TX: No 4A claim for malicious prosecution

There is no Fourth Amendment claim, let alone a clearly established one, for malicious prosecution. If it exists in the constitution, it would be through due process. McIntyre v. El Paso Indep. Sch. Dist., 2016 Tex. LEXIS 568 (June 24, 2016) (dissent):

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “courts may not award damages against a government official in his personal capacity unless ‘the official violated a statutory or constitutional right,’ and ‘the right was “clearly established” at the time of the challenged conduct.'” Lane v. Franks, 134 S. Ct. 2369, 2381 (2014) (quoting Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, 735 (2011)). Given the Fifth Circuit’s repeated holdings that there is “no Fourteenth Amendment ‘liberty interest’ or substantive due process right to be free from criminal prosecution unsupported by probable cause,”⁸ the McIntyres cannot assert the attendance officer violated a clearly established federal right. Qualified immunity shields the officer from the McIntyres’ section 1983 claim.

8. Cuadra v. Hous. Indep. Sch. Dist., 626 F.3d 808, 814 (5th Cir. 2010) (citing Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 270-71 (1994) (plurality op.)); see also Castellano v. Fragozo, 352 F.3d 939, 945 (5th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (“[W]e conclude that no such freestanding constitutional right to be free from malicious prosecution exists.”). But cf. Cole v. Carson, 802 F.3d 752, 773 (5th Cir. 2015) (“Where police intentionally fabricate evidence and successfully get someone falsely charged with a felony as cover for their colleagues’ actions, and the Fourth Amendment is unavailing, there may be a due process violation.”).