Fabricated evidence
If an officer made up evidence against you, put it in a complaint or a report, and it cost you your liberty, you have a claim under Section 1983 for the denial of a fair trial. In the Second Circuit, which covers New York, the claim does not depend on whether there was probable cause for the arrest: an officer who had cause to arrest you and then invented evidence anyway still answers for the invention. This page goes through what the claim requires, how it differs from false arrest and malicious prosecution, what a Miranda violation does and does not add, and when the clock starts.
Most police abuse claims are about what an officer did. This one is about what an officer wrote. A report that describes a drug sale that did not happen, a complaint that puts words in your mouth, a statement attributed to a witness who never made it: each is fabricated evidence, and each becomes a constitutional injury the moment it is used to hold you or to prosecute you. The claim is distinct from false arrest and from malicious prosecution, and in New York it survives where those two do not.
What the claim requires
The claim is brought under Section 1983 (42 U.S.C. § 1983) for the denial of a fair trial. The Second Circuit recognized it in Zahrey v. Coffey, 221 F.3d 342 (2d Cir. 2000): there is a constitutional right not to be deprived of liberty on the basis of evidence fabricated by an officer acting in an investigative capacity. The officer who fabricates is the one who answers, and the deprivation of liberty that follows, the detention, the bail conditions, the court appearances, is the injury. The circuit's full statement of the elements, including what kind of evidence counts and how it must reach the prosecutor or the court, is not reproduced here beyond what the decisions on this page hold, because the rest is not yet in our verified ledger.
Probable cause is not a defense
The feature that makes this claim different is Garnett v. Undercover Officer C0039, 838 F.3d 265 (2d Cir. 2016). The Second Circuit held that a fair-trial claim for fabricated evidence lies even where probable cause existed. Probable cause is the whole answer to a false arrest claim and, after Chiaverini v. City of Napoleon, 602 U.S. 556 (2024), a charge-by-charge answer to a malicious prosecution claim. It is not an answer to fabrication. An officer who had a lawful reason to arrest you and then invented evidence to make the case stronger has still violated the Constitution, and the jury in Garnett said so. That verdict is discussed below.
Detention on fabricated evidence after the judge signs
The Supreme Court reached the same ground from the Fourth Amendment side in Manuel v. City of Joliet, 580 U.S. 357 (2017): the Fourth Amendment governs a claim of unlawful pretrial detention even after legal process begins, where the detention rests on fabricated evidence. A judge's order to hold you does not launder the evidence it was based on. In practice a person held on invented evidence has both claims, the Fourth Amendment detention claim and the fair-trial claim, and they are pleaded together.
How the fabrication is proved
Fabrication is proved by comparison. The officer's report, the criminal complaint and the officer's testimony are set beside the body-camera footage, the 911 recording, the surveillance video, the lab results and the witnesses. Where the paper says one thing and the footage shows another, the paper is the evidence. That is why the footage has to be requested and preserved in the first weeks, before the criminal case is over and before anyone knows there will be a civil case. The evidence page explains how.
Three claims from one arrest
A person arrested on a report an officer invented usually has three claims, and they are lost or won on different questions.
| Claim | The contested question | Does probable cause defeat it? | Federal clock starts |
|---|---|---|---|
| False arrest | Did the officer have probable cause to arrest, for any offense the officer knew of? | Yes (Devenpeck v. Alford, 543 U.S. 146 (2004)) | Arraignment or release (Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384 (2007)) |
| Malicious prosecution | Was each charge supported by probable cause, and did the case end without a conviction? | Yes, charge by charge (Chiaverini; Thompson v. Clark, 596 U.S. 36 (2022)) | The case ends without a conviction |
| Fabricated evidence | Did the officer make up evidence, and did it cost you your liberty? | No (Garnett, 838 F.3d 265) | The case ends without a conviction (McDonough v. Smith, 588 U.S. 109 (2019)) |
What a Miranda violation does not add
People often describe a fabricated confession and a missing warning in the same breath. They are different claims, and only one of them exists. In Vega v. Tekoh, 597 U.S. 134 (2022), the Supreme Court held, 6 to 3, that a Miranda violation is not itself a constitutional violation actionable under Section 1983. An officer who questioned you without warnings has not, on that ground alone, given you a damages claim. An officer who wrote down a confession you never gave has. The question is not whether the warnings were read; it is whether the words on the page are yours.
Qualified immunity
The officer will raise qualified immunity, which shields an official unless the conduct violated a clearly established right "of which a reasonable person would have known" (Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982)). The right not to be deprived of liberty on fabricated evidence has been the law of the Second Circuit since Zahrey in 2000, which is the point of citing it. The qualified immunity page goes through the doctrine.
When the clock starts, and when the door is closed
A fabricated-evidence claim accrues when the criminal case ends in your favor, not when you discovered the fabrication. That is the holding of McDonough v. Smith, 588 U.S. 109 (2019), and the reason is Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994): a Section 1983 damages claim that would imply the invalidity of a conviction is barred unless the conviction has been reversed, expunged, invalidated or called into question by a writ of habeas corpus. A claim that says the evidence against you was invented says the case against you was wrong. It cannot be brought while that case is open, so its clock does not start until the case ends.
