T h is C ross -A p p ea l r aises n o issue s n o t i m p li ca ted b ythe A p p ell an t’ s * b ri e f. 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### Ju ly19,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt PU BL I SH UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT
T A J B E C K E R , M .D .,

P l ai nti ff-A pp el l ant- C ross A ppel l ee, v. N os . 05- 4070 and 05- 4096 * J . DEN I S KRO LL, J EFF W RI GH T, T E RR Y AL L E N, P h . D. , GOR DON VA N B ALLEG OI E, a n d M I CH ELLE H E R B E R T , i n t hei ri ndi vi dual , offi ci al and repr esent at i ve cap aci t i es,

D efen dan t s- A pp el l ees- C ross A pp el l ants . GARY R. EVANS, M ARK S HURTLE F F , DAV I D GA RDNER, JO H N D O E S 1 -2 0 , in th e ir in d iv id u a l, offi ci al and repr esent at i ve cap aci t i es,

D efen dan t s- A pp el l ees.
T HE AS S OC I AT I ON OF AM E RI CA N PH Y SI CI A N S & SU RG EO N S,

A m i cus C ur i ae.T he H onor abl e C l ai r e V . E agan, C hi ef J udge, U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ct ** C our tforthe N orthern D i s tr i ctof O kl ahoma, s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. -2- AP P EA L F ROM THE UNI TE D S TA TE S DI S TR I CT COURT

F OR THE DI S TR I CT OF UT AH ( D. C. NO . 2 : 0 2 - CV - 2 4 - DA K) R obertR . W al l ace , K i r t on & M cC onki e, Sal tL ake Ci ty , U t ah, forPl ai nt i ffA ppel l ant - C r os s A ppel l ee. D ebr a J . M oor e, A s s i s t antU t ah A t t or neyG ener al , Sal tL ake Ci ty , U t ah, for D efen dan t s- A pp el l ees- C ross A pp el l ants . J . C l i ffor d Pet er s en, A s s i s t antU t ah A t t orneyG ener al , Sal tL ake Ci ty , U t ah, for D efen dan t s- A pp el l ees. A ndr ew L . Schl afl y , FarH i l l s , N ew J er s ey , on br i ef forA m i cus C ur i ae. B efo re TY M KOVI CH , Mc WI L L I A MS , C i r cui tJ udges , and EA GAN , D i s tr i ct J udge. ** TY M KOVI CH , C i r cui tJ udge.

T aj B e c k e r is a m e d ica l d o c to r in S t. G e o rg e , U tah , w h o p a rticip a ted in U t ah’ s M edi cai d pr ogr am. B etw een 1998 a nd 2001, s he w as i nves t i gat ed by U ta h ’s M e d ic a id F ra u d C o n tr o l U n it ( M F C U ) fo r a lle g e d b illin g ir re g u la ri tie s . T he i nves t i gat i on cul m i nat ed w i th the fi l i ng of a c i vi l compl ai ntand cr i m i nal char ges . T hos e cha r ges w er e l at erdi s m i s s ed bys t at e pr os ecut or s conce rned about th e m e th o d s M F C U u s e d to o b ta in re c o rd s a n d a s s e s s B e c k e r’ s b illin g p ra c tic e s .-3-

A f te r t h e c h a rg e s w e re d is m is s e d , B e c k e r b ro u g h t c la im s u n d e r 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 3 , alle g in g th a t th e M F C U in v e stig a tio n w a s a sh a m to fo rc e h e r to p a yc iv il penal t i es t o avoi d cr i m i nal pr os ecut i on. H erl aw s ui tw as bas ed on s ever al fede r al and s t at e theor i es , w hi ch s he has di s t i l l ed on appe al t o the fol l ow i ng: ( 1) m al i ci ous pr os ecut i on underthe Four th and Four t eenth A m endment s ; ( 2) o u tra g e o u s c o n d u c t in v io latio n o f su b sta n tiv e d u e p ro c e ss u n d e r th e F o u rte e n th A m e n d m e n t; (3 ) re talia tio n u n d e r th e F irst A m e n d m e n t; an d (4 ) lib e l u n d e r sta te l a w. Forthe r eas ons di s cus s ed her ei n, w e A FFIRM the di s tr i ctcour t ’ s gr antof s um m aryj udgm entt o the defendant s as t o the Four th and Four t eenth A m endment cl ai m s , and w e R E V E R SE and R E M A N D the Fi r s tA m endmentr et al i at i on and s ta te la w lib e l c la im s . I . Fac t ualBackg r ound B ecke ri s a boar d- cert i fi ed neur ol ogi s tpr act i ci ng i n St . G eor ge, U t ah. H er cl ai m s ar i se out of a cri m i nal i nv est i gati on and prosecuti on byM F C U , a t ask for ce a s s i gned t o combat i ng M edi cai d fr aud i n U t ah. T he M FC U i nves t i gat i on cent er ed on a s us pi ci on thatB ecke r“up- coded” orover - bi l l ed the governm entforU p- codi ng i s over - bi l l i ng of a pa r t i cul arki nd: i ti s t he pr act i ce of bi l l i ng 1 th e g o v e rn m e n t fo r a m o re e x p e n siv e m e d ica l se rv ice th a n th e se rv ice a c tu a lly pr ovi ded the M edi cai d pat i ent . B eca us e M edi cai d has a s peci al bi l l i ng code for th o u sa n d s o f

in d iv id u a l m e d ica l p ro c e d u re s, th e ter m “ u p -c o d in g ” is u se d to ind icate the u se o f a h igh er c o d e in th e b il li n g than is j u sti fied b ythe p roc ed u re per form ed. -4- serv ices p erfo rm ed fo r M ed icaid p ati en ts in h er ca re. T h e fac ts of this case are 1 b e s tu n d e r s t o o d c h r o n o l o g i c a l l y. M F C UB egi ns an Inves t igat i on and Subpoenas B ecker ’s R ecords In e arlyto m id-N o v em b er 1 9 9 8 , B ec k er’s b il li n g s to M ed icaid w ere flag g ed b yM F C U rese arc h an aly st T erryA ll en . A ll en co n clud ed that B ec k er’s bi l l s s how ed evi dence of pos s i bl e up- codi ng. A l l en’ s w or k w as t he bas i s foran in itia l in v e s tig a tio n b yS e rg e a n t J e ff W ri g h t, th e c h ie f

