Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-659_3ea4.pdf
Page Number: 14

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

11 

Opinion of the Court 

Because the American tort-law consensus as of 1871 did 
not  require  a  plaintiff  in  a  malicious  prosecution  suit  to
show that his prosecution ended with an affirmative indi-
cation  of  innocence,  we  similarly  construe  the  Fourth 
Amendment claim under §1983 for malicious prosecution. 
Doing so is consistent, moreover, with “the values and pur-
poses”  of  the  Fourth  Amendment.    Manuel,  580  U. S.,  at 
370.  The  question  of  whether  a  criminal  defendant  was
wrongly charged does not logically depend on whether the 
prosecutor or court explained why the prosecution was dis-
missed.  And  the  individual’s  ability  to  seek  redress  for  a 
wrongful prosecution cannot reasonably turn on the fortu-
ity of whether the prosecutor or court happened to explain 
why the charges were dismissed.  In addition, requiring the
plaintiff to show that his prosecution ended with an affirm-
ative indication of innocence would paradoxically foreclose
a §1983 claim when the government’s case was weaker and 
dismissed  without  explanation  before  trial,  but  allow  a
claim  when  the  government’s  evidence  was  substantial
enough to proceed to trial.  That would make little sense. 
Finally,  requiring  a  plaintiff  to  show  that  his  prosecution 
ended with an affirmative indication of innocence is not nec-
essary  to  protect  officers  from  unwarranted  civil  suits—
among  other  things,  officers  are  still  protected  by  the  re-
quirement that the plaintiff show the absence of probable 
cause and by qualified immunity. 

* 

* 

* 

In sum, we hold that a Fourth Amendment claim under 
§1983 for malicious prosecution does not require the plain-
tiff to show that the criminal prosecution ended with some 
affirmative  indication  of  innocence.    A  plaintiff  need  only 
show that the criminal prosecution ended without a convic-
tion.  Thompson has satisfied that requirement here.  We 
express no view, however, on additional questions that may
be relevant on remand, including whether Thompson was