Malicious Prosecution

Dismissal following suppression of evidence because search did not fall within exception to warrant requirement was not a favorable termination based on innocence.

Element of malice may be inferred if defendant caused prosecution without arguable probable cause.

This Court uses ‘malicious prosecution’ as only ‘a shorthand way of describing’ certain claims of unlawful seizure under the Fourth Amendment”; “claims of malicious prosecution are not subject to the any-crime rule, which insulates officers from false-arrest claims so long as probable cause existed for some crime, even if it was not the crime the officer thought or said had occurred”; thus even though officers had probable cause to arrest plaintiff for carrying a concealed firearm without a permit, he had a valid claim for malicious prosecution which resulted in pretrial detention

Grand jury indictments based on false information do not conclusively establish probable cause.

Breathalyzer results established plaintiff was not intoxicated by alcohol and there was no evidence she was impaired by any other drug or substance.

Malice may be inferred from lack of probable cause; post arrest forensic examination arguably vitiated probable cause; and cases cited therein.

Bare nolle prosequi order is insufficient to establish proceedings terminated in plaintiff’s favor.