in v e s tig a to r fo r M F C U . W r i ght ’ s i nves t i gat i on al l egedl ys uppor t ed A l l en’ s concl us i on thatB ecke rm ay have up- coded. A s a r es ul t , J . D eni s K r ol l , t he A s s i s t antU t ah A t t orneyG ener al wh o s e r v e d a s M F CU’ s l e a d p r o s e c u t o r , s o u g h ta n d r e c e i v e d p e r mi s s i o n f r o m a st at e j ud ge to i ssue subp oen as for B ecker’s m edical recor ds. O n t he morni ng of N ovember17, 1998, W r i ghtand M FC U m edi cal i nves t i gat orM i chel l e H ebert - Snow arr i ved unannounc ed atB ecke r ’ s offi ce a nd demanded t hats he pr oduce c ert ai n m edi cal r ecor ds forcopy i ng. T he s ubpoena r eques t ed bi l l i ng r ecor ds forfor ty - s even r andoml y - s el ect ed pat i ent s betw een 1995 and 1998. W r i ghti nform ed B ecke rt hats i nce s he had s i gned a pr ovi der agr eementw i th M edi cai d, he w as ent i t l ed t o the r ecor ds . B ecke ri nform ed W r i ghtI ti s w or th not i ng thatSal tL ake Ci tyi s appr oxi m at el y300 m i l es 2 nor theas tof St . G eor ge. -5- thats he w oul d onl ypr oduce the r ecor ds pur s uantt o a s ubpoena. W r i ghtthen pr ovi ded B ecke rw i th w hatappea r ed t o be a faci al l yval i d s ubpoena forthe r ecor ds . T he s ubpoena pr ovi ded thatB ecke rcoul d r efus e t o tur n overthe r ecor ds i m m ediat el yand app ear a few day s l at er i n S al tL ake C i tyi f she w anted t o co ntes t th e su b p o e n a . A f

ter re v iew in g th e su b p o e n a , B e c k e r c h o se n o t to c h a llen g e it 2 an d instructed h er staff to p rod u ce the re co rds im m ed iat ely . W ri g h t and o thers fr om M FC U r emoved and copi ed doze ns of pat i entr ecor ds , w hi ch theyr etur ned t o B ecke r ’ s offi ce l at erthatday . H ebert - Snow per form ed an i ni t i al r evi ew of the copi ed r ecor ds and conc l uded thatB ecke rhad l i kel yup- coded. M F C UThre at ens P r os ecut i on and P r opos es Set t l em entof the C harges B e c k e r w a s th e n a sk e d to c o m e to S a lt L a k e C ityto m e e t w ith K ro ll t o d isc u ss th e in v e stig a tio n . O n Ja n u a ry2 0 , 1 9 9 9 , B e c k e r tra v e led to S a lt L a k e C ity and metw i th K r ol l , W r i ght , and H ebert - Snow . A ccor di ng t o B ecke r , t hi s m eet i ng w a s fi r s ta n i n t e r v i e w a n d th e n a n i m p r o m p tu s e t t l e m e n tc o n fe r e n c e . S p e c i fi c a l l y, Be c k e rc l a i ms s h e wa s t o l d th a ti f s h e d i d n o tp a y$ 1 0 7 , 0 0 0 t o M F CU wi th i n t wo w eeks , s he w oul d fac e cr i m i nal pr os ecut i on. I n hi s ow n w or ds , K r ol l t es t i fi ed th a t h e in fo rm e d B e c k e r o f th e “ p a ra d e o f

h o rro rs” a n d “ h o w b a d it co u ld g e t” if M FC U fi l ed cr i m i nal char ges . Supp. A pp. A pl e. K r ol l , etal . 294–97.-6-

B e c k e r m a in tain e d sh e w a s in n o c e n t o f a n yu p -c o d in g a n d re f u se d to se ttl e w i th M FC U . B ecke rar gued t o K r ol l thatthe medi cal expert s w ho had r evi ew ed h e r b ill in g p ra c tice s w e re n o t n e u ro lo g ists a n d th e re fo re h a d n o e x p e rtise to det erm i ne the val i di tyof herbi l l i ng s t at ement s . Fol l ow i ng thi s excha nge, and w i thoutt el l i ng B ecke r , M FC U contr act ed w i th D r . V i ne, an i ndepende nt neur ol ogi s t , t o r evi ew B ecke r ’ s r ecor ds . V i ne conc l uded thatB ecke r ’ s bi l l i ng pr act i ces w er e appr opr i at e. I n A pr i l 1999, K r ol l agai n cont act ed B ecke rand offer ed t o w ai ve any cr i m i nal pr os ecut i on i f B ecke rw oul d pay$49, 605 t o M FC U . K r ol l pr ovi ded B e c k e r w ith a d ra f

t c ri m in a l c o m p la in t a g a in s t h e r s e e k in g $ 6 4 6 ,0 0 0 in d a m a g e s . B e c k e r a g a in m a in ta in e d h e r i n n o c e n c e a n d re f u s e d to s e ttle . M F C UF iles a n dWith dra w s C ivil S u it O n J une 24, 1999, K r ol l fi l ed a c i vi l s ui tagai ns tB ecke r , as ki ng for$25, 000 i n damages pl us fi nes and i nves t i gat i ve cos t s . A ccor di ng t o K r ol l , he fi l ed the su it as p a rt o f

se ttl e m e n t d isc u ss io n s w ith B e c k e r, an d h e d ism iss e d th e c iv il a c tio n les s th a n tw o w e e k s la ter o n Ju ly7 , 1 9 9 9 w h e n se ttl e m e n t fa iled to m at er i al i ze. F o llo w in g th e d ism iss a l o f th e c iv il ac tio n , B e c k e r b e g a n to p u b licly r es pond t o t he M FC U i nves t i gat i on. Fi r s t , i n N ovember1999, s he fi l ed a N ot i ceA N ot i ce of C l ai m i s r equi r ed underU t ah l aw w her e anyci t i zen s eeks 3 re c o v e ryf

