In Chiaverini v. City of Napoleon, Ohio, published June 20, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court, 6-3, reversed summary judgment for the defendant police officers. The plaintiff, a jewelry dealer, bought a ring from a jewel thief. The rightful owner found out and asked the plaintiff to return the ring. The plaintiff refused to return the ring, and told police he was operating his store without a license. The officers filed three criminal complaints, each charging the plaintiff with a separate offense: two for misdemeanors of receiving stolen property and dealing in precious metals without a license; and one for felony money laundering. They submitted probable cause declarations in support of all three, focusing on the felony charge. The judge issued a warrant and the officers arrested the plaintiff. He remained in custody for three days, until arraignment. A judge found probable cause at a preliminary hearing, and set the charges for trial. The prosecutors failed to present the case to a grand jury in the required time, and the court dismissed the charges. The plaintiff sued the officers under 42 U.S.C. section 1983, alleging a 4th Amendment claim for malicious prosecution. He asserted that the felony charge lacked probable cause, because he had no reason to believe the ring was stolen (and contended that the officers' claim that he had admitted knowing it was stolen was a lie) and because the prosecution. The district court granted the defendants summary judgment, and the circuit court affirmed, on the ground that there was probable cause to support the two misdemeanor charges. Other circuits disagreed that a single charge with probable cause would defeat a malicious prosecution action if other charges were brought without probable cause.
The Supreme Court examined the analogous common-law tort of malicious prosecution. The gravamen is the wrongful initiation of charges without probable cause; for a 4th Amendment claim, the charges must cause a seizure. The court ruled that probable cause for a single charge is not a flat bar to recovery. Consistent with both the 4h Amendment and traditional common-law practice, courts should evaluate suits like this one charge by charge. If an invalid charge, such as one fabricated by police officers, causes a detention either to start or to continue, the 4th Amendment is violated, even when a valid charge has also been brought. If, for instance, the prosecutor drops the valid charge, leaving the person in jail on the invalid charge alone, the inclusion of the baseless charge has caused a constitutional violation. There must, however, be causation: the invalid charge must cause a seizure. The Supreme Court declined to decide the applicable causation test, since the issue was not before it.
Two justices dissented, opining that a malicious prosecution claim cannot be based on the 4th Amendment. Another justice dissented on the ground that any malicious prosecution claim should be based on the 14th Amendment.
Comments