Supreme Court Makes It Easier for Individuals to File Lawsuits for Malicious Prosecution

In a major win for individuals who have had false charges filed against them, on April 4, 2022, the Supreme Court decided Thompson v. Clark. In a 6-3 decision with an opinion by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the Supreme Court in Thompson decided that, in a civil rights malicious prosecution lawsuit, a criminal proceeding terminated in favor of a plaintiff when the prosecution “ended without a conviction.”

Here’s why that matters:

Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, an individual who has been accused of a crime and believes that his or her constitutional rights were violated can sometimes sue the police for civil damages.  One type of civil claim is a claim for malicious prosecution under the Fourth Amendment. A civil rights plaintiff has a claim for malicious prosecution against a police officer when the officer: (1) intentionally caused a criminal proceeding to be filed against the plaintiff, (2) without probable cause, and (3) the criminal proceeding was dismissed in favor of the plaintiff.

Prior to Thompson, many courts, including federal courts here in New York, decided that the “favorable termination rule” (element 3 above) required that the criminal proceeding ended in a way that “affirmatively indicates innocence.”  As a practical matter, this was a huge hurdle for a civil rights plaintiff.  For example, a prosecutor sometimes dismisses a case because he or she has determined that there is insufficient evidence to show the accused committed the crime.  In some situations, by the time those charges are dismissed, the accused has already spent significant time in jail waiting for trial, not to mention legal fees, expenses, and time to fight the charges.

Before Thompson, while the accused may feel relieved when the criminal charges get dismissed, he or she could not then file a civil rights lawsuit, even if they have evidence that there was no probable cause to file the charges in the first place, unless they can show that the prosecution believed that the accused was not guilty.

This was an absurd rule because prosecutors rarely explain their decisions on the record.  Therefore, to be able to bring a malicious prosecution lawsuit, the accused would have to either (1) convince the prosecution to memorialize their innocence in some way, or (2) go to trial and obtain an acquittal.

After Thompson, an individual who has been falsely accused of a crime will find it easier to file a lawsuit, because now a proceeding ends in favor of an accused when charges get dismissed without a conviction.  However, “easier” does not mean “easy.”  Importantly, in order to bring a malicious prosecution lawsuit against a police officer, the individual still must show that the police officer knew that there was no probable cause to charge the accused for that crime in the first place. 

If you have had false charges brought against you and those charges were later dismissed, contact The Fu Firm PLLC to discuss whether you may have a legitimate civil rights lawsuit.

New York City Ends Qualified Immunity for Police Officers

On March 25, 2021, the New York City Council passed a law that makes it easier to sue police officers for conducting illegal searches, making false arrests, and using excessive force.  The law “establish[es] a local right of security against unreasonable search and seizure and against excessive force regardless of whether such force is used in connection with a search or seizure.” More importantly, it does not allow for qualified immunity as a defense in any civil lawsuit brought under the law.

Qualified Immunity

To win a lawsuit under Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act, a plaintiff must prove, among other things, that a constitutional right was violated by a government official.  A plaintiff also has another hurdle. For decades, police officers and other government officials who are defendants in civil suits for alleged violations of constitutional rights have been able to invoke an affirmative defense called qualified immunity.  Qualified immunity, created by the United States Supreme Court, protects government officials from suit for money damages if: (1) their actions do not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable official would have known or (2) even if the right was clearly established, whether it was objectively reasonable for the officer to believe the conduct was lawful.

Therefore, even if a civil rights plaintiff proves that the government violated a constitutional right, qualified immunity still may protects a government official defendant.  First, if the right was not clearly established, the official is entitled to qualified immunity.  Second, if it is determined that the right was clearly established, then, under the second factor, qualified immunity still protects the official if the court determines that the official’s actions were objectively reasonable in light of the law at the time of the incident.

Qualified immunity is a tough legal roadblock for a plaintiff in a lawsuit against police officers, and is a leading reason why such suits are dismissed.

The New York City Law

Because the Supreme Court has refused to revisit its qualified immunity decisions and Congress has not passed laws limiting or eliminating the defense, New York City, like some other states and municipalities around the country, has taken action by creating a local law.  

The newly created Chapter 8 of the New York City administrative code establishes a local right to be free from excessive force and unreasonable searches and seizures. This local right mirrors the rights conferred by the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and the law explicitly that it is to be interpreted in the same way.  The law also allows individuals to sue police for the deprivation of that right, while explicitly stating that “qualified immunity or any other substantially equivalent immunity” will not shield officers from responsibility.  The law also holds the employer of the officer liable for a violation of the plaintiff’s rights.  Thus, if a plaintiff successfully sues an officer and the officer cannot pay (or if the City refuses to indemnify the officer), the City (and the taxpayers) will be on the hook.

Finally, the law also requires the New York City Law Department— agency that represents the City and its employees in court—to post on its website a list of lawsuits filed under the law.  This allows for more transparency regarding police lawsuits.

What is Qualified Immunity?

To win a lawsuit under Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act, a plaintiff must prove, among other things, that a constitutional right was violated by a government official.  A plaintiff also has another hurdle. For decades, police officers and other government officials who are defendants in civil suits for alleged violations of constitutional rights have been able to invoke an affirmative defense called qualified immunity.  Qualified immunity, created by the United States Supreme Court, protects government officials from suit for money damages if: (1) their actions do not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable official would have known or (2) even if the right was clearly established, whether it was objectively reasonable for the officer to believe the conduct was lawful.

Therefore, even if a civil rights plaintiff proves that the government violated a constitutional right, qualified immunity still may protects a government official defendant.  First, if the right was not clearly established, the official is entitled to qualified immunity.  Second, if it is determined that the right was clearly established, then, under the second factor, qualified immunity still protects the official if the court determines that the official’s actions were objectively reasonable in light of the law at the time of the incident.

Qualified immunity is a tough legal roadblock for a plaintiff in a lawsuit against police officers, and is a leading reason why such suits are dismissed.