Albright v. Oliver

Background

Kevin Albright, a man who surrendered to police after learning of an Illinois arrest warrant, was released on bail with a condition he not leave the State. A police detective, Roger Oliver, testified at a preliminary hearing that an informant said Albright sold a substance that looked like an illegal drug. The court initially found probable cause to bind Albright over for trial, but a later hearing dismissed the charge because it did not state an offense under Illinois law. Albright sued the detective under 42 U.S.C. §1983, alleging a substantive due process right to be free from prosecution without probable cause. The District Court dismissed the complaint, and the Seventh Circuit affirmed.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court addressed whether the Fourteenth Amendment’s substantive due process protects a right to avoid prosecution without probable cause. The Court declined to create such a new substantive right. Instead it said the Fourth Amendment — which requires probable cause for searches, seizures, and warrants — is the proper constitutional source to analyze pretrial deprivations of liberty. The Court noted Albright did not press a Fourth Amendment claim here and therefore did not decide whether a Fourth Amendment action would succeed.

Real world impact

The decision prevents recognition of a broad new substantive-due-process claim against those who initiate prosecutions. It directs people who say they were wrongly prosecuted to pursue Fourth Amendment claims or state-law remedies like malicious prosecution suits. The ruling affirmed dismissal of Albright’s federal civil-rights claim but left open other legal avenues for relief.

Dissents or concurrances

Justices Ginsburg, Scalia, Souter, and Kennedy wrote separate opinions agreeing on parts of the outcome but differing on reasoning. Justice Stevens dissented, arguing the Fourteenth Amendment should protect against baseless prosecutions and allow a §1983 remedy.