In Chiaverini v. City of Napoleon, the Supreme Court will decide whether a plaintiff charged with a crime not supported by probable cause can prevail on a Fourth Amendment malicious prosecution claim when he is also charged with other crimes that were supported by probable cause.
After obtaining an arrest warrant, police arrested Chiaverini for three crimes—two misdemeanors and a felony for allegedly purchasing stolen property. Chiaverini spent four days in jail, but the charges were dropped. Chiaverini, asserting that the police falsified evidence to support the felony charge, sued in federal court for malicious prosecution under the Fourth Amendment. The district court dismissed his claim and the Sixth Circuit affirmed. The Sixth Circuit reasoned that Chiaverini could not prevail on his claim because even if there was no probable cause for the felony, there was probable cause for the two misdemeanors.
At oral argument, Chiaverini mostly fielded questions about what causation standard should apply to malicious prosecution claims. Chief Justice Roberts questioned how Chiaverini would prove the felony charge caused his arrest when probable cause supported the other two charged crimes.
Justice Sotomayor asked whether Chiaverini must show the lack of probable cause resulted in an unreasonable seizure. Chiaverini stated that he needs to prove only that a lack of probable cause resulted in a seizure, not necessarily an unreasonable one.
Justice Alito wondered if the standard should be whether probable cause supports the most serious charged offense (and therefore, the one most likely to result in a seizure). Chiaverini responded that, although he would prevail under that standard, it would be too narrow.
The United States, who submitted an amicus brief and participated in oral arguments, agreed with Chiaverini that the Sixth Circuit applied the wrong standard, but disagreed with him about causation. According to the United States, a plaintiff needs to prove that a charge unsupported by probable cause resulted in an unreasonable seizure. Justice Alito raised the pragmatic question of how a plaintiff would prove a baseless charge accompanied by valid ones caused an unreasonable seizure.
The City, arguing the arrest was valid because probable cause supported the two misdemeanors, also fielded questions primarily about causation. Justice Sotomayor presented a hypothetical where Chiaverini proves he would not have been arrested but for the felony charge and asked whether he would prevail in that scenario. The City responded that Chiaverini would still lose because his arrest would have been objectively justified based on the probable cause for the misdemeanors.
Justice Jackson voiced concerns about applying principles from false arrest claims (where the focus is how an objective officer would have behaved) to malicious prosecution claims where, she stated, intent should be a more important factor.
The case was argued on April 15, 2024. A decision is expected by the end of the term. Stay tuned for Dykema’s client alert discussing the Court’s forthcoming opinion.
For more information, please contact Chantel Febus, James Azadian, Christopher Sakauye, Monika Harris, A. Joseph Duffy, IV, or Puja Valera.