Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/23-50diff_d18f.pdf
Page Number: 13.0

2 

CHIAVERINI v. CITY OF NAPOLEON 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

Amendment unreasonable-seizure claim.  Id., at 43. 

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 ‘ter-
minated 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 are filed.” 
596 U. S., at 51–52 (ALITO, J., dissenting).  Second, an un-
reasonable seizure does not depend on the seizing official’s 
motives.  “[W]hile  subjective  bad  faith,  i.e.,  malice,  is  the 
core element of a malicious prosecution claim, it is firmly
established  that  the  Fourth  Amendment  standard  of  rea-
sonableness  is  fundamentally  objective.”    Manuel,  580 
U. S., at 379 (opinion of ALITO, J.).  Thus, “[i]f a law enforce-
ment  officer  makes  an  arrest  without  probable  cause,  the
arrest is unreasonable and therefore unconstitutional even 
if the officer harbors no ill will for the arrestee.  Likewise, 
if an officer makes an arrest with probable cause, there is
no  Fourth  Amendment  violation  regardless  of  the  ‘actual 
motivations  of  the  individual  officers  involved.’ ”    Thomp-
son, 596 U. S., at 52 (opinion of ALITO, J.) (quoting Whren 
v. United States, 517 U. S. 806, 813 (1996)).  Third, an un-
reasonable  seizure  violates  the  Constitution  regardless  of 
how any subsequent prosecution is resolved.  See Manuel, 
580 U. S., at 379 (opinion of ALITO, J.). 

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