False arrest
An arrest is a seizure, and the Fourth Amendment forbids an unreasonable one. If an officer arrested you without probable cause to believe you had committed an offense, you have a claim under Section 1983 against the officer, and usually a parallel claim under state law against the officer's employer. The officer will answer that there was probable cause for something, and that even if there was not, a reasonable officer could have thought so. This page goes through what the claim requires, what the defenses are, when the clock starts, and why the New York notice of claim runs before the criminal case is over.
False arrest is the most common police abuse claim and the one most often lost on a technicality: a missed notice of claim, a plea that closed the door, a charge the officer could have made even if he did not. It is also the claim where the record matters most, because the whole case turns on what the officer knew in the seconds before the handcuffs went on, and that is usually on video. The claims page sorts the other claims that travel with this one; this page is about the arrest itself.
What the claim requires
Section 1983 gives a cause of action to any person deprived of a federal right by someone acting under color of state law (42 U.S.C. § 1983). A police officer making an arrest is acting under color of state law, and the federal right at stake is the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable seizures. So a false arrest claim under Section 1983 has, in substance, one contested element: the absence of probable cause. If the officer had probable cause to arrest, the claim fails no matter how the criminal case ended. If the officer did not, the claim exists no matter what the officer believed.
Probable cause is judged on the totality of the circumstances known to the officer at the time. In District of Columbia v. Wesby, 583 U.S. 48 (2018), the Supreme Court cautioned that courts may not take the facts one at a time and dismiss each as "susceptible of innocent explanation"; the question is whether the whole picture would lead a reasonable officer to believe an offense was being committed. That cuts both ways. A collection of individually innocent facts can add up to probable cause, and an officer who acted on a single fact that did not support an arrest cannot rescue it afterward with things learned later.
The arrest also does not have to match the charge. Under Devenpeck v. Alford, 543 U.S. 146 (2004), an arrest is lawful if the officer had probable cause for any offense the officer knew about, not only the one announced at the scene or written on the complaint. A person arrested for one thing and charged with another does not have a false arrest claim on that ground alone. The question is always whether the facts the officer knew supported an arrest for something.
The record the case is built on
Because the claim turns on what the officer knew in the moment, the evidence that decides it is the evidence of that moment: body-worn camera footage, the 911 call, surveillance video, the arrest paperwork, and the officer's own account in the criminal complaint. Under the Right to Know Act, an NYPD officer who stops you must give you a business card that tells you where to request body-camera footage (Local Law 54 of 2018). The evidence page explains how to request and preserve it, and why the request goes in the first week.
The defenses
Two defenses are raised in nearly every false arrest case, and the case is usually won or lost on them at summary judgment rather than at trial.
Probable cause for something
The first is the one above: that the officer had probable cause, if not for the charged offense then for another. Disorderly conduct, obstruction, resisting arrest and trespass are the offenses most often offered after the fact. The answer is the video and the witnesses, and the argument is about whether the facts the officer actually knew, not the facts the officer later learned, supported an arrest for the offense now claimed.
Qualified immunity
The second is qualified immunity. An officer is shielded from damages unless the conduct violated a clearly established right "of which a reasonable person would have known" (Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982)). In a false arrest case the doctrine is applied as "arguable probable cause": even if there was no probable cause, the officer is immune if a reasonable officer could have believed there was. In Wesby the Court found both that probable cause existed and that, in any event, the officers were entitled to qualified immunity because no precedent clearly established the contrary. The qualified immunity page explains the doctrine and its current state after the Supreme Court's 2026 decisions; the short version is that the closer the facts are to a published case in which an arrest was held unlawful, the weaker the defense.
Where qualified immunity does not apply: the NYPD, under city law
Since 2021, New York City law has created its own civil right of security against unreasonable search and seizure, enforceable against an NYPD employee and against the City as employer, and the statute says in terms that qualified immunity "is not a defense to liability" (N.Y.C. Admin. Code §§ 8-802, 8-803, 8-804). The limitation period is three years (§ 8-806). An arrest is a seizure, and the chapter is construed consistently with the Fourth Amendment (§ 8-807). For an NYPD arrest this claim travels with the federal one. The city law page explains what it does and does not change.
Arrest, then detention, then prosecution: three claims, three clocks
A false arrest claim covers the period from the arrest until you were held under legal process, which in most cases means arraignment. What happens after that is a different claim. In Manuel v. City of Joliet, 580 U.S. 357 (2017), the Supreme Court held that the Fourth Amendment continues to govern a detention that rests on fabricated evidence even after a judge has ordered it. And a prosecution begun or continued without probable cause is a malicious prosecution claim, which after Thompson v. Clark, 596 U.S. 36 (2022), requires only that the prosecution ended without a conviction.
