Thompson v. Clark (U.S. Supreme Court & Second Circuit Court of Appeals)

Can a police officer who frames an innocent person be held accountable in court? Before the MacArthur Justice Center won the landmark Supreme Court decision in Thompson v. Clark, the answer across most of the country was no: Once the innocent person got the false charges against them dismissed, the police officer who fabricated or falsified evidence against them was immune from a civil lawsuit. That was so no matter how devastating the false charges were to the innocent person’s life. We took that issue all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court and won. Following the Supreme Court’s decision, someone who is the victim of false or fabricated evidence by law enforcement can hold the government accountable for it.

In January 2014, Larry Thompson, a Black veteran of the Navy and U.S. postal worker, was at home with his fiancé and one-week-old daughter. As they were getting ready for bed, emergency medical technicians (EMTs) arrived at Mr. Thompson’s apartment building investigating a false report of child abuse. The EMTs went to Mr. Thompson’s apartment unit and were able to see his daughter safe in her mother’s arms. Upon asking the EMTs what they were investigating, Mr. Thompson told them, “I’m sorry, you got the wrong apartment” and then tried to help the EMTs brainstorm other apartments with children. The EMTs told Mr. Thompson they must have had the wrong unit and left his apartment.

Shortly thereafter, four NYPD officers arrived at Mr. Thompson’s building. After speaking with the EMTs, the officers went to Mr. Thompson’s unit and insisted on entering his home. Mr. Thompson asked to speak with the officers’ supervisor and, after they refused, asked to see a warrant. The officers then forcibly entered the apartment, violently tackling Mr. Thompson to the ground and handcuffing him. Although Mr. Thompson never resisted the officers, they pinned him face down on the floor, pressing into his head and back. The officers and EMTs then entered Mr. Thompson’s apartment and confirmed there had been no abuse.

In order to justify their force and the injuries they had caused to Mr. Thompson, an officer falsely reported that Mr. Thompson was the aggressor and violently resisted the officers. As a result of the false statements, Mr. Thompson was taken to jail and wrongfully charged with resisting arrest and obstructing governmental administration. After months of having to defend himself against those false charges, the District Attorney dismissed the charges against Mr. Thompson “in the interest of justice.”

Mr. Thompson then brought a civil-rights claim alleging that the police officer who fabricated the charges violated his rights under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. A federal court in New York ruled that Mr. Thompson could not sue the officer. According to the court, suing the officer required a “favorable termination” of Mr. Thompson’s criminal proceeding and dismissal of the charges against Mr. Thompson was not a favorable termination. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed.

We convinced the U.S. Supreme Court to hear Mr. Thompson’s case and MacArthur Justice Center attorney Amir Ali argued Mr. Thompson’s case before the Justices on October 12, 2021. On April 4, 2022, the Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling in Mr. Thompson’s favor. The Court explained that it “would make little sense” to preclude Mr. Thompson from proceeding with his civil suit. Rejecting the rule that applied across most of the country, the Supreme Court made clear that the victim of false charges “need only show that his prosecution ended without a conviction” in order to sue. And the Court held that Mr. Thompson “satisfied that requirement.”

UPDATE

Following the Supreme Court’s decision, Mr. Thompson’s case was remanded to the district court. Rather than let Mr. Thompson present his claim to a jury, however, the district court reconsidered its prior decision denying summary judgment, and held that no reasonable jury could find that Mr. Thompson had been maliciously prosecuted without probable cause. The court reasoned that, because the police believed they needed to enter the apartment to respond to the 9-1-1 call, merely standing in the doorway of Mr. Thompson’s home and insisting that the officers produce a warrant created probable cause to prosecute Mr. Thompson for the crime of obstructing governmental administration. In addition, the district court concluded that the officer who falsely initiated criminal charges against Mr. Thompson—based on factual claims that the officer later admitted were false—was entitled to qualified immunity.  

We represented Mr. Thompson on appeal to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, arguing that under the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement and clearly established state and federal law, citizens cannot be prosecuted simply for opening their doors to the police and insisting upon a warrant. We also explained that qualified immunity does not shield officers who commit knowing violations of the law, such as falsifying the basis for criminal charges. We conducted oral argument on April 16, 2024, before Judge Guido Calabresi, Judge Michael Park, and Judge Sarah Merriam.

Less than two months later, on May 28, 2024, the Second Circuit issued a decision ruling in Mr. Thompson’s favor across the board. The Court held that a reasonable jury could find that Mr. Thompson’s “actions – opening his door, standing in his doorway, speaking peacefully with officers, and verbally invoking his Fourth Amendment rights” – did not support probable cause for the officer’s obstruction charge. Under New York law, Mr. Thompson’s conduct “was not inappropriate, and he did not take affirmative steps to interfere” with ongoing police activity, as required by the obstruction statute. Nor did Mr. Thompson evince the requisite intent to interfere required by the statute. The Court emphasized that “individuals may ‘stand on their constitutional rights’ in such situations,” especially given the “‘peculiar abrasiveness of official intrusions’ into people’s homes late at night.”  

In addition, the Court rejected the officer’s attempt to invoke qualified immunity as forfeited. The Court noted that the officer had failed to assert qualified immunity against Mr. Thompson’s malicious prosecution claim, despite raising the defense against another claim. The Court rejected the officer’s argument that it sufficed to assert qualified immunity “in conclusory fashion” in the officer’s initial pleading, holding that this was “insufficient to preserve the defense.”

Accordingly, having ruled in Mr. Thompson’s favor on each issue, the Court vacated the district court’s decision dismissing Mr. Thompson’s claim and remanded the matter for trial.