Of course not. That'd be a 4th Amendment violation.
It's all fun and games to cops and prosecutors when they have mountains of immunity to hide behind, and gobs of other peoples' money to spend to prosecute someone (that then has to use his own money to defend himself).
Proving you're innocent is pretty damn hard when a prosecutor has a hard-on to prove you guilty. And most people lose their life savings or go heavily into debt to secure their freedom.
Hell, yes. Prosecutors and cops need accountability for false accusations. These are PEOPLE, the same as a false rape victim, ruining lives. They're making deliberate choices to do so. It's not a faceless machine, they're people.
As I said, if it can be proved the cops knew the defendant was innocent, fine, arrest them.
As a mythical example, remember the old tv series,
THE FUGITIVE? The Lt. Philip Gerard character, who arrested Dr. Kimble and pursued him after his escape. He honestly believed Kimble was guilty, and Kimble had been tried and convicted.
Should Gerard have been arrested and tried for his role in incarceration and persecuting an innocent man?
Not in my opinion. Gerard had tried to find the "one armed man," and after interviewing dozens, came to believe there was no such person. The jury agreed.
Despite being wrong, Lt. Gerard's actions were in good faith with the law.
Now ... in a mirror-universe version, an evil Philip Gerard who planted evidence at the crime scene to convict an innocent Richard Kimble, yea, arrest the sob!