CHIAVERINI ET AL. v. CITY OF NAPOLEON, OHIO, ET AL.
No. 23-50
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
June 20, 2024
602 U. S. ____ (2024)
Argued April 15, 2024
Syllabus
NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Syllabus
CHIAVERINI ET AL. v. CITY OF NAPOLEON, OHIO, ET AL.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
No. 23–50. Argued April 15, 2024—Decided June 20, 2024
This case involves a dispute between petitioner Jascha Chiaverini and police officers from Napoleon, Ohio. The officers charged Chiaverini, a jewelry store owner,
Held: The presence of probable cause for one charge in a criminal proceeding does not categorically defeat a Fourth Amendment malicious-prosecution claim relating to another, baseless charge. The parties, and the United States as amicus curiae, all agree with this conclusion, which follows from both the Fourth Amendment and traditional common-law practice.
Under the Fourth Amendment, a pretrial detention counts as an unreasonable seizure, and so is illegal, unless it is based on probable cause. See Manuel v. Joliet, 580 U. S. 357, at 364–369. Even when a detention is justified at the outset, moreover, it may become unreasonably prolonged if the reason for it lapses. Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U. S. 348, 354–357. So if an invalid charge causes a detention to start or continue, then the Fourth Amendment is violated. Bringing the invalid charge alongside a valid one does not categorically preclude this possibility. As the starkest possible example, consider a person detained on a drug offense supported by probable cause and a gun offense that is not. If the prosecutor drops the gun charge, leaving the person in jail on the drug charge alone, then the baseless charge has caused a constitutional violation by unreasonably extending the detention. The person should not be categorically barred from bringing a Fourth Amendment malicious-prosecution claim just because the baseless charge was brought along with a good one.
The same conclusion follows from the common-law principles governing malicious-prosecution suits. This Court has analogized claims like Chiaverini‘s to the common-law tort of malicious prosecution, and has explained that the tort can inform courts’ understanding of this type of claim. Thompson v. Clark, 596 U. S. 36, 43–44. A plaintiff bringing a common-law malicious-prosecution suit had to show that an official initiated a charge without probable cause. But he did not have to show that every charge brought against him lacked an adequate basis. See, e.g., Barron v. Mason, 31 Vt. 189, 198 (it was no “defen[s]e that there was probable cause for part of the prosecution“).
These uncontested points suffice to doom the Sixth Circuit‘s categorical rule barring a Fourth Amendment malicious-prosecution claim if any charge is valid. Of course, a Fourth Amendment malicious-prosecution
Vacated and remanded.
KAGAN, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and SOTOMAYOR, KAVANAUGH, BARRETT, and JACKSON, JJ., joined. THOMAS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which ALITO, J., joined. GORSUCH, J., filed a dissenting opinion.
Opinion of the Court
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D. C. 20543, pio@supremecourt.gov, of any typographical or other formal errors.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
No. 23–50
JASCHA CHIAVERINI, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. CITY OF NAPOLEON, OHIO, ET AL.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
[June 20, 2024]
JUSTICE KAGAN delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case involves what is often called a Fourth Amendment malicious-prosecution claim under
I
This dispute began with a set of peculiar interactions between a jewelry store owner and police officers in Napoleon, Ohio. See generally App. to Pet. for Cert. 2a–7a. The jeweler, Jascha Chiaverini, bought a ring for $45 from a (petty) jewel thief. The ring‘s rightful owners found out about the sale, and asked Chiaverini to return their property. Chiaverini said no, so the owners contacted the police. Two officers, on a later visit to the store, directed Chiaverini to surrender the ring to its owners. But Chiaverini refused their request too, saying that it contradicted a letter he had just received from the police department telling him to retain the ring as evidence. And when repeating his refusal to another officer the next day, Chiaverini suggested (for reasons unclear) that he was operating his store without a license. The result of that (shall we say, unprofitable) exchange was
Soon afterward, the officers launched a criminal proceeding against Chiaverini in municipal court. They filed three complaints, each charging him with a separate offense. Two were misdemeanors: receiving stolen property and dealing in precious metals without a license. The third was a felony: money laundering. To support their accompanying application for an arrest warrant, the officers submitted an affidavit making the case for probable cause on all three charges, but focusing on the felony. See App. 16–17. For that charge to succeed, Chiaverini must have known when he bought the ring that the transaction involved the proceeds of unlawful activity. See
The county prosecutors, though, decided that they had higher priorities. They failed to present the case to a grand jury in the required time. The court therefore dismissed the charges.
