Supreme Court Adds Fourth Amendment Case

The U.S. Supreme Court this morning took up a search-and-seizure case for full briefing and argument. The case involves procedural questions regarding (1) the termination of the criminal case before the seized person can sue for damages and (2) the burden of proof on the existence of exigent circumstances to justify a warrantless entry. [See update below.]

The Questions Presented, as framed by attorneys for the plaintiff, are:

I. Whether the rule that a plaintiff must await favorable termination before bringing a Section 1983 action alleging unreasonable seizure pursuant to legal process requires the plaintiff to show that the criminal proceeding against him has “formally ended in a manner not inconsistent with his innocence,” Laskar v. Hurd, 972 F.3d 1278, 1293 (11th Cir. 2020), or that the proceeding “ended in a manner that affirmatively indicates his innocence,” Lanning v. City of Glens Falls, 908 F.3d 19, 22 (2d Cir. 2018); see also Laskar, 972 F.3d at 1293 (acknowledging 7-1 circuit conflict).

II. Where a Section 1983 plaintiff brings a Fourth Amendment claim for unlawful warrantless entry of his home and the government pursues a justification of exigent circumstances, does the government have the burden to prove exigency existed (as the Third, Sixth, Ninth and Tenth Circuits have held), or does the plaintiff have to prove its non-existence (as the Second, Seventh and Eighth Circuits have held).

The case is Thompson v. Clark, No. 20-659.

Update (3/11): On March 11, the Court limited its review of the case to the first question above.