CA7: False confession claim is a 4A not 14A claim

Plaintiff’s claim of false confessions sounds in the Fourth Amendment not Fourteenth. But here, the alleged false confession was never used in court. Therefore, no liability. Savory v. Andrews, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 24655 (7th Cir. Aug. 14, 2026)*:

In Patrick, we clarified that for a fabricated evidence claim to survive, there must be fabricated evidence, the evidence must have been material, it must have been used against the plaintiff at his criminal trial, and he must have been damaged as a result. Id. at 835. Because the reports were never used, admitted, or relied upon at trial, even if they were false, their production did not contribute to a violation of Savory’s right to a fair trial. See id. Indeed, though law enforcement officers cannot “retroactively immunize” themselves from liability after introducing fabricated evidence at trial by testifying consistently with those reports, “if the evidence [was not] used against the defendant, he would not have been harmed by it.” Fields v. Wharrie, 740 F.3d 1107, 1114 (7th Cir. 2014). And testimony consistent with the reports is not enough to deny them absolute immunity. As we said in Avery v. City of Milwaukee, 847 F.3d 433 (7th Cir. 2011), “trial testimony, standing alone” cannot subject officers to liability. Id. at 443. At worst, the false testimony—but not the reports—caused Savory harm. But testimony is covered by absolute immunity. Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325, 336 (1983).