Court finds material facts were omitted from arrest warrant affidavit and when omissions were corrected, the affidavit failed to establish arguable probable cause; reasonable jury could find that detective intentionally or recklessly left out information that exonerated plaintiff and if jury so found, detective would not be entitled to qualified immunity; when District Attorney dropped charges, criminal case was terminated favorably to plaintiff.
Actual malice is not required to succeed on 4th Amendment malicious prosecution claim, but defendant must have made deliberate or reckless falsehoods; mere negligence will not create liability; fact that police officer did not make decision to prosecute does not absolve officer from liability, where officer included falsehoods in investigatory materials, knowing that prosecutorial reliance was likely and those materials actually influenced prosecutors decision to bring charges.
The issue in question in Chiaverini is whether a person who has been maliciously prosecuted for a crime can sue if a police officer had probable cause to arrest them for a different crime (i.e. the any crime rule). Our brief uplifts examples of the incredibly unjust outcomes that would result from continued application of the any crime rule (eg.
Although application for
warrant contained misstatements, remaining information established probable cause,
thus no Fourth Amendment violation.
Gervin v. Florence et. al. addresses the case of DeShawn Gervin, whose probation was improperly revoked for violating a probation condition that the judge did not impose. Mr. Gervin spent 104 days in jail because of this error, and this brief supports the argument that Mr. Gervin should be able to sue the probation officer for malicious prosecution. Our brief argues that the 4th Amendment protects people against having to spend time in jail for wrongful probation revocations.
In suit for false arrest, deprivation of due process, and malicious prosecution, by exonerees, it was not error to admit in evidence Governor’s pardons based on innocence and to prohibit defendants from impeaching the pardons, where court made clear pardons were not red judicata and did not prohibit defendants from challenging fact of innocence; error to allow former district attorney, based on his knowledge of routine interrogation practices, that he did not find the defendants’ descriptions of interrogations of plaintiffs as calm and uncoercive, testimony constituted objection
Plaintiff overcame presumption resulting from grand jury indictment and authorized warrants that officer acted with probable cause where complaint alleged seven discrete instances of officer intentionally, knowingly, and/or recklessly providing false information that led to prosecution.
Caraway v. City of Pineville et. al. addresses the case of Timothy Caraway, who brought a Section 1983 action against the City of Pineville, the Pineville Police Department, and multiple individual officers alleging numerous violations of his constitutional rights. The District Court granted summary judgement in favor of the Defendants-Appellees, framing self-serving statements made by the police officers involved in the shooting as the true narrative while simultaneously disregarding evidence--including video footage--that contradicted the officers' version of events.
Recognizing that favorable termination element for malicious prosecution is no longer good law following Thompson v. Clark, 142 S.Ct. 1332 (2022); affirming dismissal of malicious prosecution claim for insufficiently specific allegations.
Holding that Thompson v Clark, 142 S.Ct. 1332 (2022) overruled Castellano v. Fragozo, 352 F.3d 939 (5th Cir. 2003) with respect to the viability of a malicious prosecution claim under § 1983, and thus reinstated the elements found necessary by the Fifth Circuit in Gordy v. Burns, 294 F.3d 722 (5th Cir.