Herbert Whitlock v. Charles Bruegge

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that a prosecutor’s fabrication of evidence while acting as an investigator is not covered by qualified immunity
• holding that use of fabricated evidence to effect a deprivation of liberty violates the Due Process Clause was clearly established well before 1987, when the relevant events in that case occurred
• recognizing that successful fabrication of evidence claims will (hopefully) be “exceedingly rare”
• holding that “a police officer who manufactures false evidence against a criminal defendant violated due process if that evidence is later used to deprive the defendant of [his] liberty in some way.”
• stating that a prosecutor does not have absolute immunity from a due process claim based on his pre-probable cause fabrication of evidence
• stating that a prosecutor does not have absolute immunity from a due process claim based on his pre-probable cause fabrication of evidence

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).