Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-659_3ea4.pdf
Page Number: 1.0

(Slip Opinion) 

OCTOBER  TERM,  2021 

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 

THOMPSON v. CLARK ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR 
THE SECOND CIRCUIT 

No. 20–659.  Argued October 12, 2021—Decided April 4, 2022 

In January 2014, petitioner Larry Thompson was living with his fiancée 
(now wife) and their newborn baby in an apartment in Brooklyn, New 
York.  Thompson’s sister-in-law, who apparently suffered from a men-
tal illness, called 911 to report that Thompson was sexually abusing 
the baby.  When Emergency Medical Technicians arrived, Thompson
denied  that  anyone  had  called  911.    When  the  EMTs  returned  with 
four police officers, Thompson told them that they could not enter with-
out a warrant.  The police nonetheless entered and handcuffed Thomp-
son.  EMTs took the baby to the hospital where medical professionals
examined her and found no signs of abuse.  Meanwhile, Thompson was 
arrested  and  charged  with  obstructing  governmental  administration 
and  resisting  arrest.    He  was  detained  for  two  days  before  being  re-
leased.  The  charges  against  Thompson  were  dismissed  before  trial 
without any explanation by the prosecutor or judge.  After the dismis-
sal, Thompson filed suit under 42 U. S. C. §1983, alleging several con-
stitutional violations, including a Fourth Amendment claim for mali-
cious prosecution.  To maintain that Fourth Amendment claim under 
§1983, a plaintiff such as Thompson must demonstrate, among other 
things,  that  he  obtained  a  favorable  termination  of  the  underlying 
criminal prosecution.  To meet that requirement, Second Circuit prec-
edent required Thompson to show that his criminal prosecution ended 
not merely without a conviction, but also with some affirmative indi-
cation of his innocence.  See Lanning v. Glens Falls, 908 F. 3d 19, 22. 
The District Court, bound by Lanning, held that Thompson’s criminal 
case had not ended in a way that affirmatively indicated his innocence 
because Thompson could not offer any substantial evidence to explain
why his case was dismissed.  The Second Circuit affirmed the dismis-
sal  of  Thompson’s  claim.    This  Court  granted  certiorari  to  resolve  a