Supreme Court Expands Right to Sue Police for Malicious Prosecution


Key Takeaways:

  1. The Supreme Court’s ruling makes it easier to hold police accountable for filing charges without probable cause.
  2. The decision stems from an Ohio jeweler’s case, emphasizing the protection of constitutional rights against unreasonable detention.
  3. Justice Elena Kagan highlighted that even one baseless charge can violate the Fourth Amendment, impacting future malicious prosecution claims.

Supreme Court Expands Right to Sue Police for Malicious Prosecution

By Samuel Lopez, USA Herald

[WASHINGTON, D.C.] – The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of making it easier to sue police officers who file charges without probable cause. This landmark decision stems from the case of an Ohio jeweler, Jascha Chiaverini, who faced felony money laundering charges without sufficient evidence.

The Case of Jascha Chiaverini

Chiaverini, a jeweler, was charged with money laundering after purchasing a stolen ring. He was also accused of receiving stolen property and dealing in precious metals without a license. Despite only one of the three charges lacking probable cause, Chiaverini brought a malicious prosecution claim under the Fourth Amendment, arguing that his detention violated his constitutional rights.

The Supreme Court’s 6-3 ruling, authored by Justice Elena Kagan, found that even a single baseless charge can cause a constitutional violation if it extends pretrial detention. This decision overturns the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals’ ruling, which had previously dismissed Chiaverini’s claim.

Understanding the Fourth Amendment Implications

Justice Kagan highlighted a crucial aspect of the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable seizures. She explained that if an individual is detained on multiple charges and one is invalid, it can still constitute an unreasonable seizure. This principle was illustrated with a hypothetical scenario where a person is jailed on a fabricated charge, extending their detention unlawfully.

Justice Kagan’s opinion emphasized that the Fourth Amendment requires probable cause for each charge, not just one. This distinction is vital for ensuring that individuals are not wrongfully detained based on a mix of valid and invalid charges.

The Broader Impact

This ruling is a significant step toward holding law enforcement accountable for malicious prosecution. It underscores the importance of probable cause in the justice system and reinforces the constitutional protections against unreasonable detention. For those like Chiaverini, who suffered reputational and financial damages due to wrongful charges, this decision provides a pathway to seek justice.

In my professional opinion, this ruling highlights the delicate balance between law enforcement authority and individual rights. It serves as a reminder that even one unjustified charge can have profound implications for an individual’s liberty and reputation.

Legal Experts Weigh In

Legal experts have lauded the decision as a win for civil liberties. They argue that it strengthens the protections afforded by the Fourth Amendment and ensures that law enforcement agencies are held to a higher standard of accountability.

Justice Clarence Thomas, however, dissented, expressing concerns about conflating malicious prosecution claims with Fourth Amendment unreasonable-seizure claims. He argued for a more straightforward approach, suggesting that malicious prosecution claims should not be brought under the Fourth Amendment.

Justice Neil Gorsuch echoed Thomas’s sentiments, proposing that such claims might be more appropriately addressed under the Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees due process.


This Supreme Court ruling marks a pivotal moment in the fight against malicious prosecution. By making it easier to sue police officers for filing charges without probable cause, it reinforces the constitutional safeguards that protect individual liberties.

For more details and updates on legal news, you can read my other articles on the USA Herald. Read more about Samuel Lopez.