Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-659_3ea4.pdf
Page Number: 10.0

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

7 

Opinion of the Court 

B 

In accord with the elements of the malicious prosecution 
tort, a Fourth Amendment claim under §1983 for malicious
prosecution requires the plaintiff to show a favorable termi-
nation  of  the  underlying  criminal  case  against  him.  The 
favorable  termination  requirement  serves  multiple  pur-
poses:  (i)  it  avoids  parallel  litigation  in  civil  and  criminal
proceedings  over  the  issues  of  probable  cause  and  guilt;
(ii) it  precludes  inconsistent  civil  and  criminal  judgments
where a claimant could succeed in the tort action after hav-
ing been convicted in the criminal case; and (iii) it prevents 
civil suits from being improperly used as collateral attacks 
on criminal proceedings.  Cf. Heck, 512 U. S., at 484–485; 
see also McDonough v. Smith, 588 U. S. ___, ___ (2019) (slip 
op., at 7).

The parties to this case disagree about what a favorable 
termination  entails.  In  particular,  does  it  suffice  for  a 
plaintiff to show that his prosecution ended without a con-
viction?  Or must the plaintiff also show that his prosecu-
tion  ended  with  some  affirmative  indication  of  innocence, 
such as an acquittal or a dismissal accompanied by a state-
ment from the judge that the evidence was insufficient?

To resolve that disagreement, we must look to American 
malicious prosecution tort law as of 1871.  See Nieves, 587 
U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 12).  In most American courts that 
had considered the question as of 1871, the favorable ter-
mination element of a malicious prosecution claim was sat-
isfied so long as the prosecution ended without a conviction. 
As one influential New York decision explained, when the
individual  was  “convicted  in  the  suit  or  proceeding  com-
plained of,” he could not maintain an action for malicious 
prosecution.  Clark v. Cleveland, 6 Hill 344, 346, n. a (1844). 
But  when  the  individual  was  not  convicted,  the  “question
is, whether the prosecution instituted by the defendant can
be  said  to  have  been  terminated,  disposed  of,  or,  as  the 
books usually say, at an end.”  Id., at 346.  The “technical