Freedom from malicious prosecution, according to the Sixth Circuit, is a clearly established Fourth Amendment right. To prevail on a malicious prosecution a plaintiff must prove that (1) the defendant made, influenced or participated in the decision to prosecute the plaintiff; (2) there was no probable cause for the criminal prosecution; (3) "as a consequence of the legal proceedings, the plaintiff suffered a deprivation of liberty apart from the initial arrest"; and, (4) the criminal proceedings resolved in the plaintiff's favor. The Sixth Circuit discussed these elements recently in Webb v. United States, a case arising from a disturbingly widespread endeavor to frame a number of individuals as part of a drug investigation. See Mansfield, Ohio DEA Drug Sting Self-Destructs When Informant Admits Manufacturing Evidence.
In reversing a summary judgment entered by U.S. District Judge Christopher A. Boyko, the Sixth Circuit observed regarding the first element:
Within the meaning of the first element, "the term 'participated' should be construed within the context of tort causation principles. Its meaning is akin to 'aided.' To be liable for 'participating' in the decision to prosecute, the officer must participate in a way that aids in the decision, as opposed to passively or neutrally participating."
The Sixth Circuit made the following rulings regarding this issue as to the defendants: (1) where the indictment was based solely on one defendant's (Lucas's) testimony, "there is no doubt that Lucas participated in the decision to prosecute"; (2) defendant Metcalf, who misdated the date on which a phone call supposedly occurred, could have influenced Lucas to testify falsely to the grand jury and also influenced the prosecutor's decision to bring charges. Metcalf's misconduct was prolific and included "concealing exculpatory video evidence, altering the transcripts of recordings, and perjury," all of which would allow a reasonable jury to conclude that Metcalf intended to falsely incriminate the plaintiff.
The Sixth Circuit's decision in this case was discussed in an earlier post, Malicious Prosecution and Deprivation of Liberty.
Comments