Whether fabrication of evidence for misdemeanor charges violates due process

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Respondent is a police officer who fabricated evidence used to bring misdemeanor criminal charges against Petitioner, which were subsequently dismissed after a video of the interaction was presented to the prosecution in the criminal case. Petitioner filed suit against Respondent in Federal District Court. After the District Court denied Respondent’s Motion for Summary Judgment on the fabrication of evidence claim, the Fifth Circuit reversed and granted qualified immunity. The Fifth Circuit found that while fabrication of evidence to be used in a criminal prosecution is a clearly established violation of the due process clause, this clearly established law only pertained to the fabrications of evidence of felony charges, opposed to misdemeanor charges like Petitioner was forced to defend in his criminal case. Further, in finding that the law was not clearly established, the Fifth Circuit added elements of “time or deliberation to fabricate evidence” and “extreme consequences”; i.e., felony charges, to the pleading requirements for a fabrication of evidence claim. The Fifth Circuit created two circuit splits that this Court should resolve. 1. Whether a Fourteenth Amendment due process violation based on fabrication of evidence depends on the severity of the fabricated criminal charges, i.e., felony vs. misdemeanor, as held by the Fifth Circuit below, or, if the severity of the fabricated criminal charges is irrelevant as demonstrated by all other Circuits. u 2. Whether the law is clearly established that an officer commits a due process violation under the Fourteenth Amendment by knowingly fabricating evidence used against a criminal defendant, regardless of the severity of the fabricated criminal charges, as held by the Second Circuit, or if this law is not clearly established meaning officers are not on notice that they violate the Constitution by fabricating evidence used to bring misdemeanor charges, as held by the Fifth Circuit below.