Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/23-50_n648.pdf
Page Number: 1.0

(Slip Opinion) 

OCTOBER  TERM,  2023 

1 

Syllabus 

NOTE:  Where  it  is  feasible,  a  syllabus  (headnote)  will  be  released,  as  is 
being  done  in  connection  with  this  case,  at  the  time  the  opinion  is  issued. 
The  syllabus  constitutes  no  part  of  the  opinion  of  the  Court  but  has  been 
prepared  by  the  Reporter  of  Decisions  for  the  convenience  of  the  reader. 
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. 

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, with three crimes: receiving stolen property, a 
misdemeanor; dealing in precious metals without a license, also a mis-
demeanor; and money laundering, a felony.  After obtaining a warrant, 
the police arrested Chiaverini and detained him for three days.  But 
county prosecutors later dropped the case.  Chiaverini, believing that
his arrest and detention were unjustified, then sued the officers, alleg-
ing  what  is  known  as  a  Fourth  Amendment  malicious-prosecution 
claim under 42 U. S. C. §1983.  To prevail on this claim, he had to show
that the officers brought criminal charges against him without proba-
ble cause, leading to an unreasonable seizure of his person.  The Dis-
trict Court, however, granted summary judgment to the officers, and
the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed.  The Court of Ap-
peals  held  that  Chiaverini’s  prosecution  was  supported  by  probable 
cause.  In holding this, the court did not address whether the officers 
had probable cause to bring the money-laundering charge.  In its view, 
there  was  clearly  probable  cause  to  charge  Chiaverini  with  the  two 
misdemeanors.  And so long as one charge was supported by probable
cause,  it  thought,  a  malicious-prosecution  claim  based  on  any  other 
charge must fail. 

Held: The presence of probable cause for one charge in a criminal pro-
ceeding 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 com-
mon-law practice.