Posted on Apr 4, 2022
Supreme Court Rules Against Police in Malicious Prosecution Case
1.67K
11
5
7
7
0
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.”
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.”
Supreme Court Rules Against Police in Malicious Prosecution Case
Posted from nytimes.com
Supreme Court
Police
Law Enforcement
Lawsuit
Rights
Posted 2 y ago
Responses: 2
2
2
0
Now we just have to get rid of the George Soros District attorneys and those federal attorneys appointed Vice President Biden who won't prosecute anybody. I think one was recently appointed in Virginia and she had a list of twenty four different Prime she wouldn't prosecute so how foxtrot is that?
(2)
(0)
PO1 William "Chip" Nagel
Tucker Carlson film on George Soros is his latest antisemitic dog-whistle
Fox News host claims in documentary that Soros has ‘spent decades’ waging a ‘political, social and demographic war on the west’
(0)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
Prosecutors' Association Overwhelmingly Backs Recall of LA County District Attorney Gascón
Members of the association representing Los Angeles County prosecutors voted overwhelmingly in support of an effort to recall their boss, District Attorney George Gascón, the organization announced Tuesday.
(0)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
PO1 William "Chip" Nagel
Chip, when California recalls to a b District Attorneys from San Francisco and Los Angeles, you know you have a problem!
https://ballotpedia.org/Chesa_Boudin_recall,_San_Francisco,_California_(2021-2022)
Chip, when California recalls to a b District Attorneys from San Francisco and Los Angeles, you know you have a problem!
https://ballotpedia.org/Chesa_Boudin_recall,_San_Francisco,_California_(2021-2022)
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
PO1 William "Chip" Nagel
..."The ruling was narrow and incremental, and Justice Kavanaugh noted that it left police officers with other ways to defeat “unwarranted civil suits,” notably including qualified immunity, the doctrine that requires plaintiffs to show not only that the officer had violated a constitutional right but also that the right had been “clearly established” in a previous ruling.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Amy Coney Barrett joined the majority opinion.
In dissent, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote that the majority had failed to demonstrate the federal law allowed malicious prosecution claims at all, saying that Justice Kavanaugh had stitched together “elements taken from two very different claims: a Fourth Amendment unreasonable seizure claim and a common-law malicious-prosecution claim.”
“In fact,” he wrote, “the Fourth Amendment and malicious prosecution have almost nothing in common.”
Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil M. Gorsuch joined Justice Alito’s dissent in the case, Thompson v. Clark, No. 20-659."
..."The ruling was narrow and incremental, and Justice Kavanaugh noted that it left police officers with other ways to defeat “unwarranted civil suits,” notably including qualified immunity, the doctrine that requires plaintiffs to show not only that the officer had violated a constitutional right but also that the right had been “clearly established” in a previous ruling.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Amy Coney Barrett joined the majority opinion.
In dissent, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote that the majority had failed to demonstrate the federal law allowed malicious prosecution claims at all, saying that Justice Kavanaugh had stitched together “elements taken from two very different claims: a Fourth Amendment unreasonable seizure claim and a common-law malicious-prosecution claim.”
“In fact,” he wrote, “the Fourth Amendment and malicious prosecution have almost nothing in common.”
Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil M. Gorsuch joined Justice Alito’s dissent in the case, Thompson v. Clark, No. 20-659."
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google