to Disclose Brady Exculpatory Evidence Furthermore, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants cannot avail themselves of qualified immunity because they failed to disclose Brady exculpatory evidence relating to (1) the lack of association between Carreon and Plaintiff, (2) the collusive origin of Carreon’s confession and identification, and (3) Carreon’s presumed recantation. PL’s Resp. to Defs.’ Mot. for Summ. J. 15-17, 24. The Court agrees. Under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), the government may not withhold evidence that is favorable to a criminal defendant. United States v. Walters, 351 F.3d 159, 169 (5th Cir.2003). This constitutional mandate rightfully extends to police officers. See, e.g., Geter v. Fortenberry, 849 F.2d 1550, 1559 (5th Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>); see also Brown v. Miller, 519 F.3d 231,
holding that a police officer cannot avail himself of a qualified immunity defense if he  deliberately conceals exculpatory evidence for such activity violates clearly established constitutional principles holding that in determining whether a state officer is entitled to qualified immunity for  1983 purposes courts may not consider whether the constitutional right was clearly established before determining first that a constitutional right was violated holding the right to record police activity on public property was not clearly established holding that although jury found officer not to have had probable cause for arrest officer was entitled to immunity because law was not clearly established as to circumstances in which officer found himself holding that defendant is entitled to qualified immunity because plaintiff failed to allege the violation of a clearly established constitutional right