Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/23-50_n648.pdf
Page Number: 3.0

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

1 

Opinion of the Court 

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the 
United  States  Reports.  Readers  are  requested  to  notify  the  Reporter  of 
Decisions,  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  Washington,  D. C.  20543, 
pio@supremecourt.gov, of any typographical or other formal errors. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 23–50 
_________________ 

JASCHA CHIAVERINI, ET AL., PETITIONERS 
v. CITY OF NAPOLEON, OHIO, ET AL. 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 
APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT 

[June 20, 2024] 

JUSTICE KAGAN delivered the opinion of the Court. 
This case involves what is often called a Fourth Amend-
ment malicious-prosecution claim under 42 U. S. C. §1983.
To  succeed  on  such  a  claim,  a  plaintiff  must  show  that  a
government  official  charged  him  without  probable  cause,
leading  to  an  unreasonable  seizure  of  his  person.    See 
Thompson v. Clark, 596 U. S. 36, 43, and n. 2 (2022).  The 
question presented here arises when the official brings mul-
tiple charges, only one of which lacks probable cause.  Do 
the valid charges insulate the official from a Fourth Amend-
ment  malicious-prosecution  claim  relating  to  the  invalid
charge?  The answer is no: The valid charges do not create
a categorical bar.  We leave for another day the follow-on 
question  of  how  to  determine  in  those  circumstances 
whether the baseless charge caused the requisite seizure. 

I 
This dispute began with a set of peculiar interactions be-
tween a jewelry store owner and police officers in Napoleon, 
Ohio.  See generally App. to Pet. for Cert. 2a–7a.  The jew-
eler, Jascha Chiaverini, bought a ring for $45 from a (petty) 
jewel thief.  The ring’s rightful owners found out about the