ro m a n a rm o f

th e sta te g o v e rn m e n t. T he part i es s eem t o di s agr ee a boutw hen the tr ans fert o the A t t or ney 4 G e n e ra l’s O ffice o c c u rre d . D e fe n d a n ts’ b rie f su g g e sts th e tra n sfe r to o k p lac e in J ul y1999. A pl es . K r ol l etal . B r . 20. B ecke r ’ s br i ef doe s notpr ovi de a da t e for the tr ans fer , butG ar dners t at ed i n hi s depos i t i on thatcontr ol of M FC U w as tra n sfe rre d to th e U tah A tto rn e yG e n e ra l’s O ffice a f ter h e b e g a n w o rk in g th e re in D ece m ber1999. A pl t . A pp. 224. T o the ext entt hi s es t abl i s hes a fa ctual i s s ue, w e vi ew i ti n t he l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o B ecke r . W e ther efor e as s um e the tr ans fert ook pl ace i n D ece m ber1999 aft erB ecke rbegan s peaki ng publ i cl yabout M F C U ’s t act i cs. -7- of C l ai m agai ns t M FC U . She and herhus band al s o i ni t i at ed a l et t er - w r i t i ng 3 campai gn i n w hi ch theycont act ed the G overnor , fede r al and s t at e l egi s l at or s , and otheroffi ci al s , det ai l i ng w hatB ecke rbel i eved w er e unpr ofes s i onal i nves t i gat i ve pr act i ces and bul l y i ng t act i cs of M FC U . O nl yone l et t eri n the r ecor d, s entt o t he C hai r m an of the U t ah Senat e A ppr opr i at i ons C om m i t t ee, and copi ed t o the C h a irm a n o f

th e U tah H o u se A p p ro p ria tio n s C o m m itt e e a n d th e U tah G o v e rn o r, is d a te d p ri o r t o th e filin g o f c ri m in a l c h a rg e s a g a in s t B e c k e r. T he s t at e dec i ded i n 1999 t o tr ans ferover s i ghtof M FC U fr om t he U t ah D epart m entof Publ i c Safe tyt o t he A t t orneyG ener al ’ s O ffi ce, a tr ans fert he di s tr i ctcourtattr i but ed t o pol i t i cal pr es s ur e fr om rur al doct or s cl ai m i ng m altrea tm en t byM F C U . In D ec em b er 1 9 9 9 , D av id G ard n er too k o v er K roll ’s pos i t i on as the l ead pr os ecut orforM FC U . K r ol l beca m e i nt er i m di r ect orof M F CU . 4-8-

M F C UF i l es a C r i m i nalC ompl ai nt O n J anuary11, 2000, M FC U fi l ed fe l onychar ges i n s t at e courtconce rni ng B ecke r ’ s bi l l i ng pr act i ces . T hats ame day , B ecke r ’ s hus band t es t i fi ed befor e a st at e l egis l at i ve co m m i t t ee abo ut M F C U ’s al l eged prosecutor i al abu ses. A cc o rdin g to G ard n er, he m ad e the d ec isi o n to fil e c ri m inal ch arg es b ase d in p art o n a n i n fo r ma t i o n a n d a ffi d a v i ts i g n e d b yW r i g h t , o n e o f t h e o r i g i n a l M F CU i nves t i gat or s on the ca s e. G ar dneral s o di s cus s ed the ca s e w i th s ever al other prosecutor s, i ncludi ng his supervi sors , befo re he decided t o fil e charges aga i nst B ecke r . Shor t l yaft erthe cr i m i nal char ges w er e fi l ed, W r i ghtw as t r ans ferr ed out o f M F C U to a d iffe ren t dep artm en t al tho u g h h e later t esti fied at B ec k er’s pr el i m i naryhear i ng. A tthe pr el i m i naryhear i ng on J ul y11, 2000, t he pr os ecut i on pr es ent ed evi dence i n s uppor tof the cha r ges . Pr i ort o the defens e pr es ent i ng anyevi dence , the courts t at ed, “I bel i eve the St at e has pr ovi ded s uffi ci entevi dence on eac h of th o se e lem e n ts a n d , ac c o rd in g ly , I b in d y o u o v e r.” S u p p . A p p . A p le. K ro ll, e t al. 5 8 0 . A fter m ak ing this st atem en t, the c o u rtthen ac k n o w ledg ed that the c o u rt “pr obabl yact ed pr ematur el yi n doi ng thi s bi nd over ” bec aus e B ecke rw as not g iv e n a n o p p o rt u n ity to te s tif y . Id. B ecke r , t hr ough heratt orney , t hen chos e not t o pr es entanyevi dence atthe pr el i m i naryhear i ng gi ven the court ’ s ear l i erB ecke rdi s put es thats he w as everactual l ybound overfort r i al under 5 s t a t e l a w b e c a u s e th e j u d g e d i d n o ts i g n th e r e q u i r e d mi n u t e e n try . F o ru n k n o wn rea so n s, a m inu te en tryw as stam p ed w ith the s tat e jud g e’s sign ature b ythe c lerk o f c o u rtsev era l m o n ths a fter the m inu te en tryw as o ri g inallyen tered . T h e c o u rt c ler k w h o sta m p e d th e m in u te e n tryw ith th e ju d g e ’s s ig n a tu re c a n n o t re c a ll w hethers he s t amped t he mi nut e entryatt he r eques tof s om eone e l s e oron her ow n vol i t i on. N everthel es s , the courtcl erk’ s t es t i m onyi s cl eart hats he di d not s ta m p th e m in u te e n tr ya t th e d ir e c tio n o f th e ju d g e . -9- sta tem e n t. 5 M F C UWith dra w s C rim in a l C o mp la in t D u e to Irr eg u la rities in Inves t igat i on Shor t l yaft erthe pr el i m i naryhear i ng, G ar dnerbeca m e aw ar e of s ever al irreg u lari ti es in the in v esti g ati o n . In p arti cu lar, G ard n er learn ed that B ec k er’s m e d ica l re c o rd s w e re n o t o b tain e d v o lu n tar ilya s W rig h t h a d o rig in a llyled h im to bel i eve. G ar dneral s o di s cover ed thatt her e neve rhad bee n a r eturn of s ervi ce fi l e d wi th th e c o u r twi th r e s p e c tt o t h e s u b p o e n a s , a s r e q u i r e d u n d e rUt a h l a w, and thatkeym eet i ngs betw een Beckerand M FC U m ember s had notbeen document ed, i ncl udi ng the J anuaryand A pr i l 1999 s et t l ementoffe r s . G ar dner fur therdi s cover ed thatM FC U had cons ul t ed w i th D r . V i ne, and thatD r . V i ne had fo u n d n o irreg u lari ti es in B ec k er’s b il li n g an d M ed icaid c o d ing p rac ti ce s. D r. V i ne’ s r evi ew and conc l us i ons r egar di ng B ecke r ’ s bi l l i ng r ecor ds w er e not document ed i n t he M FC U cas e fi l e and w er e neve rpr ovi ded t o B ecke ras pot ent i al excul pat oryevi dence . B eca us e of thes e i rr egul ar i t i es , G ar dner-10-

