Chiaverini’s lawyer, Easha Anand of the Stanford Supreme Court Litigation Clinic, asked the court Monday to craft a narrow ruling and simply “define the precise contours of the seizure requirement” as being “charge specific,” meaning any charge without probable cause supports eligibility for a malicious prosecution claim. The court should ignore for now other legal questions brought up by Chiaverini’s claim that he was held in jail for four days without justification — a can of worms unnecessary to open in this case, Anand said, citing the 2022 Supreme Court decision Thompson v. Clark .