Week of July 20, 2020

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

Stomping on plaintiff’s ankle with sufficient force to break it constituted excessive force where purpose was to restrain subject’s use of his hands while he was pinned to ground by several officers; however, officer entitled to qualified immunity due to lack of circuit precedent sufficient to place reasonableness of officer’s action beyond debate.