concl uded thatt he keyevi dence w oul d l i kel ybe s uppr es s ed pr i ort o tr i al and di s m i s s ed the cr i m i nal cas e w i th pr ej udi ce on Sept ember6, 2000. B eckerC l ear ed atA dm i nis tr at i ve Hear i ng butJudged on Wor ld Wi de Web G ard n er instea d referred the c ase to the U tah D ivisi o n o f H ea lth C are F i nan ci ng for adm i nis trat i ve acti on . A n ag encyact i on w as broug ht agai nst B e c k e r t o re c o v e r $ 5 ,0 0 0 a lle g e d ly co lle c te d b ym e a n s o f f ra u d u le n t u p -c o d in g . A ft era hea r i ng on t he mer i t s , B ecke rw as found t o ow e nothi ng. O n Jan u ary1 2 , 2 0 0 1 , M F C U n ev erthe less p u b li sh ed an ac co u n t of B ec k er’s ca se o n it s w eb sit e a s a p art of it s statutoril y -req u ir ed an n u al rep o rt . T h e re p o rt w as w or ded i n a w ayt o m ake i tappea ras t hough B ecke rw as gui l tyof up- codi ng des pi t e the di s m i s s al of the cr i m i nal cas e and the l at eradmi ni s tr at i ve det erm i nat i on i n favorof B ecke r . T he r el evants ect i on of the r eportw as dr aft ed byG ardner atthe requ estof G al e E van s, w ho becam e M F C U dir ect or i n A ug ust 2000. M FC U r emoved t he r eportfr om i t s w ebs i t e on M ay19, 2001, aft er compl ai nt s fr om B ecke rof i t s l i bel ous natur e. B ecker ’s A l l egat i ons R egar di ng D ef endants ’Mot i vat i on B ecke rcl ai m ed i n di s tr i ctcourtt hatM FC U engage d i n a s cheme t o char ge i nnocentphy s i ci ans i n rur al ar eas w i th M edi cai d fr aud t o i ncr eas e fr aud r ecove r i es forM FC U . B ecke ras s er t s t hatt he i nves t i gat i on of herand otherrur al d o c to rs b e g a n o n lya f ter d e p a rtm e n t su p e rv iso rs p lac e d p re ss u re o n M F C U to i m pr ove i t s fi nanci al r ecove r i es . M FC U i s r equi r ed t o s ubm i tquart er l ys t at i s t i cal-11-

r eport s t o the fe der al O ffi ce of the I ns pect orG ener al –St at e M edi cai d O ver s i ght and Pol i cy , w hi ch bas es fi nanci al gr ant s i n par ton fr aud r ecove ryper form ance and ca n de- cert i fyM edi cai d fr aud uni t s on the bas i s of poorr ecove r i es . B ecke r cl ai m s thi s dynami c putfi nanci al pr es s ur e on M FC U t o j us t i fyi t s exi s t ence and caus ed mem ber s of M FC U t o pr os ecut e i nnocentper s ons , part i cul ar l yrur al d o c to rs w h o w e re m o re lik e lyto p a yth e re q u e ste d fin e s th a n in c u r th e h ig h c o sts a s s o c i a t e d wi th fi g h t i n g a l e g a l b a t t l e wi th M F CU . I I . P roce dural H i s t ory B ecke ri ni t i al l yfi l ed s ui ti n J anuary2002 i n the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ct C o u rtfo r th e D istri ct of U tah u n d er 4 2 U . S . C . § 1 9 8 3 an d stat e law . H er third and fi nal amended compl ai nt , fi l ed i n J anuary2004 al l eged ni ne ca us es of ac t i on: ( 1) deni al of due pr oces s ; ( 2) ext or t i on/br i bery ; ( 3) r et al i at i on fors peaki ng outon a m att er o f p u b li c c o n ce rn; (4) li b el; (5) m ali ciou s p rose cu ti o n ; ( 6 ) de clarato ry j udgm ent ; ( 7) i nj unct i on; ( 8) cons pi r acy ; and ( 9) s ubs t ant i ve due pr oces s . T he d istric t co u rt issu e d tw o ru lin g s o n su m m a ryju d g m e n t. F irst, in O c to b e r 2 0 0 4 it gr ant ed s um m aryj udgm enti n favorof al l defe ndant s on al l cl ai m s exce ptt he m a lic io u s p ro s e c u tio n a n d re la te d c o n s p ir a c yc la im s a g a in s t K ro ll a n d W ri g h t. B e c ke r v . Kro ll , 3 4 0 F . S u p p . 2 d 1 2 3 0 (D . U ta h 2 0 0 4 ). I n M ar ch 2005, the di s tr i ctcourtt hen gr ant ed K r ol l and W r i ght ’ s R enew ed M o tio n fo r S u m m a ryJu d g m e n t as to th e re m a in in g c laim s o n th e g ro u n d th a t a m al i ci ous pr os ecut i on cl ai m cannotpr ocee d w hen the pl ai nt i ff w as never“s ei zed”B e c k e r h a s w a iv e d a p p e llate re v iew o f se v e ra l o th e r c laim s. F e d e ra l R u le 6 o f A p p e llate P ro c e d u re 2 8 (a )(9 )(A ) re q u ire s a p p e llan ts to su fficie n tlyra ise a ll is s u e s a n d a rg u m e n ts o n w h ic h th e yd e s ir e a p p e lla te re v ie w in th e iro p e n in g b ri e f. A n is s u e o r a rg u m e n t in s u ffic ie n tly ra is e d in th e o p e n in g b ri e f is d e e m e d w a iv e d . Headr i ck v . R ockwel lInt ’ lC or p. , 2 4 F . 3 d 1 2 7 2 , 1 2 7 7

