Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-659_3ea4.pdf
Page Number: 20.0

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

5 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

order to reach a “defendant awaiting trial on his own recog-
nizance” or one who simply receives a “summons to appear 
at  trial.”  Cordova,  816  F. 3d,  at  663  (opinion  of  Gorsuch, 
J.).

Second, since a malicious-prosecution claim does not re-
quire a seizure, it obviously does not require proof that the
person  bringing  suit  was  seized  without  probable  cause. 
The claim does demand proof that the person bringing suit 
was prosecuted without probable cause, but probable cause 
at the time of arrest is a different question from probable 
cause at the time at which a prosecution is initiated. 

In light of the differences between these two claims, it is
apparent that a Fourth Amendment unreasonable-seizure 
claim is not analogous to a claim for malicious prosecution.
Much more analogous are the common-law torts of false ar-
rest and false imprisonment, which protect against “[e]very 
confinement of the person,” including one effected by “forci-
bly detaining [someone] in the public streets.”  Wallace, 549 
U. S.,  at  388–389  (internal  quotation  marks  omitted);  see 
also Dobbs, Law of Torts §41 (describing elements of false
imprisonment  and  false  arrest);  Restatement  (Second)  of 
Torts §35 (1964) (same). 

B 
The  Court  does  not  make  a  serious  effort  to  justify  its
analogy between unreasonable seizure and malicious pros-
ecution.  Instead, the Court largely relies on the fact that
“most  of  the  Courts  of  Appeals  to  consider  the  question”
have drawn that analogy, ante, at 6, but the Court ignores
contrary lower court authority.  See, e.g., Manuel v. Joliet, 
903 F. 3d 667, 670 (CA7 2018); Jones v. Clark County, 959 
F. 3d 748, 776–777 (CA6 2020) (Murphy, J., concurring in
part);  Pagan-Gonzalez  v.  Moreno,  919  F. 3d  582,  608–617 
(CA1 2019) (Barron, J., concurring).  But in any event, we
should  not  decide  this  important  question  without  inde-
pendent analysis, and the Court’s own cursory analysis is