Editing False arrest (section)

===Police officers===
In the United States and other jurisdictions, police officers and other government officials are liable for clear deprivation of rights,<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1983 |title=42 U.S. Code § 1983 - Civil action for deprivation of rights |quote=Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.}}</ref> but are partially shielded from false arrest lawsuits through the doctrine of [[qualified immunity]], when such a violation qualifies as "not obvious," by a [[US Supreme Court]] test.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/457/800/case.html |title= Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 |year=1982 |publisher=US Supreme Court }}</ref>  This doctrine can protect officials from liability when engaged in legal grey areas including qualifying discretionary actions in the arrests of suspects.  However, the officer's actions must still not violate "clearly established law," or this protection is void.  This includes executing an arrest warrant against the wrong person. False statements by public servants to justify or cover up an illegal arrest are another violation of federal law.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1001 |title=18 U.S. Code § 1001 - Statements or entries generally |quote=a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully— (1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact; (2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or (3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry; shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both. If the matter relates to an offense under chapter 109A, 109B, 110, or 117, or section 1591, then the term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be not more than 8 years.}}</ref>

An example of this doctrine being tested is ''Sorrell v. McGuigan'' ([[4th Cir.]] 2002).  A police officer (McGuigan) detained a man shopping at a mall (Sorrell) based on the description of a suspect who had committed a theft at a store nearby, and proceeded to [[Terry stop|search him for weapons]].  The store owner who reported the theft arrived at the scene and stated Sorrell and his friends were not the ones who had stolen from him.  However, the officer still arrested Sorrell for possession of a concealed weapon, because he was carrying a folding knife with a 3 inch long blade in his pocket.  In Maryland, non-automatic folding knives are not considered weapons under state law regardless of their length, and the lack of length limit had been upheld multiple times in the state's [[Maryland Court of Appeals|highest court]].  However, the officer erroneously believed the knife to be a weapon.  Sorrell was released immediately after booking and was never prosecuted as there was technically no crime, and sued the police officer for false arrest.  The officer's qualified immunity was denied by the court, and this decision was upheld in the US Court of Appeals.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/Unpublished/011565.U.pdf |title=Sorrell v. McGuigan  |work=United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit |access-date=2008-07-22}}</ref>