– 7 8 ( 1 0 th Ci r . 1 9 9 4 ) . By n o t ra isin g th e m in h e r o p e n in g b rie f, B e c k e r h a s w a iv e d a ll h e r c laim s a g a in st a ll defe ndant s / appel l ees i n t hei roffi ci al capa ci t i es t hatw er e pr oper l ydi s m i s s ed by the di s tr i ctcourton E l eventh A m endmentgr ounds . B ecke rhas al s o w ai ved the e n tiretyo f

h e r c laim s a g a in st U tah A tto rn e yG e n e ra l M a rk S h u rtleff b yfa ili n g to expl i ci t l ychal l enge the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s di s m i s s al of cl ai m s agai ns thi m and by (c o n tin u e d ...) -12- u n d e rth e F o u r th Ame n d me n t . W i th o u te v i d e n c e o f s e i z u r e , th e § 1 9 8 3 c l a i ms a n d th e re late d c o n sp ira c yc laim s w e re d ism iss e d . B e c k e r tim e lya p p e a led b o th sum m aryj ud gm ent or ders. II I. A n a ly sis W e r evi ew the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s gr antof s um m aryj udgm entde novo us i ng th e sa m e sta n d a rd a s th e d istric t co u rt. C r oy v. C O B E Labs, Inc. , 345 F. 3d 1199, 1201 ( 10th C i r . 2003) . Sum m aryj udgm enti s appr opr i at e onl yw hen “ther e i s no genui ne i s s ue as t o anym at er i al fac t . ” Fed. R . C i v. P. 56( c) . W e det erm i ne w h ethe r th e e v iden ce p roffe red b ythe p lai n ti ff, if b eli ev ed b ythe fac t- fin d er, w o u ld b e s u ffic ie n t to s u s ta in th e c la im , Fos t erv. A l l i edSignal, Inc. , 293 F. 3d 1187, 1195 ( 10th C i r . 2002) , and dr aw al l r eas onabl e i nfer ence s fr om t he e v id e n c e in th e m a n n e r m o s t fa v o ra b le to th e p la in tiff. F ish e r v . O k la . He a lth C ar e Aut h. , 3 3 5 F . 3 d 1 1 7 5 , 1 1 8 0 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). B ecke rcont ends thatthe di s tr i ctcourterr ed i n gr ant i ng s um m aryj udgm ent on herfede r al cons t i tut i onal and s t at e l i bel cl ai m s . I n part i cul ar , s he cl ai m s t hat 6( . . . cont i nued) 6 fa ilin g to in c lu d e h im in h e r d e s c ri p tio n o f th e p a rt ie s in h e r b ri e f o n a p p e a l. A d d iti o n a lly , B e c k e r h a s w a iv e d h e r m a licio u s p ro se c u tio n c laim a g a in st a ll d e fe n d a n ts/a p p e llee s e x c e p t K ro ll an d W rig h t b yc h a llen g in g d ism iss a l o n lya s to thos e tw o defe ndant s . Fi nal l y , B ecke rs t i pul at ed bel ow thatherpr ocedur al due pr oces s and s ubs t ant i ve due pr oces s cl ai m s do notappl yt o defe ndant/ appel l ee G a rd n e r. T h e s e c la im s a re th e re fo re a ls o w a iv e d . -13- the defendant s vi ol at ed hercons t i tut i onal r i ght s i n thr ee w ay s : ( 1) m al i ci ous pr os ecut i on underthe Four th and Four t eenth A m endment ; ( 2) out r ageous conduct underthe Four t eenth A m endment ’ s s ubs t ant i ve due pr oces s component ; and ( 3) r et al i at i on undert he Fi r s tA m endment . H erl i bel cl ai m r es t s on w hetherthe d i s tr i c tc o u r tc o r r e c t l ya p p l i e d Ut a h l a w. W e n o te th a t w h a t B e c k e r a d d re ss e s in h e r b rie f a s s e p a ra te cl ai m s — m al i ci ous pr os ecut i on, vi ol at i on of pr ocedur al due pr oces s , and vi ol at i on of s ubs t ant i ve due pr oces s — al l amount t o the cl ai m thats he w as i nves t i gat ed and pr os ecut ed w i thoutpr obabl e ca us e. W e ther efor e addr es s al l of hercl ai m s under the Four th and Four t eenth A m endment s as m al i ci ous pr os ecut i on cl ai m s . W e then a d d re ss h e r c laim s fo r F irst A m e n d m e n t re talia tio n a n d lib e l. A . M a li ciou s P ro sec u ti o n C laim s U n d er th e F o u rth a n d F o u rte en th A m en d m en ts T hi s cas e r equi r es us t o w ade i nt o the murkyw at er s of § 1983- bas ed m al i ci ous pr os ecut i on cl ai m s . Sect i on 1983 pr ovi des a fe der al ci vi l caus e of act i on agai ns ts t at e off i ci al s fort he “de pr i vat i on of anyr i ght s , pr i vi l eges , or i m m uni t i es s ecur ed bythe C ons t i tut i on. ” 42 U . S. C . § 1983. C l ai m s under§ 1983-14-

are oft en an al yt i cal l ysi m i l ar t o— al tho ug h st i l l dis t i nct fr om — com m on l aw t ort s, s uch as m al i ci ous pr os ecut i on. M os tr ece nt l y , i n P i erce v. G i l christ , 359 F. 3d 1279 ( 10th C i r . 2004) , forexampl e, w e exa m i ned a c l ai m form al i ci ous pr os ecut i on under§ 1983, r ecogni zi ng the unea s yr el at i ons hi p betw een § 1983 c o n stitu tio n a l to rts a n d sta te c o m m o n law c a u se s o f a c tio n . A s w e o b se rv e d in P i er ce , 359 F. 3d at1286, “[s ] i nce C ar ey v . P i phus , 4 3 5 U .S . 2 4 7 (1 9 7 8 ), co u rts have us ed the comm on l aw of t or t s as a ‘ s t ar t i ng poi nt ’ fordet erm i ni ng the cont our s of cl ai m s of cons t i tut i onal vi ol at i ons under§ 1983. ” I n otherw or ds , t he comm on l aw t or t

