Malicious prosecution
If you were charged without probable cause and the criminal case ended without a conviction, you have a malicious prosecution claim under Section 1983, and usually a parallel claim under state law against the officer's employer. Since Thompson v. Clark in 2022, the case does not have to end with a finding of innocence; it only has to end without a conviction. Since Chiaverini in 2024, each charge is judged on its own. This page goes through what the claim requires, the defenses, the clock that starts the day the case ends, and the New York notice of claim that runs from that same day.
A malicious prosecution claim is about the charge, not the arrest. The false arrest claim ends the moment a judge holds you under legal process. The malicious prosecution claim covers what came after: the criminal complaint an officer swore to, the arraignment, the bail, the court dates, and the months or years the case hung over you before it ended. The claim exists when the charge was brought or continued without probable cause and the case ended without a conviction. It is the claim most changed by the Supreme Court in the last five years, and the one whose clock most people miscount.
What the claim requires
The claim is brought under Section 1983 (42 U.S.C. § 1983) for a violation of the Fourth Amendment: a seizure, meaning the detention and the restraints that came with the prosecution, without probable cause. It takes its name from the common-law tort of malicious prosecution. The tort's full list of elements, including the state of mind that the word "malicious" implies, is not set out on this page, because it is not in our verified ledger and we do not publish law we have not verified. Two questions decide nearly every case: whether there was probable cause for the charge, and how the criminal case ended.
Favorable termination after Thompson v. Clark
Until 2022 the courts disagreed about what a favorable termination was. Some required the criminal case to end in a way that pointed to innocence, so that a dismissal with no reason given was not enough. In Thompson v. Clark, 596 U.S. 36 (2022), the Supreme Court held, 6 to 3, that a Fourth Amendment malicious prosecution claim requires only that the prosecution "ended without a conviction." No affirmative indication of innocence is needed. A dismissal by the prosecutor, a dismissal by the court, or a dismissal with no reason stated all end the case without a conviction. What matters is the outcome, not the court's explanation of it.
Charge by charge after Chiaverini
The probable cause question is asked about each charge separately. In Chiaverini v. City of Napoleon, 602 U.S. 556 (2024), the Court held that probable cause for one charge does not defeat a malicious prosecution claim as to a separate, baseless charge. An officer who adds a charge the facts do not support has to answer for that charge, even where the other charges were sound. In practice this is where the case is built. The criminal complaint lists the charges. The body-camera footage, the arrest paperwork and the officer's own statements show what the officer actually knew. The question is whether each charge was supported by what the officer knew when it was made.
Detention after the judge signs: Manuel
The Fourth Amendment does not stop protecting you when a judge orders you held. In Manuel v. City of Joliet, 580 U.S. 357 (2017), the Supreme Court held that the Fourth Amendment governs a claim of unlawful pretrial detention even after legal process begins, where the detention rests on fabricated evidence. A person held on a charge an officer knew was false is seized without probable cause for as long as the detention lasts, and that seizure is the injury the claim redresses. Where the evidence itself was made up, the fabricated evidence page covers the separate fair-trial claim that travels with this one.
The record this claim is built on
The criminal court file is the record: every charge, every appearance, every adjournment, and the disposition. Keep the certificate of disposition. Keep the criminal complaint, because it is the officer's sworn account of what supported each charge, and it will be compared line by line with the footage. The evidence page explains how to request body-camera footage and why the request goes in the first week, while the criminal case is still open.
The defenses
Probable cause for the charge
The first defense is that there was probable cause for the charge. The standard is the one that governs an arrest: the totality of the circumstances known to the officer, taken as a whole rather than one fact at a time (District of Columbia v. Wesby, 583 U.S. 48 (2018)). The difference after Chiaverini is that the defense has to be made out for each charge on its own. A valid charge does not carry a baseless one with it.
