SCOTUS’s Next Step in Ending Qualified Immunity: Chiaverini v. Napoleon

On May 25th, 2020, the United States was shocked by the death of George Floyd at the hands of law enforcement, causing turmoil across the country and renewed calls for a second civil rights movement. On the legal front, the courts have been diligently making progress to end what is known as qualified immunity, the doctrine that protects law enforcement from being sued for violating a plaintiff’s rights, unless it is a clear constitutional violation. [1] This year, the Supreme Court has been given another chance to make progress towards ending qualified immunity through a little-known case out of rural Ohio: Chiaverini v. City of Napoleon, Ohio. Though the circumstances given in the case are narrow, the context and timing of the case taken up by the nine justices could have wide repercussions in the movement to end qualified immunity, especially under malicious prosecution claims. Thus, a ruling in favor of the Plaintiffs (Chiaverini) would standardize malicious prosecution claims under the Fourth Amendment and protect citizens’ rights in the push to end qualified immunity.

To understand the importance of Chiaverini, it is necessary to understand the violation of Chiaverini’s rights that occurred and the legal question the Supreme Court must answer. Chiaverini’s story began in November 2016, when a man named Brent T. Burns sold a men’s ring and diamond to Chiaverini’s pawn shop. Soon after, it was discovered that the ring was stolen, and Chiaverini held onto the ring while a police investigation occurred, per a letter from the police that he had received. [2] In response, the police later returned and conducted what Chiaverini claimed to be an “unlawful search warrant,” seizing not only the ring but documents, computers, and other jewelry. [3] According to the same civil complaint, the officer then filed a criminal complaint for two counts of money laundering, receiving stolen property, and violating license requirements. However, it was also noted that the officer was a licensed pawnbroker, who would have had a conflict of interest to put Chiaverini out of business, and in addition, may have even fabricated evidence to receive a search warrant for Chiaverini’s computers. [4] The background shows a clear chain of events highlighting police misconduct and points to there being little evidence to support the other charges that police brought against Chiaverini. After Chiaverini’s case was dismissed before the court, he then filed a civil complaint against the police department for malicious prosecution, falling under U.S.C. 42 §1983. Chiaverini’s complaint was taken up and dismissed by the US District Court of Northern Ohio, and the Sixth Circuit of Appeals affirmed, citing that because there was probable cause for one charge, the “any-crime” rule applies, and none of the charges can continue as a malicious prosecution claim. [5] Based on this, the case begs the question of whether or not a malicious prosecution case can continue when at least one charge is not supported by probable cause, even if other charges had probable cause by law enforcement. Contrary to the “any-crime” rule, the charge-specific rule better upholds Chiaverini’s rights in bringing a 42 §1983 claim. However, because of qualified immunity, law enforcement cannot be held accountable as the circuit court had ruled.

In addition to the facts of the case, the justices’ propensity to follow past cases, or stare decisis, in most decisions presents an important advantage to Chiaverini’s side. As stated in the Civil Rights Act of 1871, and now in 42 U.S.C. §1983, citizens have the right to sue the government for malicious prosecution, provided that they follow a six-pronged test that is given under interpretations of the above laws:

1. The institution or continuation of a civil or criminal legal proceeding against the plaintiff;

2. Done by, or abetted by, the defendant (the prosecutor or plaintiff in the malicious action);

3. Termination of the prior proceeding in the plaintiff's favor. For instance, the case brought by the prosecutor or plaintiff in the malicious action was dismissed;