— w hi l e notent i r el yi m por t ed i nt o § 1983— pr ovi des a us eful g u id e p o s t in m a k in g s e n s e o f a lle g e d c o n s titu tio n a l inju ri e s . S e e id . a t 1 2 8 6 n .3 . I n s om e i ns t ance s , a comm on l aw t or ti s s uffi ci ent l yanal ogous t o the al l eged cons t i tut i onal vi ol at i on thati t s comm on l aw el ement s ar e gr aft ed ont o and themsel ves become el ement s of a § 1983 c ons t i tut i onal t or t . B utnotal l § 1983 act i ons have a comm on l aw anal og, and no § 1983 ac t i on depends ent i r el yon a c o m m o n la w a n a lo g to d e fin e its e le m e n ts . T he cor e i nqui r yunderany§ 1983 act i on, r egar dl es s of the ana l ogous comm on l aw t or t , i s w hetherthe pl ai nt i ff ha s al l eged a n act i onabl e cons t i tut i onal v io la tio n . Id. at1290 ( ci t i ng Tayl orv. Meacham , 8 2 F . 3 d 1 5 5 6 , 1 5 6 1 (10 th C ir . 1996) ) . T he di s tr i ctcourtdi s m i s s ed B ecke r ’ s cl ai m beca us e i tdet erm i ned thatno s ei zur e exi s t ed underthe Four th A m endmentw hi ch w oul d s uppor ta § 1983 ac t i on fo r m a lic io u s p ro s e c u tio n .B ecke rdoes notdi s t i ngui s h betw een he rFour th A m endment - bas ed s ear ch 7 a n d se izu re c laim s (a s a p p lied to th e sta tes th ro u g h th e F o u rte e n th A m e n d m e n t) a n d h e r p ro c e d u ra l d u e p ro c e ss c laim s. W e a d d re ss th e se a rg u m e n ts s e p a ra tely fo rth e s a k e o f

a n a l yt i c a l c l a r i ty. -15- B ecke rar gues the di s tr i ctcour terr ed i n tw o r es pect s i n cons i der i ng her c laim s: s h e a rg u e s (1 ) th a t cr im in a l ch a rg e s a lo n e , ev e n th o u g h su b se q u e n tly d ism issed , co n sti tute a su ffici en t r estraint on h er li b ertyto q u ali fyas a seizu re un der the F ou rth A m end m ent, and (2) that M F C U al so viol at ed h er due p rocess r i ght s dur i ng t he cour s e of the i nves t i gat i on, w hi ch pr ovi des an addi t i onal c o n s titu tio n a l b a s is fo r h e r m a lic io u s p ro s e c u tio n c a u s e o f a c tio n . W e have r epea t edl yr ecogni zed i n thi s ci r cui tthat , atl eas tpr i ort o tr i al , t he relev an t con sti tuti o n al un d erp inn ing fo r a c lai m o f m ali ciou s p rose cu ti o n u n d er § 1 9 8 3 m u st b e “ th e F o u rth A m e n d m e n t’s rig h t to b e f re e f ro m u n re a so n a b le s ei zur es . ” Tayl or , 8 2 F .3 d a t 1 5 6 1 ; s ee Pi er ce , 359 F. 3d at1285–86. A l though w e agr ee w i th the di s tr i ctcourtt hata s ei zur e i s nece s s aryt o s uppor ta § 1983 m al i ci ous pr os ecut i on cl ai m bas ed on the i ni t i at i on of cr i m i nal pr ocee di ngs that are d ism issed b efo re tri al, w e a lso d iscu ss w h ethe r B ec k er m ayrelyo n a the o ry thatthe defendant s depr i ved herof l i bertyorpr opertyi nt er es t s w i thoutdue pr oces s of l aw i n vi ol at i on of the Four t eenth A m endment . W e conc l ude that 7 B e c k e r h a s n o t a lle g e d a c o n s titu tio n a l v io la tio n u n d e r e ith e r A m e n d m e n t.-16-

1. Was Ther e a Fourth A m endm entSeiz ure ? T h e F o u rth A m e n d m e n t p ro tec ts th e rig h t o f c iti z e n s to “ b e se c u re in th e ir per s ons , hous es , paper s , and effec t s , agai ns tunr eas onabl e s ear ches and s ei zur es . ” U. S . Co n s t . a me n d . I V. Be c k e ra d v a n c e s two a r g u me n t s u n d e rwh i c h M F CU v io late d h e r F o u rth A m e n d m e n t rig h ts. F irst, sh e a rg u e s th a t M F C U u n re a so n a b ly s ei zed he rper s on beca us e the i nves t i gat i on i nt o herbi l l i ng pr act i ces i m pos ed bur dens on hert i m e, fi nance s , and r eput at i on byr equi r i ng hert o tr avel t o and att end meet i ngs , payl egal cos t s , and, eventual l y , fac e cr i m i nal char ges . Second, s he ar gues thatM FC U unr eas onabl ys ei zed he rpr opertyw hen i tcopi ed her m edical recor ds. a. Sei zure of

P ers on “V i ol at i on of the Four th A m endmentr equi r es an i nt ent i onal acqui s i t i on of phy s i cal contr ol . ” B r ow erv. C ount y of Inyo , 489 U . S. 593, 596 ( 1989) . I n our cas es anal y zi ng m al i ci ous pr os ecut i on under§ 1983, w e have al w ay s pr ocee ded b a s e d o n a s e iz u re b yth e s ta te

