Supreme Court Rules for Plaintiffs on Civil-Rights Suits

[GMDino]

Interesting, but that qualified immunity is still a hurdle.

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/supreme-court-rules-for-plaintiffs-on-civil-rights-suits

Quote:April 4, 2022, 10:19 AM; Updated: April 4, 2022, 1:13 PM
Listen

• Plaintiffs only need to show prosecution ended without conviction to sue
• Prevailing standard previously required innocence showing
  

The U.S. Supreme Court made it easier for plaintiffs to bring certain civil-rights claims after their criminal cases end, rejecting the predominant standard throughout the country that was more burdensome.


To bring so-called malicious-prosecution suits in federal court, plaintiffs only need to show their criminal cases ended without convictions, Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote for the 6-3 majority on Monday.

The prevailing standard in the lower courts had required plaintiffs to show affirmative indications of innocence, a rule that Kavanaugh called “upside-down” at the October oral argument.

Requiring innocence proof “would seem to have the perverse consequence of ensuring that some of the most deserving plaintiffs, those who were falsely accused and whose cases were dismissed early on, could not sue unless they could show, dig into the prosecutor’s mindset, whereas those who went to trial could sue,” Kavanaugh said at the argument.

He was joined in the opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Amy Coney Barrett. Justice Samuel Alito dissented, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch.

‘Welcome’ Step
Amir Ali, the lawyer who argued for the plaintiff’s side at the high court, emphasized the stakes of Monday’s ruling.

“Until today, police officers who framed an innocent person—for instance falsifying or planting evidence—could get a free pass,” said Ali, executive director of the MacArthur Justice Center. “After the bogus charges were dismissed, the innocent person whose life had been upended had no recourse in court. That unjust rule applied across most of the country.”

“Not anymore,” Ali said. “Today’s Supreme Court opinion unqualifiedly held that the innocent person can bring a federal civil rights action against the officer.”

He called the ruling “a welcome and much needed step toward greater accountability when officers engage in misconduct and abuse the public trust.”

The New York City Law Department, which represented the government, didn’t immediately return a request for comment on the ruling, which stemmed from the dismissed criminal case of Larry Thompson.

Claim Blocked
New York state prosecutors dropped Thompson’s obstructing governmental administration and resisting arrest charges “in the interest of justice,” without elaboration.

Among the civil claims Thompson then pursued against the officers in federal court was malicious prosecution. He lost other claims at trial but the malicious-prosecution claim was blocked because he couldn’t show affirmative indications of innocence.
Under the Supreme Court’s 1994 decision in Heck v. Humphrey, plaintiffs can’t bring such claims unless criminal proceedings terminate in their favor. Thompson’s case called on the justices to decide what that means in these situations.

Most federal appeals courts that considered the issue, including the New York-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which ruled against Thompson, had used the affirmative indication of innocence standard.

The Supreme Court rejected that approach Monday, reversing the Second Circuit and sending his case back for further review.
Thompson and his supporters urged the justices to adopt the Atlanta-based Eleventh Circuit’s requirement: that the criminal case ended in a manner not inconsistent with innocence. Under that standard, claims would still be barred if a defendant gets convicted and loses on appeal, but claims following more ambiguous situations like Thompson’s could proceed.

And though the plaintiff’s side prevailed at the high court, Kavanaugh stressed that officers in Thompson’s case and others “are still protected by the requirement that the plaintiff show the absence of probable cause and by qualified immunity.”
The case is Thompson v. Clark, U.S., No. 20-659.
(Adds opinion detail and Ali comments.)

Details of the case:

https://www.macarthurjustice.org/case/thompson-v-clark-u-s-supreme-court/

Quote:Thompson v. Clark (U.S. Supreme Court)
Attorney(s): 

• Amir Ali
  

 

---

Can a police officer who frames an innocent person be held accountable in court?  Believe it or not, the answer in most of the country is no: Once the innocent person gets the false charges against them dismissed, a police officer who fabricated or falsified evidence against them is immune from a civil lawsuit, no matter how devastating the false charges were to the innocent person’s life. In Thompson v. Clark, we are asking the Supreme Court to fix that. We have urged the Justices to hold that the victim of false or fabricated evidence on the part of law enforcement can hold the government accountable for it.


In January 2014, Larry Thompson, a Black veteran of the Navy and U.S. postal worker, was at home with his fiancé and one-week-old daughter. As they were getting ready for bed, emergency medical technicians (EMTs) arrived at Mr. Thompson’s apartment building investigating a false report of child abuse. The EMTs went to Mr. Thompson’s apartment unit and were able to see his daughter safe in her mother’s arms. Upon asking the EMTs what they were investigating, Mr. Thompson told them, “I’m sorry, you got the wrong apartment” and then tried to help the EMTs brainstorm other apartments with children. The EMTs told Mr. Thompson they must have had the wrong unit and left his apartment.

Shortly thereafter, four NYPD officers arrived at Mr. Thompson’s building. After speaking with the EMTs, the officers went to Mr. Thompson’s unit and insisted on entering his home. Mr. Thompson asked to speak with the officers’ supervisor and, after they refused, asked to see a warrant. The officers then forcibly entered the apartment, violently tackling Mr. Thompson to the ground and handcuffing him. Although Mr. Thompson never resisted the officers, they pinned him face down on the floor, pressing into his head and back. The officers and EMTs then entered Mr. Thompson’s apartment and confirmed there had been no abuse.

In order to justify their force and the injuries they had caused to Mr. Thompson, an officer falsely reported that Mr. Thompson was the aggressor and violently resisted the officers. As a result of the false statements, Mr. Thompson was taken to jail and wrongfully charged with resisting arrest and obstructing governmental administration. After months of having to defend himself against those false charges, the District Attorney dismissed the charges against Mr. Thompson “in the interest of justice.”

Mr. Thompson then brought a civil-rights claim alleging that the police officer who fabricated the charges violated his rights under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. A federal court in New York ruled that Mr. Thompson could not sue the officer. According to the court, suing the officer required a “favorable termination” of Mr. Thompson’s criminal proceeding and dismissal of the charges against Mr. Thompson was not a favorable termination. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed.

We filed a petition for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of Mr. Thompson, explaining that most federal circuits have adopted this unjust rule and urged the Supreme Court to correct it. On March 8, 2021, the Supreme Court agreed to hear Mr. Thompson’s case and, on October 12, 2021, MacArthur Justice Center attorney Amir Ali argued Mr. Thompson’s case before the Justices. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

I thought Kavanaugh and Barrett were right wing zealots who would vote based on their perceived ideology and not the law? As to the decision, I quite agree with their ruling. Always interesting to see the uneducated attack qualified immunity ad naseum, but such is life.