Source: cases/42usc1983/f4th-142-884-codrington-v-dolak.case
Case source: https://www.neochart.com/catalog/cases/f4th/volume_142/884/index.html
Given this evidence, Codrington has demonstrated a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the officers fabricated evidence and used that evidence to charge him with crimes.
Unlike the fabrication-of-evidence claim, which requires the act of using falsified evidence, malicious prosecution concerns prosecution without probable cause.
Putting aside the questions of fact regarding the allegedly fabricated evidence, the undisputed facts established probable cause for the officers to arrest and charge Codrington with possession of marijuana and possession of drug paraphernalia while possessing a firearm.
Therefore, pursuant to Ky. Rev. Stat. § 413.140(1)(a), Codrington’s § 1983 claims are governed by a one-year statute of limitations.
Because Codrington filed suit more than a year after these claims accrued, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants on these three claims.
Given our No. 24-5831 Codrington v. Dolak, et al. Page 14 revival of the fabrication-of-evidence claim, we vacate the district court’s Monell conclusions and remand for the district court to consider the merits in the first instance.
casedsl 1.2 # author: Flash1 (gemini-3.8-flash-high) # triaged-by: Fable (2026-11-10) case /f4th/142/884 name Codrington v. Dolak cite 142 F.4th 884 (2025) court United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit date 2025-07-09 url catalog/cases/f4th/volume_142/884/index.html source ir/caselaw/f4th_142.jsonl sha1=252f8f94e746f372ea854b4e8738eb93cc72e736 chars=35628 opinion maj : panel by Griffin @1400..35628 controlling ? opinion: the IR text is a single paragraph (slip-opinion layout); the span starts at "GRIFFIN, Circuit Judge." after the caption and counsel listing; footnotes 1 and 2 and page headers are embedded in the span. party officers : Officers Dolak, Blissett and Kirk (Louisville Metro Police Department) party metro : Louisville-Jefferson County Metro Government count fabrication : fabrication-of-evidence claim (planted methamphetamine and marijuana, photo given to the prosecutor) count malpros : malicious-prosecution claim count untimely : unlawful search and seizure, selective enforcement and false arrest / imprisonment claims count monell : Monell claims (custom of race-based traffic stops; failure to train) law 42usc1983 role applied posture civil; driver sued police officers, the former police chief and the metro government under § 1983 for unlawful search and seizure, selective enforcement, false arrest, malicious prosecution, fabrication of evidence and Monell liability; district court granted summary judgment to defendants on all claims; CA6 affirmed on the time-barred claims and on malicious prosecution, reversed on fabrication of evidence, vacated and remanded on Monell result mixed element deprivation.fourth-amendment : satisfied [triable] route _whole pattern drugs allegedly planted in a patrol car after three fruitless searches, undocumented by body cameras, and a photo with items not the arrestee's handed to the prosecutor party officers count fabrication fact @21100..21245 [supports] | The officers admit that the photo they submitted to the prosecutor contained items—a handgun and two magazines—that did not belong to Codrington. fact @22226..22381 [supports] | Moreover, throughout his criminal proceedings and this litigation, Codrington unequivocally denied possessing the methamphetamine found in Dolak’s vehicle. fact @20807..21001 [supports] | Notably, Kirk’s body camera “did not work throughout the entire incident,” and Blissett turned off his body camera about 45 minutes before they departed the gas station for the booking facility. fact @23681..23836 [cuts-against absent] | In fact, the district court lamented that “[a]lthough the police work here was dubious, there is no affirmative proof that the officers planted narcotics.” rule @19346..19498 [quoted] | To prevail on this claim, Codrington must show that defendants “fabricated evidence presented to a grand jury or to a judge determining probable cause.” held @23046..23226 | Given this evidence, Codrington has demonstrated a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the officers fabricated evidence and used that evidence to charge him with crimes. gloss The court places the claim under the Fourth Amendment, not the Due Process Clause, because Codrington was charged but never convicted on the allegedly fabricated evidence. Circumstantial evidence and his own unequivocal denial suffice at summary judgment; "affirmative proof" of planting is not required. ? route: no Fourth Amendment route covers fabrication of evidence used to charge (pre-conviction); the fabricated-evidence route exists only under deprivation.due-process-fair-trial, which this court says does not govern. element x-malicious-prosecution : not-satisfied [no-evidence] route _whole pattern undisputed, non-fabricated marijuana, grinder and firearm found in the car supplied probable cause even though the search had been held illegal party officers count malpros fact @21246..21379 [cuts-against] | And although Codrington admitted that the little baggie of marijuana came from his car, he testified that the bigger bag was not his. fact @28404..28726 [cuts-against] | Because the exclusionary rule does not forbid us from considering the indisputably non- fabricated evidence located in Codrington’s vehicle, we can rely upon the small amount of marijuana, marijuana grinder, and legal firearm seized from the vehicle to determine whether defendants had probable cause to arrest Codrington. fact @6811..6941 [supports] | The Jefferson County Circuit Court agreed and granted the motion to suppress before ultimately dismissing the charges against him. rule @25397..25557 | Unlike the fabrication-of-evidence claim, which requires the act of using falsified evidence, malicious prosecution concerns prosecution without probable cause. held @26132..26403 | Putting aside the questions of fact regarding the allegedly fabricated evidence, the undisputed facts established probable cause for the officers to arrest and charge Codrington with possession of marijuana and possession of drug paraphernalia while possessing a firearm. gloss The claim fails on the lack-of-probable-cause element alone. The court also holds, joining other circuits, that the exclusionary rule and fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree doctrine do not apply in § 1983 cases, so illegally seized evidence may establish probable cause. ? basis: summary judgment for defendants on undisputed facts; [no-evidence] per the basis rule, though the court treats probable cause here as established as a matter of law. defense statute-of-limitations : satisfied [law] route borrowed-state-period pattern Kentucky one-year period; claims accrued at the 2018 search or at the 2019 indictment and suit was filed in November 2021 party officers count untimely fact @10294..10409 [supports] | Codrington’s complaint challenges the unlawful search and seizure of his person, which occurred on August 10, 2018. fact @10542..10637 [supports] | But he did not file his complaint until November 3, 2021, more than two years after the search. fact @17429..17593 [supports] | As explained above, Kentucky initiated legal process against Codrington, at the latest, on February 12, 2019, when a grand jury charged him with his alleged crimes. fact @10785..10916 [supports] | Indeed, Codrington conceded at oral argument that, with respect to the search and seizure of his person, this claim is time-barred. rule @9358..9490 | Therefore, pursuant to Ky. Rev. Stat. § 413.140(1)(a), Codrington’s § 1983 claims are governed by a one-year statute of limitations. held @9610..9787 | Because Codrington filed suit more than a year after these claims accrued, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants on these three claims. gloss Search-and-seizure claim accrued at the search; selective-enforcement and false-arrest claims accrued when legal process began (grand jury charge). The fabrication and malicious-prosecution claims were timely because they accrue on favorable termination (n. 2) and are not part of this block. A new "continuing trespass" accrual argument was forfeited. element policy : not-reached route _derivative party metro count monell rule @29909..29997 [quoted] | “there can be no liability under Monell without an underlying constitutional violation.” held @30454..30687 | Given our No. 24-5831 Codrington v. Dolak, et al. Page 14 revival of the fabrication-of-evidence claim, we vacate the district court’s Monell conclusions and remand for the district court to consider the merits in the first instance. gloss The district court rejected the Monell claims only because no underlying violation survived; with the fabrication claim revived, the judgment on Monell is vacated and the merits are left to the district court.