The Circuit Courts of Appeals are in conflict on the
question of whether and when a police officer may be held
liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for a violation of Brady v.
Maryland , 373 U.S. 83 (1963). The Circuits are also in
conflict on the question of whether and when a police
officer may be held liable for a fair trial violation based
on a criminal court's admission of a witness's in-court
identification of the defendant, when it follows an overly
suggestive pretrial witness identification procedure, in
violation of Manson v. Brathwaite , 432 U.S. 98 (1977).

While criminal court judges and prosecutors enjoy
absolute immunity from damages for claimed violations
of such fair trial rights, police officers do not. Petitioner
Donald Olsen, a retired Detroit police detective,
investigated a 2003 shooting and was sued in 2018 for
$75 million. The district court denied qualified immunity.
On interlocutory appeal, a divided Sixth Circuit panel
affirmed, with three separate opinions including a full
dissent and a lengthy concurrence that questioned the
result and identified a conflict with this Court's decision in
Vega v. Tekoh , 597 U.S. 134 (2022). This petition presents
an opportunity to resolve these important questions, which
routinely spawn exceedingly costly claims:

I.
Is a police officer liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for the
nondisclosure of material exculpatory evidence, absent
a showing of bad faith, and was such a right clearly
established in 2003 with respect to a police officer who was
investigating a shooting, and who inadvertently did not
disclose to the prosecutor a larger version of a mugshot
photo of an individual whom the defendant already knew
and believed to be the "real shooter"?

II.
Is a police officer liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for
violating the fair trial right of a criminal defendant when
a criminal court permits a witness to make an in-court
identification of the defendant following the officer's overly
suggestive pretrial witness identification procedure, and
was such a right clearly established in 2003 with respect
to a police officer conducting a single-photo show-up
where: the identifying victim already knew the defendant
he was identifying, neither the prosecutor nor trial judge
expressed any constitutional concern, defense counsel
did not object at trial to the identification evidence, and
a three-judge panel ruled on direct appeal that even
if the defendant had objected, the witness's in-court
identification of the defendant still would have been
admissible without violating Salter's constitutional rights?

Is a police officer liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for nondisclosure of material exculpatory evidence and for violating fair trial rights through suggestive identification procedures?