Due Process

Due Process Clause requires prompt post-seizure hearing for personal vehicle seized because of alleged connection to crime or public nuisance, two weeks is appropriate time frame for hearing.

Conviction for drug possession did not preclude claim of deprivation of liberty for fabricating evidence of drug sale; plaintiff not required to show additional custody or conviction based on sale charge; Fourteenth Amendment claim based on fabricated evidence does not require custody or conviction; fabricated evidence claim requires: “that an (1) investigating official (2) fabricate[d] information (3) that is likely to influence a jury's verdict, (4) forward[ed] that information to prosecutors, and (5) the plaintiff suffe[red] a deprivation of life, liberty, or property as a re

In suit by children of wrongfully convicted father, court holds substantive due process right to family integrity is not implicated whenever a state deprives a child of interaction with parent through wrongful incarceration; claim requires that official act with culpable state of mind directed at family relationship.

During welfare check, deputy made explicit sexual remarks and demands, commanded plaintiff to expose her breasts, vagina, and clitoris and then masturbated to ejaculation in front of her; remarkably, the court finds that the plaintiff was not “seized” and thus had no claim under the Fourth Amendment; the court does find that plaintiff’s right to bodily integrity was violated in violation of substantive due process and finds, contrary to the district court (Judge Michael Joseph Truncale’s conscience was not shocked), that the defendant’s conduct shocked the conscience even though

Plaintiff claimed officers fabricated evidence and deliberately deceived the court by concealing evidence of other individuals who had confessed involvement with the murder and coercing and concealing other witnesses, fabricating physical evidence, and concealing evidence that supported an alibi defense; officers argued that the claimed constitutional rights did not exist at the time (1992) because Brady had not been decided; court denied qualified immunity because it found clearly established the rights to be free from being framed by fabricated evidence and perjured testimony and

Plaintiff had no cause of action under § 1983 against officer who allegedly lied during state administrative proceeding concerning suspension of plaintiff’s driver’s license; state provided sufficient postdeprivation process to foreclose procedural due process claim; officer’s conduct was unauthorized under Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517 (1984).

• Plaintiff sues following acquittal on murder charge; court finds probable cause and affirms summary judgment for defendants on malicious prosecution claim, but finds viable due process claim based on witness’s affidavit that officers induced him to identify plaintiff as guilty party, finds district court erred in concluding that affidavit was incredible as a matter of law; probable cause is not a defense to a due process claim based on fabrication of evidence; due process claim does not fail even though witness did not testify at plaintiff’s criminal trial: “Notwithstanding the nomencl