NAPOLEON — The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of a Henry County jeweler’s claim that police can be sued for filing an unsubstantiated charge leading to arrest even if other charges in the same case were deemed appropriate for prosecution.
By a 6-3 vote, the nation’s high court overturned a ruling from the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati and found that because a felony money-laundering charge may have been the reason Jascha Chiaverini spent nearly four days in the Henry County jail, he had the right to sue the Napoleon Police Department, several of its officers, the city, and others if that count was baseless.
“If an invalid charge — say, one fabricated by police officers — causes a detention either to start or to continue, then the Fourth Amendment [of the U.S. Constitution] is violated,” Justice Elena Kagan wrote in the official court opinion. “... The bringing of one valid charge in a criminal proceeding should not categorically preclude a claim based on the Fourth Amendment.”
Whether that count, and not two misdemeanor charges also filed in the case, was the reason he landed in jail rather than just getting a court summons remains to be determined by the circuit court, to which the justices remanded the case.
“This case has always been about accountability,” Chiaverini’s defense team wrote in a statement responding to the Supreme Court ruling that argued that along with the time he spent in jail, Chiaverini also suffered from reputational harm.
While the charges were eventually dropped, the statement said, “the damage was done. Mr. Chiaverini never had a chance to challenge those charges in court, yet the stain of money laundering charges still exists.”
Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch wrote dissenting opinions, with Justice Samuel Alito joining Justice Thomas’ dissent.
Both dissents argued that a malicious-prosecution claim like Chiaverini’s does not properly fall under the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. Justice Gorsuch went so far as to propose that the claim more reasonably falls under the Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees due process of law.
At issue was a November, 2016, transaction in which Chiaverini, as proprietor of the Diamond and Gold Outlet at 125 E. Maumee Ave. in Napoleon, bought a ring and men’s earring that turned out to have been stolen by the man who brought them in.
Several days later, David and Christina Hill called the shop to advise the jewelry had been stolen from them.
Both Chiaverini and the Hills then called police, who determined from an investigation that the jewelry belonged to the Hills. Police Chief Robert Weitzel subsequently sent a letter instructing Chiaverini and the store to hold the items as evidence but also to turn them over to the Hills.
It was after the Hills demanded Chiaverini turn the jewelry over to them and Chiaverini refused, citing the “hold” instruction, that police obtained a search warrant, seized the jewelry along with documents, computers, and other jewelry from the shop, and charged Chiaverini with receiving stolen property, a licensing violation, and money laundering.
Police officer Nicholas Evanoff, one of the case’s defendants, six days later filed a second money-laundering count.
Chiaverini’s original lawsuit, filed in Henry County Common Pleas Court in November, 2017, also named the city, its former police chief, two other police officers, and the Hills as defendants and sought $3 million in damages for the police “wrongfully and maliciously” arresting him.
The defendants successfully moved for the case’s transfer to federal court, and in 2021 U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Helmick granted summary judgment on behalf of the city and the police.
In its January, 2023, ruling, the Sixth Circuit ruled that the counts of receiving stolen property and license violation had enough evidence supporting them to qualify for “probable cause,” a low legal standard that allows prosecution to proceed. But having found those charges to meet that standard, the appellate court made no determination about whether the money laundering counts also had “probable cause.”
In a brief opposing the case’s certification to the Supreme Court, lawyers representing the city and its police argued that Chiaverini had not contended at the appellate level that the felony charge had made any difference in his arrest and detention.
Chiaverini’s lawyers argued that the felony count was the only reason he was arrested rather than just being issued a summons, as was done with Brent Burns, the man who sold the jewelry to Chiaverini.
The defense remarked that Ohio law sets a minimum value of $1,000 of money or property involved to bring a money-laundering charge, far greater than the value of the items involved. The lawsuit also contended that police altered the case report to falsely attribute to Chiaverini a statement that he knew the jewelry was stolen when he bought it.
The Cato Institute, which along with the U.S. attorney general’s office had filed a friend-of-the-court brief supporting Chiaverini, said after the ruling that it eliminates police officers’ “perverse incentive to add as many charges as they could upon arrest, to shield themselves from potential liability.”
“Now police officers across the country are on notice that each and every criminal charge must be individually supported by probable cause,” the Cato statement said.
The matter was before the Supreme Court as Case No. 23-50.
Billy D. Harmon, law director for the city of Napoleon, did not respond to a request for comment.
Most Popular
Comments / 0