CA9: False evidence to arrest violates due process

Arrest on false evidence in a malicious prosecution case was based on a due process violation that undermined probable cause to arrest: Ciria v. Gerrans, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 16318 (9th Cir. June 5, 2026):

Ciria has a Fourteenth Amendment due process right not to be deprived of liberty as a result of evidence fabricated by a government officer. See Devereaux v. Abbey, 263 F.3d 1070, 1074–75 (9th Cir. 2001) (en banc). “To prevail on a § 1983 claim of deliberate fabrication, a plaintiff must prove that (1) the defendant official deliberately fabricated evidence and (2) the deliberate fabrication caused the plaintiff’s deprivation of liberty.” Spencer v. Peters, 857 F.3d 789, 798 (9th Cir. 2017).

A plaintiff can establish the first element of a fabrication-of-evidence claim with direct evidence of fabrication, such as a “direct misquotation of witnesses in investigative reports,” id. at 799, as well as with circumstantial evidence, such as evidence that the defendants (i) “continued their investigation of [the plaintiff] despite the fact that they knew or should have known that he was innocent,” or (ii) “used investigative techniques that were so coercive and abusive that they knew or should have known that those techniques would yield false information,” Devereaux, 263 F.3d at 1076; see also Spencer, 857 F.3d at 799. The key is that the plaintiff must make some showing of “dishonesty” through either direct or circumstantial evidence. Devereaux, 263 F.3d at 1076. “The Devereaux test envisions an investigator whose unlawful motivation is illustrated by her state of mind regarding the alleged perpetrator’s innocence, or who surreptitiously fabricates evidence by using coercive investigative methods. These are circumstantial methods of proving deliberate falsification.” Costanich v. Dep’t of Soc. & Health Servs., 627 F.3d 1101, 1111 (9th Cir. 2010).