NY: Reversal for 4A violation isn’t “favorable termination” for malicious prosecution claim

Reversal because of a Fourth Amendment violation isn’t a “favorable termination” for malicious prosecution claims. Butler v. City of New York, 2020 NY Slip Op 33363(U), 2020 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 10130 (N.Y. Co. Oct. 14, 2020) (Martinez v. City of Schenectady, 97 N.Y.2d 78, 761 N.E.2d 560, 735 N.Y.S.2d 868 (2001)).

Plaintiff’s claims of “judicial deception” fail because of lack of materiality and probable cause. Spencer v. City of Spokane, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 37359 (9th Cir. Nov. 27, 2020).*

“Next, to the extent that Plaintiff seeks to bring a Fourth Amendment claim regarding the search of his cell and seizure of materials therein, Plaintiff cannot state such a claim as a matter of law. The Supreme Court of the United States has explicitly held that prisoners lack a reasonable expectation of privacy in their cells, and thus the Fourth Amendment’s protections against unlawful searches and seizures do not extend to prison cell searches.” Evans v. Mahally, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 222035 (M.D. Pa. Nov. 27, 2020).*

This entry was posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Franks doctrine, Prison and jail searches. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.