Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/23-50_n648.pdf
Page Number: 5

Cite as:  602 U. S. ____ (2024) 

3 

Opinion of the Court 

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 §1983, alleging
what is known as a Fourth Amendment claim for malicious 
prosecution.  To  prevail  on  that  claim,  he  had  to  show
(among  other  things)  that  the  officers  brought  criminal 
charges against him without probable cause.  See Thomp-
son, 596 U. S., at 43–44.  In addressing that issue, he gave
special attention to the felony charge for money laundering.
According to Chiaverini, the officers lacked probable cause 
for that charge for two reasons.  First, they had no reason
to think he knew the ring was stolen; indeed, he said, their 
claim that he had admitted as much was an out-and-out lie. 
And second, they could not show—as, in his view, Ohio law 
required—that  the  ring  was  worth  more  than  $1,000;  its 
value was far less, more in line with its $45 purchase price.
So Chiaverini concluded that his suit satisfied the “without 
probable cause” element of a Fourth Amendment malicious-
prosecution claim.

After  the  District  Court  granted  summary  judgment  to
the officers, the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit af-
firmed.  It did so without addressing either of Chiaverini’s 
arguments about the felony charge’s basis.  In the Sixth Cir-
cuit’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 mat-
ter.  “So long as probable cause supports at least one charge 
against Chiaverini (like his receipt-of-stolen-property viola-
tion),” 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