4. Absence of probable cause for instituting the prior proceeding;

5. Malice as the primary purpose for the prior action; and

6. Injury or damage to the plaintiff as a result of the prior action. [6] [7] 

The interpretations of this case directly support Chiaverini, as he received criminal charges from the defendant that were later dismissed (fitting prong one, two, and three) and lacked probable cause (fitting prong four), showcased malicious intent in the fabrication of evidence (fitting prong five), and resulted in his imprisonment (fitting prong six). Should the court follow this test, as would be expected for a court made up of originalist supporting justices, it would be proven that this is a malicious prosecution case. [8] However, Chiaverini’s failure to continue to trial as a claim leads us to look to other cases for further support. Albright v. Oliver (1994) added additional support, affirming that cases of malicious prosecution can only continue if there is a Fourth Amendment violation of pretrial rights, including the lack of probable cause for a charge. Since there was a lack of probable cause for several charges, Chiaverini would further be supported in his allowance to go forward as a malicious prosecution claim. Though the court’s use of stare decisis doctrine has fallen out of favor, especially in light of the Dobbs v. Jackson decision in 2022, originalist justices like Samuel Alito have clarified that they would break with past interpretations if they find a “poor reasoning” in past cases. [9] In the case of Chiaverini, the justices will likely disagree with the circuit court decisions and instead call on past cases like Albright to match their philosophies; even Professor Luke Milligan of the University of Louisville and a leading scholar on originalism, has interpreted the Fourth Amendment’s right “‘to be secure’—demonstrates the Founders’ intent for the Amendment to prevent, not merely redress, violations.” [10] Thus,  originalist interpretation calls on the court to prevent and redress pretrial violations, and this has been seen in practice at SCOTUS. In Thompson v. Clark (2022), SCOTUS ruled in favor of the plaintiff to allow a malicious prosecution suit to go forward based on this interpretation.[11] In short, the case followed whether or not a claim can go forward with just a dismissal of charges, or if the accused was acquitted of charges entirely. Thompson, the plaintiff, had charges just dismissed and thus was blocked from a Section 1983 claim because of his lack of acquittal. However, the justices ruled in favor of Thompson, citing that “most American courts have considered a favorable termination to mean simply a prosecution that ends without conviction.” [12] It is evident that the Court is expanding malicious prosecution claims’ applications to even more cases that may relate to Section 1983 and closing loopholes that protect law enforcement from any accountability under malicious prosecution. Following this direction, the justices would also clear the way for Chiaverini based on the erred interpretation of the Fourth Amendment by nixing the any-crime rule.

Chiaverini also brings up a disconnect between circuit courts over malicious prosecution claims, with case law that conflicts with itself. Chiaverini’s questioning of the malicious prosecution claims falls into a debate of the controversial any-crime rule, requiring a Supreme Court intervention that can rectify the disagreement and unify malicious prosecution claims further. Circuit courts have disagreed on whether or not the “any-crime” rule, which states that probable cause for one charge equates to probable cause of all charges in malicious prosecution claims, or a “charge-specific” rule, which requires that only the charge being disputed in a malicious prosecution claim requires a lack of probable cause, has been debated for decades. Howse v. Hodous (6th Cir. 2020) concluded that the any-crime rule applies to malicious prosecution claims, while Johnson v. Knorr (3rd Cir, 2007) concluded that the any-crime rule does not apply. [13, 14] In these cases, the different circuit courts came to different decisions as a result, leading to an unequal and disunified application of law enforcement accountability throughout the country. In Williams v. Aguirre (11th Cir. 2020), Chief Justice William Pryor makes the argument that common law makes the any-crime rule irrelevant, as the Fourth Amendment deals with the seizure of property and not unlawful arrest, and thus, makes any wrongful application an unfair spread of justice. [15] Pryor’s claim is important in noting that common law supports a charge-specific rule for fairness and to follow the Fourth Amendment. Lawyer John A. Wall notes that a SCOTUS ruling stands to unify common law across the circuit courts for malicious prosecution claims while also opening the door to a new Supreme Court-set test for whether or not these claims continue, both at the federal—in this case—and the state level. [16] The impacts of this case reach far, and a SCOTUS ruling in favor of Chiaverini is not only fairer for preventing police officers from fabricating evidence against victims but also unifies common law across the country unambiguously.

Chiaverini’s case is little known, as most Americans would not deem a police raid in small-town Ohio to have a large impact. However, amid unrest across the country over the fairness of law enforcement, the case in Chiaverini is a step closer to working towards the end of qualified immunity and a fairer and more transparent justice system. The Congressional Research Service defines qualified immunity as a “judicially created legal doctrine that protects government officials performing discretionary duties from civil liability in cases involving the deprivation of statutory rights.” [17] In other words, the courts have given law enforcement the ability to not be liable for being sued by plaintiffs in a court, unless there is a clear deprivation of constitutional rights and malicious intent. This isn’t codified in US law and thus is ambiguous in where it can be applied. Some critics even note that qualified immunity can alleviate law enforcement's concerns about facing liability, providing them with a higher level of rights than average citizens. [18] Amid the death of George Floyd in 2020 and the death of Tyre Nichols in 2023, police conduct continues to come under legal question and requires a pressing review by SCOTUS. Qualified immunity is all over Chiaverini’s case: an investigation by the New York University Law Review found that less than 0.0041% of cases of malicious prosecution ended with the officer paying, giving them financial immunity from misconduct. [19] Further, the court threw out police misconduct cases under the Fourth Amendment for qualified immunity in 57% of 252 cases from 2017-2019. [20] This clear disparity shows that qualified immunity clarifies a different standard of law, whereas law enforcement is granted greater rights to break the law, average citizens can have their rights deprived by law enforcement and fail to have the officers admonished for doing so. The example set shows officers have no fear of financial burden for breaking the law and abusing power, nor even going to trial in most cases. Should Chiaverini win his case, it breaks down the barrier of qualified immunity by allowing more accountability. Under the any-crime interpretation, an officer could, for example, fine someone for jaywalking across the street, and then arrest them without probable cause for felony money laundering without fear of being punished under the law for doing so, because they had probable cause for the jaywalking. Though outlandish, the example follows the established rule and demonstrates how the any-crime rule supports qualified immunity. Even if Chiaverini’s case affects a small number of claims, it is a step in the right direction for ending qualified immunity.

