CA7: Civil claim for false arrest or detention on fabricated evidence is 4A claim

“A claim for false arrest or pretrial detention based on fabricated evidence sounds in the Fourth Amendment right to be free from seizure without probable cause.” Patrick v. City of Chicago, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 28380 (7th Cir. Sept. 8, 2020):

We have recently clarified the contours of constitutional claims based on allegations of evidence fabrication. A claim for false arrest or pretrial detention based on fabricated evidence sounds in the Fourth Amendment right to be free from seizure without probable cause. Lewis v. City of Chicago, 914 F.3d 472, 476-78 (7th Cir. 2019). If fabricated evidence is later used at trial to obtain a conviction, the accused may have suffered a violation of his due-process right to a fair trial. Id. at 479. And “misconduct of this type that results in a conviction might also violate the accused’s right to due process under the rubric of Brady … and Kyles … if government officials suppressed evidence of the fabrication.” Id. at 480; see also Avery v. City of Milwaukee, 847 F.3d 433, 439-43 (7th Cir. 2017).

The essence of a due-process evidence-fabrication claim is that the accused was convicted and imprisoned based on knowingly falsified evidence, violating his right to a fair trial and thus depriving him of liberty without due process. A conviction premised on fabricated evidence will be set aside if the evidence was material—that is, if there is a reasonable likelihood the evidence affected the judgment of the jury. United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, 103, 96 S. Ct. 2392, 49 L. Ed. 2d 342 (1976). The materiality standard for a Brady evidence-suppression claim is stated somewhat differently, referring to a “reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 682, 105 S. Ct. 3375, 87 L. Ed. 2d 481 (1985). Either way, if the fabricated evidence was immaterial, it cannot be said to have caused an unconstitutional conviction and deprivation of liberty.