MURPHY, Circuit Judge. Officer Terrance Stuckey arrested Naya Abbey during a traffic stop. Stuckey testified at Abbey’s preliminary hearing that she refused to stop when he tried to pull her over. Abbey disagreed with these charges. But she could not tell her side of the story at trial because a state court indefinitely stayed her criminal case. Three years later, prosecutors disclosed dispatch tapes of Stuckey’s interactions with a dispatcher while he followed Abbey. Because these tapes allegedly supported Abbey’s version of events, the prosecutors dismissed the charges against her. Abbey and her son, D.H., then brought this suit against Stuckey and the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County (“Metro”) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. They alleged that Stuckey violated the Fourth Amendment during the traffic stop. And Abbey alleged that Metro violated its duty to disclose exculpatory evidence under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), by withholding the dispatch tapes for three years. The district court dismissed their complaint. This appeal raises a procedural question about § 1983’s statute of limitations and a substantive question about Brady’s scope. The procedural question asks: Did the applicable one- year statute of limitations start to run on the (earlier) date of the traffic stop or the (later) date of the disclosure of the dispatch tapes? In my view, even under the “discovery” rule of accrual, the statute of limitations began at the time of the traffic stop because Abbey knew of her injury and its source by then. She thus did not timely pursue her Fourth Amendment claims. The substantive question asks: Did Metro’s three-year delay in disclosing the dispatch tapes violate Brady? Like other circuit courts, I would answer “no” because Brady creates a trial right and prosecutors dismissed Abbey’s charges before trial. All this said, the district court did err by dismissing D.H.’s Fourth Amendment claims against Stuckey on its own initiative without notice. All told, I would affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.