Thus, it becomes clear that the outcome of Chiaverini has implications for the entire nation. Not only does it deal with how fairly justice is implemented around the entire country, but it also plays into the larger fight over qualified immunity. No matter the result, the court’s decision would clarify how malicious prosecution claims under Section 1983 would continue throughout the courts. But, a ruling in favor of Chiaverini would not only follow an originalist interpretation of the Fourth Amendment while awarding more rights to the people but also follow established case law and provide for an expansion of protections against law enforcement that could have future implications. Chiaverini is crucial to the fight against qualified immunity, and the Supreme Court’s decision is eagerly awaited. Therefore, a ruling in favor of the Plaintiffs (Chiaverini) would finally standardize malicious prosecution claims under the Fourth Amendment and protect citizens’ rights in the push to end qualified immunity.

Edited by Yu (Sunny) Fang 

[1] “Qualified Immunity,” Legal Information Institute. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/qualified_immunity.

[2] Mike Sigov, “Henry County jeweler sues City of Napoleon over arrest,” The Blade (2017). https://www.toledoblade.com/frontpage/2017/11/24/Henry-County-jeweler-says-he-was-wrongfully-arrested-and-charged.html.

[3] Sigov, “Henry County jeweler sues City of Napoleon over arrest.”

[4]  Chiaverini v. City of Napoleon, Ohio, (21-3996) (6th Cir. [1] [2] [3] [4]  2023)

[5] Chiaverini v. City of Napoleon, Ohio, (21-3996) (6th Cir. [5] [6] [7] [8]  2023)

[6] “42 U.S. Code § 1983 - Civil action for deprivation of rights,” Legal Information Institute. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1983.

[7] Robert Rafii, “Malicious Prosecution,” FindLaw. https://www.findlaw.com/injury/torts-and-personal-injuries/malicious-prosecution.html.

[8] Whitley R. Kaufman and UMass Lowell, “The Supreme Court’s originalists have taken over — here’s how they interpret the Constitution,” The Conversation (2023), https://theconversation.com/the-supreme-courts-originalists-have-taken-over-heres-how-they-interpret-the-constitution-212241.

[9] Devin Dwyer, “After Roe ruling, is 'stare decisis' dead? How the Supreme Court's view of precedent is evolving,” ABC News (2022). https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/roe-ruling-stare-decisis-dead-supreme-court-view/story?id=84997047.

[10] “Professor Luke Milligan's originalist interpretation of Fourth Amendment argued to U.S. Supreme Court — Louis D. Brandeis School of Law,” University of Louisville. https://louisville.edu/law/news/professor-luke-milligan-originalist-interpretation-of-fourth-amendment-argued-to-u.s.-supreme-court.

[11] Thompson v. Clark, 142 S. Ct. 1332 (2022)

[12] Thompson v. Clark, 142 S. Ct. 1332 (2022)

[13] Howse v. Hodous, 1:17 CV 1714 (N.D. Ohio Apr. 5, 2019).

[14] Johnson v. Knorr, 477 F.3d 75 (3rd Cir. 2007).

[15] Williams v. Aguirre, 965 F.3d 1147 (11th Cir. 2020)

[16] John A. Wall, “Malicious Prosecution at the Federal Level,” Klein, Thorpe and Jenkins Ltd. (2024). https://www.ktjlaw.com/blog/malicious-prosecution-at-the-federal-level/.

[17] Whitney K. Novak, “Policing the Police: Qualified Immunity and Considerations for Congress,” Congressional Research Service (2023).

[18] Novak, Whitney K. 2023, “Policing the Police: Qualified Immunity and Considerations for Congress,” Congressional Research Service (2023).

[19] Joanna C. Schwartz, “Police Indemnification,” New York University Law Review 89, no. 3 (2014).

[20] John Blanton and Janet Roberts, “For cops who kill, special Supreme Court protection,” Reuters (2020). https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-police-immunity-scotus/.