But Chiaverini decided not to let matters lie. After all, he had been arrested and held for three days, he thought unjustifiably. So he sued the officers under
After the District Court granted summary judgment to the officers, the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed. It did so without addressing either of Chiaverini‘s arguments about the felony charge‘s basis. In the Sixth Circuit‘s view, there was clearly probable cause to support the two misdemeanor charges the officers had filed. See App. to Pet. for Cert. 11a–16a. And because that was true, the court thought, the validity of the felony charge did not matter. “So long as probable cause supports at least one charge against Chiaverini (like his receipt-of-stolen-property violation),” then his malicious-prosecution claim “based on other charges (like his money-laundering charge) also fail[s].” Id., at 10a. Or said another way, a single valid charge in a proceeding would insulate officers from a Fourth Amendment malicious-prosecution claim relating to any other charges, no matter how baseless.
We granted certiorari to resolve that circuit split, 601 U. S. ___ (2023), and we now vacate the decision below.
II
The claim Chiaverini brought—a Fourth Amendment malicious-prosecution claim—emerged from that method. The constitutional violation alleged in such a suit is a type of unreasonable seizure—an arrest and detention of a person based on a criminal charge lacking probable cause. In Thompson v. Clark, we analogized a suit alleging that Fourth Amendment wrong to the common-law tort of malicious prosecution. See id., at 43–44. The “gravamen” of both, we reasoned, is “the wrongful initiation of charges without probable cause” (though in the Fourth Amendment context, those charges must cause a seizure as well). Id., at 43, and n. 2. Because of that similarity, the malicious-prosecution tort can inform a court‘s understanding of the kind of claim Chiaverini has brought.
The question here is whether a Fourth Amendment malicious-prosecution claim may succeed when a baseless charge is accompanied by a valid charge. The Court of Appeals, as described above, answered that question with a categorical no: Even if the felony count lacked probable cause, the Sixth Circuit held, Chiaverini could not recover because the misdemeanor counts were adequately supported. See supra, at 3–4. But a funny thing happened on the way to this Court. The officers now agree with Chiaverini that there is no such flat bar. See Brief for Officers 24–27; Brief for Chiaverini 2–3. And the United States as amicus curiae also argues that the Sixth Circuit rule is wrong. See Brief for United States 10. We agree with them all. Consistent with both the Fourth Amendment and traditional common-law practice, courts should evaluate suits like Chiaverini‘s charge by charge.
Consider first how that result follows from established Fourth Amendment law. Under that Amendment, a pretrial detention (like the one Chiaverini suffered) must be based on probable cause. See Manuel, 580 U. S., at 364–369. Otherwise, such a detention counts as an unreasonable seizure. And even when a detention is justified at the outset, it may become unreasonably prolonged if the reason for it lapses. See Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U. S. 348, 354–357 (2015). So if an invalid charge—say, one fabricated by police officers—causes a detention either to start or to continue, then the Fourth Amendment is violated. And that is so even when a valid charge has also been brought (although, as soon noted, that charge may well complicate the causation issue, see infra, at 7). Take the starkest possible example. A person is detained on two charges—a drug offense supported by probable cause and a gun offense built on lies. The prosecutor, for whatever reason, drops the (valid) drug charge, leaving the person in jail on the (invalid) gun charge alone. The inclusion of the baseless charge—though brought along with a good charge—has thus caused a constitutional violation, by unreasonably extending the pretrial detention. Even the Napoleon officers agree, offering a similar example. See Brief for Officers 25; see also Brief for United States 17–18. So the bringing of one valid charge in a criminal proceeding should not categorically preclude a claim based on the Fourth Amendment.
And the same conclusion follows from the common-law principles governing malicious-prosecution suits when
All that dooms the Sixth Circuit‘s categorical rule barring a Fourth Amendment malicious-prosecution claim if any charge is valid. That rule receives support from neither half of the claim‘s name—neither from the Fourth Amendment nor from the malicious-prosecution tort we have invoked as an analogy. And the question is not close, as shown by the parties’ decision not to contest it in this Court.
The parties, almost needless to say, have found a substitute ground of disagreement, involving the element of causation. As noted earlier, a Fourth Amendment malicious-prosecution suit depends not just on an unsupported charge, but on that charge‘s causing a seizure—like the arrest and three-day detention here. See supra, at 4–5. The parties and amicus curiae offer three different views of how that causation element is met when a valid charge is also in the picture. Chiaverini‘s test is the easiest to satisfy. On his view, when both valid and invalid charges are brought before a judge for a probable cause determination, the warrant the judge issues is irretrievably tainted; so any detention depending on that warrant is the result of the invalid charge. See Reply Brief 10–11 (citing Williams, 965 F. 3d, at 1165); Tr. of Oral Arg. 5–6, 26–28. The United States disagrees, arguing for the use of a but-for test to discover whether
But that new dispute is not now fit for our resolution. The test for finding causation is no part of the question we agreed to review. For that reason, it was not fully briefed. And most important, the court below did not address the matter, nor have many others. “[W]e are a court of review, not of first view.” Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U. S. 709, 718, n. 7 (2005). So we leave the causation question in the hands of the Sixth Circuit, as it further considers Chiaverini‘s Fourth Amendment malicious-prosecution claim.
