Hartman v. Moore
Moore, a former CEO of Recognition Equipment Inc. (REI), sued six postal inspectors for compensatory damages following Moore's acquittal on criminal charges. Moore alleged that the postal inspectors pursued criminal charges against him in retaliation for his political activities--specifically, for aggressively lobbying the postal service to purchase a multi line optical character reader made by REI. Moore sued the inspectors for violating his civil rights under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics. In district court, the postal inspectors argued for qualified immunity, and in the alternative, argued that the case should be dismissed because probable cause existed to justify the initial prosecution of Moore. The district court denied qualified immunity and the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the denial. The court of appeals held that government officials were barred from pursuing criminal charges that they would not have pursued absent retaliatory motive, even if they had probable cause to do so. To defend against a claim of retaliatory prosecution, the defendant must show that there was either no malicious intent in pressing charges or that they would have pressed charges despite any malicious intent that existed.
Questions Presented:
1. Whether law enforcement agents may be liable under Bivens v. Six UnknownNamed Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), for
retaliatory prosecution in violation of the First Amendment when the prosecution was supported by probable cause.
2. Whether, if so, the law to that effect was clearly established at the time that criminal charges were filed against respondent, such that petitioners are not entitled to qualified immunity.
