Syllabus

NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Syllabus

THOMPSON v. CLARK ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

No. 20–659. Argued October 12, 2021—Decided April 4, 2022 In January 2014, petitioner Larry Thompson was living with his fiancée (now wife) and their newborn baby in an apartment in Brooklyn, New York. Thompson’s sister-in-law, who apparently suffered from a men- tal illness, called 911 to report that Thompson was sexually abusing the baby. When Emergency Medical Technicians arrived, Thompson denied that anyone had called 911. When the EMTs returned with four police officers, Thompson told them that they could not enter with- out a warrant. The police nonetheless entered and handcuffed Thomp- son. EMTs took the baby to the hospital where medical professionals examined her and found no signs of abuse. Meanwhile, Thompson was arrested and charged with obstructing governmental administration and resisting arrest. He was detained for two days before being re- leased. The charges against Thompson were dismissed before trial without any explanation by the prosecutor or judge. After the dismis- sal, Thompson filed suit under 42 U. S. C. §1983, alleging several con- stitutional violations, including a Fourth Amendment claim for mali- cious prosecution. To maintain that Fourth Amendment claim under §1983, a plaintiff such as Thompson must demonstrate, among other things, that he obtained a favorable termination of the underlying criminal prosecution. To meet that requirement, Second Circuit prec- edent required Thompson to show that his criminal prosecution ended not merely without a conviction, but also with some affirmative indi- cation of his innocence. See Lanning v. Glens Falls, 908 F. 3d 19, 22. The District Court, bound by Lanning, held that Thompson’s criminal case had not ended in a way that affirmatively indicated his innocence because Thompson could not offer any substantial evidence to explain why his case was dismissed. The Second Circuit affirmed the dismis- sal of Thompson’s claim. This Court granted certiorari to resolve a 2 THOMPSON v. CLARK

Syllabus

split among the Courts of Appeals over how to apply the favorable ter- mination requirement of the Fourth Amendment claim under §1983 for malicious prosecution. Held: To demonstrate a favorable termination of a criminal prosecution for purposes of the Fourth Amendment claim under §1983 for mali- cious prosecution, a plaintiff need not show that the criminal prosecu- tion ended with some affirmative indication of innocence. A plaintiff need only show that his prosecution ended without a conviction. Thompson has satisfied that requirement here. Pp. 4–12. (a) To determine the elements of a constitutional claim under §1983, this Court’s practice is to first look to the elements of the most analo- gous tort as of 1871 when §1983 was enacted, so long as doing so is consistent with “the values and purposes of the constitutional right at issue.” Manuel v. Joliet, 580 U. S. 357, 370. Here, as most of the Courts of Appeals to consider the question have determined, the most analogous tort to this Fourth Amendment claim is malicious prosecu- tion. Pp. 4–7. (b) In accord with the elements of the malicious prosecution tort, a Fourth Amendment claim under §1983 for malicious pros