We accordingly vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
THOMAS, J., dissenting
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
No. 23–50
JASCHA CHIAVERINI, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. CITY OF NAPOLEON, OHIO, ET AL.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
[June 20, 2024]
JUSTICE THOMAS, with whom JUSTICE ALITO joins, dissenting.
Jascha Chiaverini sued several city officials for damages under
To raise a successful claim under
Thompson was wrongly decided. A malicious-prosecution claim bears little resemblance to an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment. Consider what is required to establish a claim of malicious prosecution. A plaintiff must show that “(i) the suit or proceeding was ‘instituted without any probable cause‘; (ii) the ‘motive in instituting’ the suit ‘was malicious,’ . . . ; and (iii) the prosecution ‘terminated in the acquittal or discharge of the accused.‘” Id., at 44 (quoting T. Cooley, Law of Torts 181 (1880)). These elements have no overlap with what is required to establish a Fourth Amendment seizure violation.
First, an unreasonable seizure can occur without any prosecution—for instance, if a person “is arrested without probable cause” and “released before any charges
Nor is an unreasonable seizure necessary to prove a malicious-prosecution claim. A malicious prosecution can occur without any seizure at all. For example, “[t]here are cases in which defendants charged with nonviolent crimes agree to appear for arraignment and are then released pending trial on their own recognizance. These defendants . . . may bring a common-law suit for malicious prosecution . . . , but they are not seized.” Thompson, 596 U. S., at 52–53. And, “since a malicious-prosecution claim does not require a seizure, it obviously does not require proof that the person bringing suit was seized without probable cause.” Id., at 53.
Malicious prosecution is therefore not an appropriate tort analog for a
The Court‘s decision to forge ahead with combining the malicious-prosecution and Fourth Amendment frameworks will inevitably create confusion. As I have explained, an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment requires a seizure; a malicious-prosecution claim does not. Supra, at 2. To resolve this mismatch, the Court has decided that a plaintiff must show that a malicious prosecution caused an unreasonable seizure. See Thompson, 596 U. S., at 43, n. 2; ante, at 1, 7. While that grafting solved one problem, it created several more. Because the Court has mixed two distinct legal frameworks, it is unclear what doctrines actually govern its
I would take a far simpler course. Instead of forcing a square peg into a round hole by judging an unreasonable seizure based on the malicious-prosecution tort, I would “hold that a malicious-prosecution claim may not be brought under the Fourth Amendment.” Thompson, 596 U. S., at 60 (opinion of ALITO, J.). I respectfully dissent.
GORSUCH, J., dissenting
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
No. 23–50
JASCHA CHIAVERINI, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. CITY OF NAPOLEON, OHIO, ET AL.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
[June 20, 2024]
JUSTICE GORSUCH, dissenting.
Despite that settled rule, the Court today doubles down on a new tort of its own recent invention—what it calls a “Fourth Amendment malicious-prosecution” cause of action. Ante, at 1; see Thompson v. Clark, 596 U. S. 36, 43–44 (2022). Respectfully, it is hard to know where this tort comes from. Stare for as long as you like at the Fourth Amendment and you won‘t see anything about prosecutions, malicious or otherwise. Instead, the Amendment provides that “[t]he right of the people to be secure . . . against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.”
As its language suggests, the Fourth Amendment supplies nothing like a common-law claim for malicious prosecution. Ante, at 2 (THOMAS, J., dissenting); see Cordova v. Albuquerque, 816 F. 3d 645, 662–663 (CA10 2016) (Gorsuch, J., concurring in judgment). Just consider some of the differences. This Court has long held that the touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is objective reasonableness. But a common-law malicious-prosecution claim focuses on the defendant‘s subjective intent. Ante, at 2
That is not to say no constitutional hook exists for a
Admittedly, a procedural due process claim for malicious prosecution may come with its own set of limitations. After all, when a State provides exactly the tort claim the plaintiff seeks, it provides him with all the process he is due. See id., at 284; Cordova, 816 F. 3d, at 662 (opinion of Gorsuch, J.). And, consistent with the common law, many States recognize claims for malicious prosecution. Indeed, the relevant State here (Ohio) permits such a cause of action. Notably, too, unlike the tort this Court seeks to cobble together under the aegis of the Fourth Amendment, Ohio‘s tort does not require a plaintiff to prove that he was seized. Compare Trussell v. General Motors Corp., 53 Ohio St. 3d 142, 145–146, 559 N. E. 2d 732, 735–736 (1990), with ante, at 1 (majority opinion). Of course, should a State fail to provide a malicious-prosecution claim to secure his procedural due process rights, or a fair forum for entertaining such a claim, a federal court may need to act to vindicate
For these reasons, I respectfully dissent.