This is obviously not the preferred path for precedent. Clark declared that the court has already recognized a Fourth Amendment right against malicious prosecutions, which he defined as the “wrongful initiation of charges without probable cause.” Kavanaugh’s assertion is not actually true, but it doesn’t matter: The Supreme Court has now willed this protection into existence, establishing a federal shield against falsified charges. The Supreme Court has spent years debating whether the Fourth Amendment prohibits “malicious prosecutions,” or the filing of bogus criminal charges, without arriving at an answer. On Monday, Kavanaugh finally broke this impasse with an unexpectedly great decision that underscores his talent for dressing up major decisions in the guise of minor ones. This is (potentially) huge, as Mark Joseph Stern reports for Slate. It can now be brought when prosecutors refuse to prosecute because no evidence supports the charges. The bar is no longer a declaration of innocence by a judge or a jury. Clark decision rewrites the law, giving even more people the option to pursue malicious prosecution lawsuits. Even fewer still can actually prove it.īut the Supreme Court’s Thompson v. Plenty of inmates feel they’ve been falsely accused. And there’s plenty of immunity - some qualified and some absolute - that stands in the way of seeking justice. There are plenty of hoops people who have been falsely accused of crimes need to jump through before a court will even entertain their complaints. My brief read of it suggested nothing more was happening than an affirmation of preexisting law via lots of procedural discussion. I’ll admit this recent decision sort of passed me by.
0 kommentar(er)
