Political News and Commentary with the Right Perspective. NAVIGATION
  • Front Page
  • News
  • Multimedia
  • Tags
  • RSS Feed

    • Advertise on RightMichigan.com


    NEWS TIPS!

    Get the RightMighigan.com toolbar!


    RightMichigan.com

    Buzz

    Who are the NERD fund donors Mr Snyder?

    Raise the curtain.

    Display: Sort:
    Bigger Problem for Birmingham: Their Police and Prosecuting Attorney | 15 comments (15 topical, 0 hidden)
    Malicious Prosecution (none / 0) (#4)
    by Republican Michigander on Thu Jul 12, 2012 at 11:37:38 PM EST
    To succeed on a malicious-prosecution claim under § 1983 when the claim is premised on a violation of the Fourth Amendment, a plaintiff must prove the following: First, the plaintiff must show that a criminal prosecution was initiated against the plaintiff and that the defendant "ma[d]e, influence[d], or participate[d] in the decision to prosecute." Second, because a § 1983 claim is premised on the violation of a constitutional right, the plaintiff must show that there was a lack of probable cause for the criminal prosecution,  Third, the plaintiff must show that, "as a consequence of a legal proceeding, " the plaintiff suffered a "deprivation of liberty, " as understood in our Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, apart from the initial seizure. Johnson v. Knorr,  (discussing the scope of "Fourth Amendment protections . . . beyond an initial seizure, " including "continued detention without probable cause");("[U]nlike the related cause of action for false arrest or imprisonment, [an action for malicious prosecution] permits damages for confinement imposed pursuant to legal process."). Fourth, the criminal proceeding must have been resolved in the plaintiff's favor. Heck, 512 U.S. at 484 ("One element that must be alleged and proved in a malicious prosecution action is termination of the prior criminal proceeding in favor of the accused.").

    As for Qualified Immunity, it's a tough hurdle, but since this involved a constitutional right, it's possible (as no law was broken). It depends on the procedures involved.

    ""First, we determine whether a constitutional violation occurred; second, we determine whether the right that was violated was a clearly established right of which a reasonable person would have known; finally, we determine whether the plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts, and supported the allegations by sufficient evidence, to indicate that what the official allegedly did was objectively unreasonable in light of the clearly established constitutional rights.""" Harlow Case.

    Parent

    Bigger Problem for Birmingham: Their Police and Prosecuting Attorney | 15 comments (15 topical, 0 hidden)
    Display: Sort:

    Menu

    + create account
    + FAQ
    + Editorial Policy
    + Search



    Login

    Make a new account

    Username:
    Password:
    Tweet along with RightMichigan by
    following us on Twitter HERE!
    create account | faq | search