Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-659_3ea4.pdf
Page Number: 6

Cite as:  596 U. S. ____ (2022) 

3 

Opinion of the Court 

a criminal complaint charging Thompson with obstructing
governmental administration and resisting arrest.  Thomp-
son  remained  in  custody  for  two  days.  A  judge  then  re-
leased him on his own recognizance. 

Before  trial,  the  prosecution  moved  to  dismiss  the 
charges, and the trial judge in turn dismissed the case.  The 
prosecutor  did  not  explain  why  she  sought  to  dismiss  the
charges, nor did the trial judge explain why he dismissed 
the case. 

After the criminal prosecution ended, Thompson brought 
suit for damages under 42 U. S. C. §1983 against the police 
officers who had arrested and charged him.  Thompson al-
leged several constitutional violations, including a Fourth 
Amendment  claim  for  “malicious  prosecution.”  App.  33. 
Thompson  asserted  that  the  officers  “maliciously  prose-
cuted” him and “subjected him to an unlawful, illegal and 
excessive detention” in violation of his Fourth Amendment 
rights.  Id., at 34. 

To prevail on that claim under Second Circuit precedent,
Thompson had to show that his criminal prosecution ended 
not merely without a conviction, but also with some affirm-
ative  indication  of  his  innocence.   See  Lanning  v.  Glens 
Falls, 908 F. 3d 19, 22 (2018).  Thompson could not put forth
any substantial evidence that would explain why the pros-
ecutor had  moved to dismiss the charges or  why  the trial
court  had  dismissed  the  charges.    Therefore,  the  District 
Court ruled that Thompson’s criminal case had not ended 
in  a  way  that  affirmatively  indicated  his  innocence.    The 
District  Court granted judgment to the defendant officers
on  that  Fourth  Amendment  claim.    Notably,  the  District 
Court  also  opined  that  the  relevant  Second  Circuit  prece-
dent  “can  and  should  be  changed”  to  say  that  a  favorable 
termination occurs so long as the prosecution ends without
a  conviction.  364  F.  Supp.  3d  178,  181,  196–197  (EDNY 
2019).  On appeal, however, the U. S. Court of Appeals for 
the Second Circuit adhered to its precedent in Lanning and