds that its new creation includes that element.”
They also point out that what was at play, in this case, was more akin to an unreasonable seizure, but even then the facts do not fit that standard. The Police absolutely had a probable cause here.
“…what the Court describes is not a Fourth Amendment violation at all. As explained, that Amendment protects against “unreasonable searches and seizures”—not the unreasonable “initiation of charges.” In fact, “the specific provisions of the Bill of Rights neither impose a standard for the initiation of a
prosecution” nor “require a pretrial hearing to weigh evidence according to a given standard.” Albright, 510 U. S., at 282 (Kennedy, J., concurring in judgment); see also 4 W. LaFave, J. Israel, N. King, & O. Kerr, Criminal Procedure §14.2(a), pp. 329, 331 (4th ed. 2015) (noting that the Constitution does not require “screening” of the decision to prosecute “by some neutral body” to ensure “some minimal evidence supporting the charge,” and “the sole constitutional protection” is “what the Fourth Amendment requires to justify physical restraints”).”
The left side of the bench, joined by Justices Kavanaugh and Coney Barrett points to a Fourth Amendment violation that soundly… doesn’t exist. And further, it is well established that the arrest being “wrongful” or incorrect is not the same as it being “malicious”. Alito also pointedly notes that the man was arrested by the New York Police Department on charges that were later dropped… DID bring claims under the fourth amendment and a jury ruled against him.
“Instead of creating a new hybrid claim, we should simply hold that a malicious-prosecution claim may not be brought under the Fourth Amendment. Such a holding would not leave a person in petitioner’s situation without legal protection. Petitioner brought Fourth Amendment claims against respondents for false arrest, excessive force, and unlawful entry, but after trial a jury ruled against him on all those claims… Petitioner could have also sought relief under state law. “
What’s historically notable here isn’t just that SCOTUS has gone out of its way to make it much easier for people to sue police for erroneous arrests, by calling an error “malicious” but that they successfully made a square peg fit in a round hole.
H/T Timcast