— a rr e s t o r i m p ri s o n m e n t. See, e. g. , P i er ce , 359 F .3 d a t 1 2 8 1 (p lain tiff in c a rc e ra ted fo r fif

tee n y e a rs) ; Tayl or , 82 F. 3d at1558 & n .5 (p lain tiff

a rre ste d a n d h e ld fo r se v e n w e e k s); Wol f or d v. Lasat er , 78 F. 3d 484, 487 ( 10th C i r . 1996) ( pl ai nt i ff a rr es t ed) . H er e, B ecke rconce ded s he w as never arr es t ed, i ncar cer at ed, orot herw i s e pl ace d undert he di r ectphy s i cal contr ol of the s t at e. A ccor di ngl y , B ecke rw as never“s ei zed” i n the tr adi t i onal s ens e.-17-

B ecke rnonethel es s ar gues thatw e s houl d adopta br oadertheoryof s ei zur e, bas ed on the Supr eme C our t ’ s deci s i on i n A l br ightv. O l i ver , 5 1 0 U .S . 2 6 6 (1 9 9 4 ). I n thatcas e, t he C our tconcl uded thatthe Four t eenth A m endmentdoes not pr ovi de a subst an t i ve du e proce ss r i ghtt o be fr ee f r om pr os ecut i on w i thout pr obabl e ca us e, butl eftopen the pos s i bi l i tythata pl ai nt i ff c oul d br i ng s uch a claim u n d er the F o u rth A m en d m en t. In a n o tew o rth yco n cu rren ce to the C o u rt ’s p lu ra lityo p in io n , Ju stic e G in sb u rg a n a ly z e d A lb rig h t’s c laim u n d e r th e F o u rth A m endmentand ur ged the C our tt o adopta non- cus t odi al conce ptof “c ont i nui ng s e i z u r e ” i n o r d e rt o t a k e i n t o a c c o u n tu n d e rth e F o u r th Ame n d me n tth e h a r ms i nci dentt o the contr ol exer ci s ed bythe s t at e overa ci t i zen be for e tr i al . She a rg u e d th a t se izu re s fo r F o u rth A m e n d m e n t p u rp o se s in c lu d e re q u irin g a p e rso n to pos tbond, compel l i ng a per s on t o appea ri n court , ori m pos i ng r es tr i ct i ons on a p e rso n ’s r ig h t to in ter sta te tra v e l, all o f w h ich m ig h t cr e a te r e p u tatio n a l, e m o tio n a l, a n d fin a n c ia l h a rm s . Id. a t 2 7 8 . Ju stic e G in sb u rg ’s c o n tin u in g se izu re a n a ly sis h a s y e t to g a rn e r a m ajo rity of the j us t i ces of the Supr eme C our t , and w e ar e notcompel l ed t o adopti t . T he C our thas been c ar eful t o t i e al l act i ons under§ 1983 t o s peci fi cal l ypr ot ect ed co n sti tuti o n al ri g h ts i n o rde r t o av o id cre ati n g a f ree -st an d ing co n sti tuti o n al t o rt reg im e u n d er § 1 9 8 3 . T o ex tend li ab il ityin ca ses w ith o u t a trad it ion al seizu re w oul d expand the not i on of s ei zur e bey ond r ecogni t i on and fa l l i nt o the tr ap car eful l yavoi ded bythe A l br ightm ajo rity

— e v e ryc h a rg in g d e c isio n w o u ld-18-

s u p p o rt a § 1 9 8 3 m a lic io u s p ro s e c u tio n -t yp e c la im n o m a tte r t h e c o n te x t. See Ni eve s v. McSw eeney , 241 F. 3d 46, 55 ( 1s tC i r . 2001) ( “[I ] f the conc eptof a s ei zur e i s r egar ded as el as t i c enough t o encompas s s t andar d condi t i ons of pr etr i al r el eas e, vi r tual l yeverycr i m i nal defe ndantw i l l be dee m ed t o be s ei zed pe ndi ng th e re so lu tio n o f

th e c h a rg e s a g a in st h im . T h a t w o u ld m e a n , in tu rn , tha t n e a rly everym al i ci ous pr os ecut i on cl ai m coul d be br oughtbefor e a feder al courtunder the ae gi s of s ect i on 1983. ”) . W hi l e the cons equenc es of unfounde d cr i m i nal char ges ar e s ur el ygr ave, the Fourth A m endmentadequa t el ycover s cons t i tut i onal in te re s ts in th e p re -t ri a l e x e rc is e o f g o v e rn m e n t c o n tr o l o v e r a p e rs o n o r p ro p e rt y . A g ro u n d les s c h a rg in g d e c isio n m a ya b u se th e c rim in a l p ro c e ss , b u t itd o e s n o t, i n and of i t s el f, vi ol at e the Four th A m endmentabs enta s i gni fi cantr es tr i ct i on on lib e rt y . W e thus agr ee w i th t he court s t hathave a l s o decl i ned t o acc eptJ us t i ce G i ns bur g’ s i nvi t at i on t o expand Four th A m endmentl i abi l i tyi n cas es w her e the p la in tiff h a s n o t b e e n a rr e s te d o r i n c a rc e ra te d . See D iB el la v. B or ough of B eachwood , 4 0 7 F .3 d 5 9 9 , 6 0 3 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 5 ); Ki n gs la n dv . Ci t y o f Mi a mi , 382 F .3 d 1 2 2 0 , 1 2 3 6 (1 1 th C ir. 2 0 0 4 ); Kar am v. C i t y of B ur bank , 352 F. 3d 1188, 1193 (9 th C ir. 2 0 0 3 ); Ni eve s v. McSw eeney , 2 4 1 F .3 d 4 6 , 5 6 (1 st C ir. 2 0 0 1 ); B r i t t on v. Mal oney , 196 F. 3d 24, 29–30 ( 1s tC i r . 1999) ( al l decl i ni ng t o r ecogni ze typi cal pr e- tr i al r el eas e condi t i ons , s uch as r ece i vi ng a s um m ons , pos t i ng bond, re stric tin g tra v e l, an d a p p e a rin g in c o u rt, as a se izu re ); s ee als o Was hi ngt on v.-19-