The three claims start their clocks at different times. A Section 1983 false arrest claim accrues when the detention without legal process ends, which is when you were arraigned or released (Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384 (2007)). A malicious prosecution claim, and a fabricated-evidence claim, accrue when the criminal case ends in your favor (McDonough v. Smith, 588 U.S. 109 (2019)). That is why a person whose criminal case dragged on for two years can find that the false arrest claim has a year left while the malicious prosecution claim has three.
| Claim | Covers | Federal clock starts | Authority |
|---|---|---|---|
| False arrest | Arrest until arraignment or release | Arraignment or release | Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384 (2007) |
| Unlawful pretrial detention | Detention after legal process, on fabricated evidence | Favorable termination | Manuel v. City of Joliet, 580 U.S. 357 (2017); McDonough v. Smith, 588 U.S. 109 (2019) |
| Malicious prosecution | The prosecution itself | The case ends without a conviction | Thompson v. Clark, 596 U.S. 36 (2022) |
The state-law clocks are shorter and run from the event. In New York, a claim against the City for false arrest or false imprisonment under state law requires a notice of claim within 90 days after the claim arises (N.Y. Gen. Mun. Law § 50-e(1)(a)) and suit within one year and 90 days (§ 50-i(1)). No notice of claim is needed for the federal claim (Felder v. Casey, 487 U.S. 131 (1988)), but the state claim adds the City as a defendant, which the federal claim does only through Monell. The notice of claim page goes through the rule.
If you were convicted, or took a plea
Under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), a Section 1983 damages claim that would necessarily imply the invalidity of a conviction cannot proceed unless the conviction has been reversed, expunged, invalidated or called into question by a writ of habeas corpus. Whether a false arrest claim does that depends on the facts: a claim that the officer lacked probable cause to arrest does not always contradict a later conviction, but it can, especially where the conviction is for resisting or obstructing the arrest itself. A plea to a violation to end the case can have the same effect as a conviction for this purpose. This is the single most important reason to talk to a civil rights lawyer before the criminal case resolves, and the criminal case and civil case page is about exactly that.
What the claim is worth, and against whom
A false arrest claim carries compensatory damages for the loss of liberty and its consequences, nominal damages where a violation is proved but no loss is (a completed violation is redressed by nominal damages, Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski, 592 U.S. 279 (2021)), and punitive damages against the individual officer but never against the City (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)). The damages page goes through each, and the what a case is worth page explains why this site refuses to put a number on it.
New Jersey and Florida
The federal claim is the same in all three states; the clocks and the state-law companions differ. 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 the state tort claim needs a Tort Claims Act notice within 90 days (N.J.S.A. 59:8-8). In Florida the federal claim has four years (Fla. Stat. § 95.11(3)), and the state claim needs written notice to the agency within three years with a six-month wait before suit (Fla. Stat. § 768.28(6)). The New Jersey and Florida pages go through each.
Arrested for what you said
When the arrest was retaliation for speech, filming, or a complaint, and how the probable cause rule bends.
Retaliatory arrest →Stopped and frisked
A stop is a seizure too, and a frisk is a search. What the officer needs for each.
Stop and frisk →The first week
What to write down, what to request, what not to say, and who to call.
What to do after →Common questions
The charges were dismissed. Does that mean the arrest was false?
No. A dismissal means the prosecution ended without a conviction, which matters for a malicious prosecution claim, but a false arrest claim asks a different question: did the officer have probable cause at the moment of the arrest. Charges are dismissed for many reasons that have nothing to do with the arrest. The dismissal helps; it does not decide the claim.
I was arrested for one thing and charged with something else. Is that false arrest?
Not by itself. Under Devenpeck v. Alford, an arrest is lawful if the officer had probable cause for any offense the officer knew about at the time, even one that was never charged and even one unrelated to the stated reason. The question is whether the facts the officer knew supported an arrest for some offense, not whether the paperwork matched.
I pleaded guilty to a lesser charge. Can I still sue for false arrest?
Sometimes, and it is a question for a lawyer with the plea papers in hand. Under Heck v. Humphrey a civil claim that would necessarily imply the invalidity of a conviction is barred while the conviction stands. Whether a false arrest claim does that depends on what you pleaded to and what the claim would have to prove. Talk to us before the plea if you can; the criminal case and the civil case page explains why.
How long do I have?
For the federal claim in New York, three years, and the clock on a false arrest claim starts when you were held under legal process, which usually means arraignment. For the state-law claim against the City of New York, a notice of claim must be served within 90 days of the arrest, and suit filed within one year and 90 days. New Jersey and Florida have different rules; the deadlines pages and the deadline tool go through each.
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.