This ruling is an encouraging glimmer in the gloom

View this email in your browser ([link removed])
[link removed]



** For Immediate Release: April 21, 2022
------------------------------------------------------------


** U.S. Supreme Court Affirms Fourth Amendment Right to Hold Police Accountable for Malicious Prosecutions, Arrests
------------------------------------------------------------

WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a 6-3 ruling in Thompson v. Clark, the U.S. Supreme Court has affirmed that individuals have a Fourth Amendment right to hold police accountable for maliciously instituting charges and arrests ([link removed]) without probable cause.

The court’s ruling ([link removed]) allows a lawsuit to proceed against police officers who, after arriving at Larry Thompson’s home late one night and being refused entry without a warrant, forced their way into the home and claimed that Thompson had resisted arrest, leading Thompson to be jailed and charged with two crimes. Although the charges were later dropped, Thompson’s attempts to challenge the officers’ malicious actions were stymied by a so-called “innocence” rule that gives prosecutors the power to insulate police from accountability for constitutional violations simply by dropping unfounded charges before they go to trial. The Rutherford Institute joined with the ACLU, NYCLU, and Cato Institute in an amicus brief ([link removed]) challenging the “innocence” rule loophole that serves to shield police from being held liable for misconduct.

“At a time when the courts routinely shield police from accountability for misconduct, this ruling is at least an encouraging glimmer in the gloom,” said constitutional attorney John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute and author of Battlefield America: The War on the American People ([link removed]) . “For too long, Americans have been treated as if they have no rights at all when it comes to encounters with police. This is an overdue reminder that freedom is not secondary to security, and the rights of the citizenry are no less important than the authority of the government.”
MAKE THE GOVERNMENT PLAY BY THE RULES OF THE CONSTITUTION: SUPPORT THE FIGHT FOR FREEDOM ([link removed])

In January 2014, four police officers and two EMTs arrived at Larry Thompson’s home in Brooklyn, New York, and demanded entry, allegedly in response to a 911 call accusing Thompson of abusing his one-week-old daughter. When Thompson refused to allow the police to enter his home without a warrant, police forced their way into the home, handcuffed Thompson, and charged him with obstructing governmental administration and resisting arrest. The EMTs took the newborn child to the hospital for an examination where medical professionals found no signs of abuse. Thompson remained in custody for two days. Prior to trial, the prosecutor moved to dismiss the charges without any explanation, and the case against Thompson was dismissed. Thompson, in turn, sued the police for malicious prosecution pursuant to Title 42, Section 1983 of the United States Code, which allows a person to seek redress when the government deprives him of his constitutional rights. Thompson claimed that the police officers
subjected him to unlawful detention without probable cause in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. However, because the prosecutor had dismissed the charges without explanation, both the trial court and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Thompson’s criminal case did not affirmatively indicate his innocence, therefore his malicious prosecution claim against the police officers could not proceed.

On appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the lower court in a 6-3 ruling ([link removed]) , finding that Thompson only needed to show that the criminal charges ended without a conviction, thus allowing his claim against the police officers for malicious prosecution to proceed. The Court stated that an “individual’s ability to seek redress for a wrongful prosecution cannot reasonably turn on the fortuity of whether the prosecutor or court happened to explain why the charges were dismissed.”

Marisa C. Maleck, Joshua N. Mitchell, and Edward A. Benoit of King & Spaulding LLP helped to advance the arguments ([link removed]) in Thompson v. Clark. The brief ([link removed]) and opinion ([link removed]) are available at www.rutherford.org ([link removed]) .

The Rutherford Institute ([link removed]) , a nonprofit civil liberties organization, provides legal assistance at no charge to individuals whose constitutional rights have been threatened or violated, and educates the public on a wide spectrum of issues affecting their freedoms.

Source: [link removed]
[link removed] Share ([link removed])
[link removed]: https%3A%2F%2Fmailchi.mp%2Frutherford%2Fscotus-affirms-right-to-hold-police-accountable-for-malicious-arrests Tweet ([link removed]: https%3A%2F%2Fmailchi.mp%2Frutherford%2Fscotus-affirms-right-to-hold-police-accountable-for-malicious-arrests)
[link removed] Forward ([link removed])
CLICK HERE TO MAKE A TAX-DEDUCTIBLE DONATION ([link removed])

To donate via PayPal, please click below:
[link removed]

============================================================
** Follow us on Facebook ([link removed])
** Follow us on Facebook ([link removed])
** Follow us on Twitter ([link removed])
** Follow us on Twitter ([link removed])
** YouTube ([link removed])
** YouTube ([link removed])
CONTACT INFORMATION
Nisha Whitehead
(434) 978-3888 ext. 604
** [email protected] (mailto:[email protected])

THE RUTHERFORD INSTITUTE
Post Office Box 7482
Charlottesville, VA 22906-7482
Phone: (434) 978-3888
** www.rutherford.org ([link removed])

Copyright © 2022 The Rutherford Institute, All rights reserved.

You are receiving this email because of your interest in the work of The Rutherford Institute. Founded in 1982 by constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead, The Rutherford Institute is a civil liberties organization that provides free legal services to people whose constitutional and human rights have been threatened or violated. To discontinue your membership electronically, or if you feel you are receiving this message in error, please follow the link below.

Under the regulations of the United States Internal Revenue Service, The Rutherford Institute is incorporated as a 501(c)(3) tax exempt nonprofit organization. Donations to support The Rutherford Institute’s legal and educational work help to safeguard the constitutional rights of all Americans. Donations are tax-deductible. In compliance with general industry standards of a nonprofit organization, the Institute is audited annually by an independent accounting firm.

** unsubscribe from this list ([link removed])

** update subscription preferences ([link removed])