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.
This brief argues that retaliatory arrests that do not involve on-the-spot law-enforcement decisions—or that otherwise present objective suggestions of improper motive—occur with sufficient frequency to make the need for an effective remedy compelling. At the same time, the course of retaliatory-arrest litigation also indicates that the availability of such a remedy would not threaten the ability of law enforcement officers to operate effectively.
Thompson v. Clark asks whether an individual seized during criminal proceedings in violation of the Fourth Amendment must prove that the criminal proceedings ended in a manner indicative of their innocence before bringing a section 1983 action to redress the violation of their constitutional rights. This brief argues that criminal proceedings terminating in a manner indicating innocence is not a requirement for individuals seeking a 1983 claim.