Thompson v. Clark

Browse related cases: U.S. Supreme Court (78) · False Arrest (70) · False Reports and Affidavits (21) · Plaintiff Victories (25) · Landmark Decisions (90)

What Happened

Larry Thompson lived in Brooklyn with his fiancée and their newborn daughter. His sister-in-law, who had a mental illness, called 911 and reported that Thompson was sexually abusing the one-week-old baby. Emergency medical technicians arrived, and Thompson told them no one had called and asked them to leave. They returned with four police officers. Thompson told the officers they could not enter without a warrant. The officers entered anyway, and a scuffle followed. Thompson was handcuffed and arrested. Medical professionals examined the baby, found that the marks were diaper rash, and found no signs of abuse.

Thompson was charged with obstructing governmental administration and resisting arrest and held for two days. The prosecutor later dismissed the charges without explaining why.

Thompson sued under § 1983, alleging among other things a Fourth Amendment claim for malicious prosecution. Under Second Circuit precedent at the time, that claim required a “favorable termination” that affirmatively indicated the plaintiff’s innocence. Because the dismissal came without explanation, the district court ruled that Thompson could not satisfy that element. The Second Circuit affirmed.

What the Court Decided

The Supreme Court reversed. Justice Kavanaugh wrote for the Court.

The Court held that the favorable-termination element of a Fourth Amendment malicious-prosecution claim requires only that the prosecution ended without a conviction. The plaintiff does not need an acquittal, a dismissal that states a reason, or any other affirmative indication of innocence.

The Court reached that result by looking at American tort law as of 1871, when § 1983 was enacted. Most courts at that time held that a malicious-prosecution plaintiff satisfied the favorable-termination element by showing the prosecution ended without a conviction. The Court also noted that requiring an affirmative indication of innocence would be unworkable because prosecutors often dismiss charges without giving any reason, and defendants have no way to force them to explain.

The Court expressly left open whether Thompson was seized as a result of the prosecution, whether he was charged without probable cause, and whether qualified immunity applied. It also said it “need not decide whether a plaintiff bringing a Fourth Amendment claim under §1983 for malicious prosecution must establish malice (or some other mens rea) in addition to the absence of probable cause.”

What It Means in Practice

Before Thompson, many plaintiffs in the Second Circuit and elsewhere lost malicious-prosecution claims because the prosecutor dismissed the charges “in the interest of justice” or without stating a reason. Thompson removes that barrier. If your case ended without a conviction, the element is met.

The claim still has other elements. In the Fourth Amendment version, you must show a seizure pursuant to legal process and the absence of probable cause, and some circuits also require malice or a similar improper purpose. Those remain contested. What Thompson settles is that a bare dismissal is enough to open the door.

How You Can Use It

• A dismissal for any reason qualifies. Nolle prosequi, dismissal for want of prosecution, dismissal “in the interest of justice,” and an unexplained dismissal all satisfy the favorable-termination element.
• Plead it alongside false arrest. False arrest covers the detention before legal process. Malicious prosecution covers the detention and prosecution after. They have different accrual dates. See Wallace v. Kato.
• Key quote: “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.” 596 U.S. 36 (2022) (slip op., at 1).
• Pair with McDonough. If fabricated evidence drove the prosecution, plead a due-process fabricated-evidence claim too. See McDonough v. Smith.

How It Can Be Used Against You

• Plea bargain. A plea, including a plea to a lesser charge, is a conviction. The element is not met.
• Deferred adjudication or diversion. Whether these count as terminations “without a conviction” is contested and varies by circuit and by state law. Research your circuit before relying on the claim.
• Probable cause. Favorable termination is one element. The defense will still argue there was probable cause for the charge, and a grand jury indictment is often treated as establishing it unless you can show the indictment was procured by fraud or perjury.
• Qualified immunity. Officers may argue the contours of the Fourth Amendment malicious-prosecution claim were not clearly established at the time of your arrest, especially for events before 2022.

How to counter: State the exact disposition of every charge and its date. Plead the absence of probable cause with the same element-by-element care you would use for false arrest. And plead facts showing the officer’s role in initiating or continuing the prosecution, such as the report, the affidavit, or the testimony, not just the arrest.