The numbers in New York
The federal claim has three years from the favorable termination (Owens v. Okure, 488 U.S. 235 (1989); N.Y. CPLR 214(5)), and needs no notice of claim (Felder v. Casey, 487 U.S. 131 (1988)). The state-law companion is usually a malicious prosecution claim against the municipality, and that claim needs a notice of claim within 90 days after it arises, which for malicious prosecution is the favorable termination (N.Y. Gen. Mun. Law § 50-e(1)(a)), with suit within one year and 90 days (§ 50-i(1)). If a false arrest claim travels with these, its notice runs from the arrest and is usually due while the criminal case is still open. The notice of claim page goes through the rule.
If the criminal case ended in a conviction, including by plea, the claim waits. The wrongful conviction page covers what happens when the conviction is vacated and the bar lifts. This is the strongest reason to involve a civil rights lawyer before the criminal case resolves: a plea taken to end the case can close this claim, and the decision has to be made knowing that.
If a criminal charge from the same incident is still open, talk to your defense lawyer before describing the arrest, the evidence or the officers to anyone, in writing or otherwise. The criminal case and civil case page explains why.
What the claim is worth, and against whom
The damages are compensatory, for the loss of liberty and what followed; nominal, where a violation is proved but no loss is (Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski, 592 U.S. 279 (2021)); and punitive, against the individual officer but never against the municipality (City of Newport v. Fact Concerts, 453 U.S. 247 (1981)). A prevailing plaintiff may recover attorney's fees (42 U.S.C. § 1988(b)). In Garnett itself, the jury found the fabrication proved, awarded nominal damages, and awarded $20,000 in punitive damages against the officer, and the Second Circuit affirmed that jury award. It is cited here because it shows the shape of the claim: liability without probable cause as a defense, and a punitive award against the officer personally, even where the compensatory award was nominal. It is a jury award in another person's case, not a prediction about yours. The damages page goes through each kind, and the what a case is worth page explains why this site does not estimate.
The City is reached under Section 1983 only through Monell, an official policy or custom that caused the violation, and under state law through the notice of claim.
New Jersey and Florida
The Second Circuit decisions above bind the federal courts in New York; New Jersey is in the Third Circuit and Florida in the Eleventh (28 U.S.C. § 41), and this page does not publish those circuits' statements of the claim. The Supreme Court decisions, Manuel, McDonough, Heck and Vega, apply everywhere. In New Jersey the federal claim and the New Jersey Civil Rights Act claim have two years (N.J.S.A. 2A:14-2; 10:6-2), and a state tort claim against a public entity needs a Tort Claims Act notice within 90 days of accrual, a six-month wait, and suit within two years (N.J.S.A. 59:8-8); the notice does not apply to the Civil Rights Act claim (Owens v. Feigin, 194 N.J. 607 (2008)). In Florida the federal claim has four years (Fla. Stat. § 95.11(3)), and a state claim against the agency needs written notice within three years with a six-month wait before suit (Fla. Stat. § 768.28(6)), with damages against the government capped at $200,000 per person and $300,000 per incident (§ 768.28(5)(a)). The New Jersey and Florida pages go through each.
The charge itself
Favorable termination after Thompson, charge by charge after Chiaverini, and the notice that runs from the dismissal.
Malicious prosecution →After the conviction is vacated
The Heck bar lifts, the clock starts, and the claims against the officers and the City open.
Wrongful conviction →The footage
Body-worn camera video by FOIL, 911 and radio records, surveillance, and how to ask for preservation in the first week.
Evidence and body cameras →Common questions
There was probable cause to arrest me, but the officer lied in the report. Do I still have a claim?
In the Second Circuit, yes. Garnett v. Undercover Officer C0039 held that a fair-trial claim for fabricated evidence lies even where probable cause existed. Probable cause defeats a false arrest claim and, charge by charge, a malicious prosecution claim. It does not license an officer to invent evidence. The claim asks whether the officer fabricated evidence and whether it cost you your liberty, not whether the arrest itself was justified.
The officer never read me my rights. Is that a Section 1983 claim?
Not by itself. In Vega v. Tekoh the Supreme Court held that a Miranda violation is not itself a constitutional violation actionable under Section 1983. A statement taken without warnings may be kept out of the criminal case, but the failure to warn does not support a damages claim on its own. Fabrication is a different thing: an officer who invents a confession you never gave, or rewrites what you said, is making up evidence, and that is this claim.
When does the clock start?
When the criminal case ends in your favor. Under McDonough v. Smith the claim accrues on favorable termination, not when you discovered the fabrication. In New York the federal claim then has three years. If the criminal case ended in a conviction that still stands, Heck v. Humphrey bars a damages claim that would imply the conviction was wrong until the conviction is reversed, expunged, invalidated or called into question by habeas.
Does the claim reach the City?
Under Section 1983, only through Monell: an official policy or custom that caused the violation, which is a separate and harder showing. Under state law the usual companion is a malicious prosecution claim against the municipality, which needs a notice of claim within 90 days after the criminal case ends in your favor. Punitive damages are available against the individual officer and never against the City.
Tell us what happened.
One conversation with an attorney, in your language. We tell you which claims the facts support, which deadline runs first for the agency involved, what evidence to preserve this week, and whether a pending criminal case changes the timing. If it is not a case we can take, we say so and tell you where to go.
(718) 484-7510If a criminal charge is still open, talk to your defense lawyer before you describe the arrest to anyone, including us. English, Russian and Spanish in-house; an interpreter for any other language. Contingency fee, confirmed in writing before we begin.