Arguing on behalf of Pagiel Clark in the Tompson v Clark case Discussion

I’m working on a law question and need an explanation and answer to help me learn.

Question before the Supreme Court: Must a plaintiff who seeks to bring a Section 1983 action alleging unreasonable seizure pursuant to legal process show that the criminal proceeding against him “formally ended in a manner not inconsistent with his innocence,” or that the proceeding “ended in a manner that affirmatively indicates his innocence”

Case Assigned: Thompson v. Clark

Arguing on behalf of the Respondent: Pagiel Clark, et al.

You should have 2-3 main arguments to present to the judge. As part of your argument, you must refer to two (2) precedent cases that support your argument(use citation). You must explain those precedent cases and how their facts and decisions align with yours.