Qualified immunity
The second is qualified immunity. An officer is shielded from damages unless the conduct violated a clearly established right "of which a reasonable person would have known" (Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982)), and a court may decide that question first, without deciding whether the right was violated at all (Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009)). The qualified immunity page goes through the doctrine and the Supreme Court's 2026 decisions. The state-law malicious prosecution claim against the municipality, described below, does not carry the federal defense; the notice of claim is the price of keeping it.
If you were convicted, or took a plea
Under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), a Section 1983 damages claim that would necessarily imply the invalidity of a conviction is barred unless the conviction has been reversed, expunged, invalidated or called into question by a writ of habeas corpus. A malicious prosecution claim says the charge lacked probable cause; a conviction on that charge says the opposite. A conviction that still stands closes the claim on that charge, and a plea can have the same effect. Whether a conviction on one charge bars a claim about a separate charge that was dismissed depends on what the claim would have to prove, and it is a question to have answered before the plea, not after. The criminal case and civil case page is about exactly that.
When the clock starts
A malicious prosecution claim accrues on the day the criminal case ends without a conviction. The Supreme Court set the rule for the related fabricated-evidence claim in McDonough v. Smith, 588 U.S. 109 (2019): the claim accrues on favorable termination of the criminal case, not when the fabrication is discovered. The reason is Heck. A claim that cannot be brought while the criminal case is open cannot start its clock while the criminal case is open. The false arrest claim is different. It accrues when you were held under legal process, at arraignment or the like, and Heck does not delay it (Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384 (2007)). Two claims from the same arrest, two start dates, sometimes years apart.
In New York the federal claim has three years from accrual (Owens v. Okure, 488 U.S. 235 (1989); N.Y. CPLR 214(5)), and no notice of claim is required for it (Felder v. Casey, 487 U.S. 131 (1988)).
The New York notice of claim runs from the day the case ended
The state-law malicious prosecution claim against the City of New York or another municipality requires a notice of claim "within ninety days after the claim arises" (N.Y. Gen. Mun. Law § 50-e(1)(a)), and a malicious prosecution claim arises when the criminal case ends in your favor. So the 90 days run from the dismissal, not from the arrest, and suit must be commenced within one year and 90 days (§ 50-i(1)). A person with a false arrest claim and a malicious prosecution claim from the same incident has two notice deadlines: 90 days from the arrest for the arrest, and 90 days from the dismissal for the prosecution. The first usually runs out while the criminal case is still open. The safe course is a notice within 90 days of the arrest that describes every claim, and a second notice within 90 days of the dismissal. The deadline tool counts from the date you enter and says so; for this claim, have a lawyer count from the date the case actually ended. The notice of claim page goes through the rule.
| Claim | Federal clock starts | New York notice of claim runs from | Authority |
|---|---|---|---|
| False arrest | Arraignment or release | The arrest | Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384 (2007); Gen. Mun. Law § 50-e(1)(a) |
| Malicious prosecution | The case ends without a conviction | The favorable termination | Thompson v. Clark, 596 U.S. 36 (2022); McDonough v. Smith, 588 U.S. 109 (2019); Gen. Mun. Law § 50-e(1)(a) |
| Fabricated evidence | The case ends without a conviction | The favorable termination | McDonough v. Smith, 588 U.S. 109 (2019) |
What an ACD does
Many New York cases end in an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal, an ACD, in which the case is adjourned and later dismissed. An ACD ends the case without a conviction. Whether it is a favorable termination for a malicious prosecution claim is a question our verified ledger does not resolve, and we do not publish an answer. If your case ended in an ACD, we answer the question with the court file, not from this page, and the answer may be different for the federal claim and the state one.
What the claim is worth, and against whom
A malicious prosecution claim carries compensatory damages for the seizure and what followed from it, nominal damages where a violation is proved but no loss is (a completed violation is redressed by nominal damages, Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski, 592 U.S. 279 (2021)), and punitive damages against the individual officer but never against the municipality (City of Newport v. Fact Concerts, 453 U.S. 247 (1981)). A prevailing plaintiff may recover attorney's fees (42 U.S.C. § 1988(b)). The municipality is reached directly by the state-law claim, which is why the notice of claim matters, and under Section 1983 only through a policy or custom under Monell. The damages page goes through each, and the what a case is worth page explains why this site does not put a number on it.
