There's an October 3rd 2020 update further down the page.

>A federal judge for the Southern District of New York ruled on Oct. 3, 2020, that Fast Company senior news editor Marcus Baram must reveal his confidential source within two weeks.

Looks like Peahivar admitted to at least the arrest. Unclear if the arrest was for something totally different than the fabricated report states, or something very similar. And who knows why the report was fabricated, though I don't think it's right to fabricate a report, perhaps there's a "more honest" explanation than someone making this all up wholesale (like fabricating some minor details to maintain anonymity type of reasoning, I don't know). The relevant quote:

Pishevar confirmed his arrest in a statement to Fast Company.

There could potentially be an even less honest explanation. Perhaps the complaint was entirely vexatious, perhaps the person who laid it is the same person who fabricated the documents and sent them to FC.

Yeah that's right. I think we'd need more information to do anything more than speculate at this point. Going further, I feel like fabricating a police report to some degree comes with a presumption of moral blameworthiness. That is, all else being equal, I would tend to draw the inference that the fabricator is up to no good.

If you scroll down a magistrate ruled a couple weeks ago that the journalist must disclose their source.

Pishevar's conduct doesn't really have anything to do with the story. The issue is about the circumstances under which a journalist can be compelled to reveal their sources, and how that will effect the incentives for other sources on other issues to come forward with (actual) information that the public should know about.

Journalists should not protect their sources if they lie or fabricate information. Otherwise, it seems like the perfect loophole for committing slander and libel. Don't directly publish the information yourself, but instead convince a journalist to be a confidential source.

I think there is a pretty big line on the spectrum of "lying and fabricating," from reading/erasing a name on a report and lying about it to maintain anonymity (not morally blameworthy to an extent that the person shouldn't be protected, I don't think) and totally making up events to cast someone in a false light (very morally blameworthy). I don't think you can draw a bright line rule like "[j]ournalists should not protect their sources if they lie or fabricate information" because of this spectrum.

There is an update from oct 3rd, 2020