Witness Immunity
Officers who lie under oath are immune from your § 1983 suit for their testimony — even if it's perjury.
What It Is
Witness immunity protects anyone who testifies in a judicial proceeding from § 1983 liability for that testimony. Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983) extended this protection to police officers who testify at trial.
This means: an officer who lies under oath at your criminal trial — fabricating events, exaggerating your conduct, denying use of force — is absolutely immune from your civil rights suit based on that testimony.
Why It Exists
The justification is that witnesses need to testify freely without fear of civil liability for what they say. The remedy for false testimony is supposed to be perjury prosecution and cross-examination, not civil suits.
In practice, perjury prosecutions of police officers are vanishingly rare.
The Workaround
While you can’t sue for the testimony itself, you may be able to sue for the underlying conduct that the testimony was about:
- Fabrication of evidence — If the officer fabricated evidence before trial (false reports, planted evidence), that pre-testimonial conduct may not be protected by witness immunity
- Conspiracy — If officers coordinated their stories before testifying, the agreement to fabricate may be actionable even if the testimony itself is immune
Rehberg v. Paulk, 566 U.S. 356 (2012) extended absolute immunity to grand jury testimony as well.
Key Cases
- Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983) — Police testimony at trial is absolutely immune
- Rehberg v. Paulk, 566 U.S. 356 (2012) — Grand jury testimony also absolutely immune