New $upreme Court Ruling

Makes it Ea$ier to $ue Police When Criminal Charge$ are Dropped!

In order to $ue, a defendant doesn’t have to be found not guilty by a judge or jury and prosecutors don’t have to state that they wrongly filed charges, the court said.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday made it easier to sue police and the government for malicious prosecution when charges are later dropped.

In a 6-3 ruling, the court said that in order to sue, a defendant doesn’t have to be found not guilty by a judge or jury and prosecutors don’t have to state that they wrongly filed charges. It’s enough, the court said, if the charges are simply dismissed.

“The question of whether a criminal defendant was wrongly charged does not logically depend on whether the prosecutor or court explained why the prosecution was dismissed,” Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote for the court’s majority.

The ruling was a victory for a Brooklyn man, Larry TEdit Edit status hompson, who was arrested after a relative who was staying in his apartment called 911 and claimed Thompson was sexually abusing his newborn daughter.

When the police arrived, he said they couldn’t come in without a warrant. They barged in anyway and handcuffed him after a brief scuffle. The baby was taken to a hospital for evaluation, but the only marks on the child turned out to be diaper rash.

The relative who called 911 “apparently suffered from a mental illness,” court records said.

Even so, Thompson was charged with resisting arrest and kept in jail for two days. The prosecutor then dropped the charges, and the judge dismissed the case — both without explanation.

Thompson sued, claiming malicious prosecution and violation of his constitutional rights. He prevailed before a federal trial judge, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit ruled that such a claim can succeed only when a case ends with some affirmative indication of innocence.

The Supreme Court on Monday said that ruling was mistaken. Dissenting, Justice Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch said the court was wrong to validate Thompson’s claim under the Fourth Amendment. They said the elements of a malicious prosecution are wholly different than the constitutional guarantee against illegal search and seizure and called Thomas’ lawsuit “a hybrid claim of uncertain scope.”

Marie Miller, an attorney for the Institute for Justice, a nonprofit public interest law firm, filed a friend-of-the-court brief on Thompson’s behalf. She said the court’s decision “rightly rejected an additional shield for government officials who have violated constitutional rights.”

Such a shield “flipped the principle of innocent-until-proven-guilty on its head,” Miller said. “It also incentivized prosecutors to charge people with crimes they did not commit to shield officers from liability.”

 

we also have the article on KNOW YOUR RIGHTS – HOW TO SUE THE GOVERMENT, COPS, AND GOVERMENT OFFICIALS
this has more than just Thompson vs Clark,  this has all the winners! Lets get our rights
misconduct-know-more-of-your-rights/we also have the article on PROSECUIONAL MISCONDUCT 
malicious-prosecution-prosecutorial-misconduct/if you want to read the and download the PDF directly from the US SUPREME COURT
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-659_3ea4.pdfcited https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-makes-easier-sue-police-criminal-charges-are-dropped-rcna22844

In its landmark decision, Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), the U.S. Supreme Court held that federal officials can be sued personally for money damages for on-the-job conduct that violates the Constitution. Cases in which federal employees face personal liability cut across everything the government does in all three branches of government. Whether they are engaging in every-day law enforcement, protecting our borders, addressing national security, or implementing other critical government policies and functions, federal employees of every rank face the specter of personal liability.

This ruling has a complexity to it, that does not favor a malicious prosecutor or police force. 
it holds them accountable! New Supreme Court Ruling makes it easier to sue police when criminal 
charges are dropped or dismissed. This hold the prosecutor accountable because an attorney has 
a fiduciary duty to his client, meaning that a relation “exist[s] between parties to a transaction 
wherein one of the parties is duty bound to act with the utmost good faith in the benefit of the 
other party. Such a relation ordinarily arises when a confidence is reposed by one person in the 
integrity of another, and in such a relation the party in whom the confidence is reposed, if 
he [or she] voluntarily accepts or assumes to accept the confidence, can take no advantage from 
his [or her] acts relating to the interest of the other party without the latter’s knowledge or consent. . . . ”

An attorney may not seek, accept or continue employment where it is not substantiated by probable cause,
 thus an attorney may not prosecute any case that is not well
- 1 Cal. Rules Prof. Conduct, Rule 1-400. 2 Id. 3 McKinnery State Bar, 62 Cal.2d 194, 196 (1964);
Culter v. State Bar of California, 71 Cal.2d 241, 249 (1969); 
see also Coulello v. State of California, 45 Cal.2d 57 (1955); 
Hallinan v. State Bar of California, 33 Cal.2d 246 (1948). 
Clearly, this duty applies not only with reference to the client but also with regard to the court, 
opposing counsel. 4 Cal. Rules Prof. Conduct, Rule 3 -200; Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code

• 6068(c). The ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 3.1 & 4.4, also impose a duty to the legal

system which requires both that the attorney bring only meritorious claims and that they not use inappropriate 
means in the representation of their client that embarrass, bur den, delay or violate legal rights. 
Barbara A. v. John G., 145 Cal.App.3d 369 (1983) (citing Herbert v. Lankershim, 9 Cal.2d 409, 483 (1937); 
Bacon v. Soule, 19 Cal.App. 428, 434 (1912)

In its landmark decision, Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics,

403 U.S. 388 (1971), the U.S. Supreme Court held that federal officials can be sued personally for money damages for on-the-job 
conduct that violates the Constitution. Cases in which federal employees face personal liability cut across everything the government
does in all three branches of government. Whether they are engaging in every-day law enforcement, protecting our borders,
addressing national security, or implementing other critical government policies and functions, federal employees of every rank face the
specter of personal liability.

we also have the article on our site here thompson-v-clark-364-f-supp-3d-178/

•  Police Discretion
• The police violated my rights
• DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW
• How to File a complaint of Police Misconduct?
• Suing for Misconduct – Know More of Your Rights
• New Supreme Court Ruling makes it easier to sue police
• Prosecutorial Misconduct, What is it?
• Frivolous, Meritless or Malicious Prosecution
• Malicious Prosecution / Prosecutorial Misconduct
• Prosecutorial Misconduct
•  Vindictive Prosecution – Georgetown University
•  VINDICTIVE AND SELECTIVE PROSECUTION
•  Misconduct by Judges & Prosecutor
• CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT LAW
• Equality Act 2010 – Discrimination and mental health
• Motion to reconsider – Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1008 Section 1008
• Fighting A Judgment Without Filing An Appeal Settlement Or Mediation – Options to Appealing
• Right to Truth – Victims’ Bill of Rights – Prop 8 1982
• 118.1 PC – Police Officers Filing False Reports