NEW YORK — A Brooklyn man who claims police officers illegally entered his home and arrested him will have his case heard by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Larry Thompson, a veteran postal worker, says in a lawsuit that his sister-in-law wrongly accused him of sexually abusing his newborn daughter and then police arrested him when he refused to let them in his home without a warrant.
The Supreme Court will consider whether police have to prove “exigent circumstances” when they are sued in civil courts for entering homes without search or arrest warrants.
“I’m just happy. I’m happy that they decided to take the case so I’m waiting for the outcome,” Thompson told the New York Daily News on Wednesday. “I’m just optimistic about the future.”
Thompson sued the city in Brooklyn federal court in 2014, claiming officers unlawfully tried to enter his apartment.
When police showed up at his door, Thompson told them they had the wrong address.
Thompson blocked one of the officers when he tried to enter, and then pushed him. He was arrested on charges of obstructing governmental administration and resisting arrest.
It was later determined that the baby had not been abused in any way.
A jury found that all the officers in the case acted legally when they entered Thompson’s home and arrested him. Police argued the alleged abuse of the child were exigent circumstances that gave them the authority to enter Thompson’s home without a warrant.
“Exigent circumstances” for police entry without a warrant can also include hot pursuit or a need to deal with someone in medical distress.
Federal law on civil lawsuits is unclear on whether cops must prove that extenuating circumstances allow them to enter a home or whether the person suing has to prove extenuating circumstances did not exist.
Civil rights lawyers say the case appears to be the first the Supreme Court has heard in decades involving a civil rights claim and the NYPD.
Civil rights attorney Wylie Stecklow said his search of records shows it is the “first time in history” a civil rights claim involving the NYPD will be heard by the Supreme Court.
“It doesn’t surprise me that it’s going to the Supreme Court. I think it’s a good thing because it’s a troubling matter,” said retired federal Judge Jack Weinstein. Weinstein handled the Brooklyn Federal Court case and ruled in 2019 that the law should be changed in the higher courts.
“You should be able to protect a home like a castle,” said Weinstein. “And where there is no reason for that person protecting his home to allow somebody in, the burden should be on the government.”
The Supreme Court will also take up a second issue in the case, centered around Thompson’s claim that he was maliciously prosecuted for resisting arrest.
City lawyers argued that the police officers were immune from a malicious prosecution lawsuit because the charges against Thompson were dropped before a trial, and he was never actually proved innocent of the charges.
The Supreme Court will determine if it is necessary to prove yourself innocent, or if charges being filed and then dropped is enough to move forward with a civil lawsuit.
Thompson was happy but hesitant to discuss the facts of his case Wednesday. His trial lawyer, Cary London, declined to comment on the suit.
“Later on I’ll be saying more, but right now I’m just taking it in, just processing it,” he told The News.
