Listen to this article
Where plaintiffs who were cleared of any wrongdoing brought suit against a defendant detective who initiated criminal charges against them, the plaintiffs failed to plead a deprivation of liberty under the Fourth Amendment, so the dismissal of their federal claims must be affirmed.
“Plaintiffs are five football players at the University of Kentucky (‘UK’) who were subject to racial taunts and physical violence at a fraternity-sponsored party. Yet after the altercation, defendant Detective Cory Vinlove, a Lexington police officer, initiated criminal charges against plaintiffs. A grand jury eventually refused to indict plaintiffs but, by then, news of the investigation had already hurt plaintiffs’ reputations and careers.
“After being cleared of wrongdoing, plaintiffs sued Vinlove, Sergeant Donnell Gordon, Lexington Police Chief Lawrence Weathers, and Lexington-Fayette County Urban Government (‘LFCUG’), asserting various federal and state-law claims. Defendants moved to dismiss all claims except a state malicious prosecution claim. The district court granted the motion, reasoning that as damaging as defendants’ actions were, they were not deprivations of liberty under the Fourth Amendment as required for the federal claims. The district court also dismissed plaintiffs’ state-law claims, finding that the alleged facts failed to state a claim under state law. We now affirm the district court.
“According to plaintiffs, they have been deprived of liberty because they suffered (1) a threat of imprisonment; (2) being summoned for an arraignment and compelled to testify before a grand jury; (3) the seizure of their personal property and information; (4) student misconduct hearings; (5) the loss of educational and athletic opportunities; (6) reputational harm; and (7) emotional distress. Plaintiffs have suffered greatly in general, and we are without doubt that the allegations contained in plaintiffs’ complaints are deeply troubling and, if true, reflect extremely poorly upon the state actors involved. But not every horrible occurrence is a constitutional violation and plaintiffs’ suffering cannot be appropriately framed as a ‘deprivation of liberty’ under the Fourth Amendment as understood by this court and the Supreme Court.
“Unlike cases where we have found a deprivation of liberty, plaintiffs here do not allege that they were ever arrested, incarcerated, required to post bail or bond, or subject to any travel restrictions. … While the harm plaintiffs have suffered here is distressing, it is not a deprivation of liberty under the Fourth Amendment.
“It is true that whether a liberty deprivation exists is hazy in some cases. But when, as here, the alleged deprived liberty interest is, in essence, the damage of having criminal proceedings brought against you under false pretenses, it is not a deprivation of liberty under the Fourth Amendment.
“For these reasons, plaintiffs have failed to plead a deprivation of liberty under the Fourth Amendment, and we affirm the district court’s decision to dismiss their federal malicious prosecution claim on these grounds.
“Plaintiffs also bring a fabrication of evidence claim under the Fourth Amendment. The district court dismissed the claim because to plead a violation of the Fourth Amendment, one must show a deprivation of liberty and, accepting all plaintiffs’ allegations as true, they have failed to do so. We agree with the district court.”