C ount y of R ockland , 373 F. 3d 310, 317 ( 2d C i r . 2004) ( fi ndi ng no s ei zur e w hen pl ai nt i ffs char ged i n admi ni s tr at i ve pr ocee di ng and s us pended w i thoutpaybut nev er phy si cal l ydetai ned ). T hese cases, m oreove r, are consi st ent w i th those rejec tin g a “ c o n tin u in g se izu re ” ra tio n a le fo r p o st-a rre st in c a rc e ra tio n , w h ich h o ld thateven w hen a de fenda nti s i n cus t ody , a s ei zur e ends w hen pr etr i al in c a rc e ra tio n b e g in s . See Ri l ey v . D or t on , 1 1 5 F . 3 d 1 1 5 9 , 1 1 6 4 (4th C ir . 1 9 9 7 ); R eed v . C i t

y of C hi cago , 77 F. 3d 1049, 1052 n. 3 ( 7th C i r . 1996) ( ci t i ng Wi lki ns v. May , 8 7 2 F .2 d 1 9 0 , 1 9 4 (7 th C ir . 1 9 8 9 )) . E ven thos e court s thats ubs cr i be t o the l i ne of r eas oni ng endor s ed by Ju sti ce G insb u rg h av e re co g n ized a se izure o n lyw h en crim inal ch arg es a re c o u p le d w ith a n o th e r s ig n ific a n t r e s tr a in t o n lib e rt y , s u c h a s re s tr ic tio n s o n tr a v e l. S e e E v a n s v . B a ll , 1 6 8 F .3 d 8 5 6 , 8 6 1 (5 th C ir. 1 9 9 9 ) (“ A su m m o n s, c o u p led w ith [] addi t i onal l i bertyr es tr i ct i ons [i n thi s cas e a bond a nd tr avel r es tr i ct i ons ] m ay c o n stitu te a se izu re u n d e r th e F o u rth A m e n d m e n t.”); G al l o v. C i t y of P h ila d e lp h ia , 161 F. 3d 217, 222–25 ( 3d C i r . 1998) ( hol di ng pl ai nt i ff s ei zed w hen su bjected to tr av el restr ict ion s an d req u ir ed to co n tact pre tr ial serv ices w ee k ly ); Mur phy v. Lynn , 118 F. 3d 938, 945 ( 2d C i r . 1997) ( hol di ng pl ai nt i ff s ei zed w hen or der ed nott o l eave s t at e and r equi r ed t o at t end court ) . B ecke rdoes notar gue thats he w as s ubj ectt o anyof thes e i ndi ci a of non- phy s i cal contr ol ar i s i ng fr om M FC U ’ s i nves t i gat i on and pr os ecut i on— s he appa r ent l yneverpos t ed bond, w as notr equi r ed t o appea ri n court , and had no s peci fi c r es tr i ct i ons on herfr eedom of-20-

m ovement . U nderthes e ci r cumst ance s , even i f w e w er e i ncl i ned t o br oaden the m eani ng of s ei zur e bey ond ourtr adi t i onal under s t andi ng, thi s cas e does not pr es enta vehi cl e fordoi ng s o. A ccor di ngl y , the di s tr i ctcour tdi d noterri n det erm i ni ng B ecke rw as not se ize d u n d e r th e F o u rth A m e n d m e n t. b. Se i z ur e o f

Pr o pe r t y N ordi d t he defendant s unr eas onabl ys ei ze Becker ’ s pr opertyi n vi ol at i on of the Four th A m endment . B ecke rm akes t w o ar gum ent s t hatt he s ubpoena of her r ecor ds pr ovi des the Four th A m endmentvi ol at i on nece s s aryt o hercl ai m for m al i ci ous pr os ecut i on under§ 1983: ( 1) t he copy i ng of herm edi cal r ecor ds w as an unr eas onabl e s ei zur e bec aus e i toccurr ed bym eans of a s ubpoena thatw as not s uppor t ed bypr obabl e ca us e, and ( 2) M FC U ’ s var i ous vi ol at i ons of s t at e l aw col l ect i vel yadd up t o a Four th A m endmentvi ol at i on.

P r obabl e C aus e f

orthe Subpoena Fi r s t , M FC U ’ s i s s uance of a s ubpoena t o i ns pectB ecke r ’ s m edi cal r ecor ds w as notunr eas onabl e underthe Four th A m endmentbeca us e s t at e admi ni s tr at i ve s ubpoenas need notbe s uppor t ed bypr obabl e ca us e. U nderFour th A m endment l a w, a n i n v e s t i g a t o r yo ra d mi n i s tr a t i v e s u b p o e n a i s n o ts u bj e c tt o t h e s a me p ro b a b le c a u s e re q u ir e m e n ts a s a s e a rc h w a rr a n t. S e e v . C ity o f Se a ttl e , 38 7 U. S. 5 4 1 , 5 4 4 (1 9 6 7 ); Uni t ed Stat es v. R eno , 5 2 2 F .2 d 5 7 2 , 5 7 5 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 7 5 ). T he F o u rth A m e n d m e n t re q u ire s o n lyth a t a s u b p o e n a b e “ su fficie n tlylim ited in-21-

s cope, r el evanti n purpos e, and s peci fi c i n di r ect i ve s o thatcompl i ance w i l l notbe unr eas onabl ybur dens om e. ” C ity o f Se a ttl e , 3 8 7 U .S . at 5 4 4 ; s ee als o Mat t erof G r and Jur

y Subpoena D uces Tecum I s s ued on June 9, 1982, t o “C us t odi an of R ecords , ” 697 F. 2d 277, 281 ( 10th C i r . 1983) ( hol di ng a s ubpoena i n a cr i m i nal i nves t i gat i on “i s notunr eas onabl e underthe Four th A m endmenti f i t : ( 1) comm ands the pr oduct i on onl yof thi ngs r el evantt o the i nves t i gat i on; ( 2) sp e c ifies th e item s w ith re a so n a b le p a rticu lar ity ; an d (3 ) c o v e rs o n lya re a so n a b le p e rio d o f

tim e ” ); