Joan Ghougoian, et al. v. Lamarr Monson

Reverse conviction cases are overwhelming headlines and local governmental entities.1 Courts are grappling with the significant issues arising in these cases, including the application of the appropriate constitutional standards and the boundaries of a testimonial oath, both pillars of our justice system. This case provides a vehicle for the Court to provide guidance in reverse conviction cases on these core issues and align the Court’s prior holdings in Devenpeck, Manuel, and Thompson. In Devenpeck v. Alford, 543 U.S. 146, 148 (2004), the Court held that an arrest is reasonable in the face of probable cause for any crime. In Manuel v. City of Joliet, 580 U.S. 357 (2017), the Court then extend Fourth Amendment protections to all pre-trial detentions. And in Thompson v. Clark, 596 U.S. 36 (2022), the Court accepted that malicious prosecution is a valid Fourth Amendment claim. Relying on Thompson, and throwing Devenpeck aside, the Sixth Circuit now requires that officers have probable cause for the specific crime for which a prosecutor elects to issue charges. These holdings are irreconcilable. To address these trembling pillars of American justice, Petitioners present the following questions: 1. Whether the Fourth Amendment’s objective standard applies to all claims arising thereunder, such that there is no violation so long as probable cause exists to believe that an individual has committed any crime? 1 Lartey, J., In 2022, Exonerations Hit a Record High in the U.S., https://www.themarshallproject.org/2023/05/20/wrongful-convictionexoneration-2022-record-kim-foxx (last accessed April 3, 2024).