Thompson v. Clark

Background

Larry Thompson, a Brooklyn resident, was arrested after a family member called 911 reporting abuse of his newborn. EMTs and four police officers entered his home, handcuffed him, and took the baby to a hospital. Medical staff found no abuse. Thompson was charged with obstructing governmental administration and resisting arrest, held two days, then released; prosecutors later dismissed the charges before trial without explaining why. Thompson sued the officers under 42 U.S.C. §1983, saying they maliciously prosecuted him in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Lower courts, following Second Circuit precedent, required a dismissal that affirmatively indicated innocence and dismissed his claim.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court examined whether the favorable-termination element for a Fourth Amendment malicious-prosecution claim means only that the case ended without a conviction, or if it also requires a clear sign of innocence. The Court looked to 1871-era American tort law and concluded most courts then treated any termination without conviction as favorable. The majority held that a plaintiff need only show the prosecution ended without conviction. The Court said this approach fits the Fourth Amendment’s purposes and noted officers retain defenses such as probable cause and qualified immunity. The Court reversed the Second Circuit and sent the case back for further proceedings.

Real world impact

The ruling lets people whose criminal charges are dropped without conviction pursue Fourth Amendment malicious-prosecution claims even when prosecutors or judges gave no reason for dismissal. That change potentially increases civil suits after dropped prosecutions, but the Court emphasized remaining protections for officers. Because this is not a final merits ruling, the individual outcome for Thompson will depend on further proceedings about seizure, probable cause, and immunity.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Alito, joined by Justices Thomas and Gorsuch, dissented, arguing the Court wrongly grafted malicious-prosecution elements onto the Fourth Amendment and warned this new mix will create legal confusion.