If a criminal charge from the same incident is still open, talk to your defense lawyer before describing the arrest or the charge to anyone, in writing or otherwise. The criminal case and civil case page explains why the two cases have to be handled together.
New Jersey and Florida
The federal claim is the same in all three states, with the same accrual rule; the clocks and the state-law companions differ. In New Jersey the federal claim and the New Jersey Civil Rights Act claim have two years (N.J.S.A. 2A:14-2; 10:6-2), and a state tort claim against a public entity or employee needs a Tort Claims Act notice within 90 days of accrual, a six-month wait before suit, and suit within two years (N.J.S.A. 59:8-8); the notice does not apply to the Civil Rights Act claim (Owens v. Feigin, 194 N.J. 607 (2008)). In Florida the federal claim has four years (Fla. Stat. § 95.11(3)), and a state claim against the agency needs written notice within three years with a six-month wait before suit (Fla. Stat. § 768.28(6)), with damages against the government capped at $200,000 per person and $300,000 per incident (§ 768.28(5)(a)). A Florida officer has no personal tort liability unless the officer acted in bad faith, with malicious purpose, or with wanton and willful disregard of human rights, safety or property (§ 768.28(9)(a)), which is a question that overlaps with this claim by its nature. The New Jersey and Florida pages go through each.
Evidence an officer made up
The fair-trial claim in the Second Circuit, why probable cause is not a defense to it, and when it accrues.
Fabricated evidence →After the conviction is vacated
The Heck bar lifts, the clock starts, and the claims against the officers and the City open.
Wrongful conviction →The two cases
Why a plea can close a claim, what a dismissal starts, and how the notice of claim runs regardless.
Criminal case and civil case →Common questions
My case was dismissed. Do I have a malicious prosecution claim?
The dismissal satisfies one requirement: the case ended without a conviction, which is all that Thompson v. Clark requires. The other requirement is that the charge was brought or continued without probable cause, and that is decided from what the officer knew when the charge was made, charge by charge. A dismissal does not prove the charge was baseless. It opens the door; the record decides the rest.
The prosecutor dropped the charges but never said why. Does that matter?
No. Before 2022 some courts required the dismissal to say something about innocence. Thompson v. Clark rejected that. A prosecution that ended without a conviction is a favorable termination whatever the stated reason, and a dismissal with no reason given counts.
I was convicted of one charge and the others were dismissed. Is the claim gone?
Not necessarily. Under Chiaverini v. City of Napoleon, probable cause for one charge does not defeat a malicious prosecution claim about a separate, baseless charge. Whether the conviction on one charge bars a claim about another depends on what the claim would have to prove, which is the Heck v. Humphrey question. It is a question for a lawyer with the court file in hand, and ideally before the plea rather than after.
When does the 90-day notice of claim run?
For the state-law claim against the City of New York or another municipality, the notice must be served within 90 days after the claim arises, and a malicious prosecution claim arises when the criminal case ends in your favor. So the 90 days run from the dismissal, not from the arrest. A false arrest claim from the same incident has its own 90 days, running from the arrest. Most people have two notice deadlines and the first one runs while the criminal case is still open.
Tell us what happened.
One conversation with an attorney, in your language. We tell you which claims the facts support, which deadline runs first for the agency involved, what evidence to preserve this week, and whether a pending criminal case changes the timing. If it is not a case we can take, we say so and tell you where to go.
(718) 484-7510If a criminal charge is still open, talk to your defense lawyer before you describe the arrest to anyone, including us. English, Russian and Spanish in-house; an interpreter for any other language. Contingency fee, confirmed in writing before we begin.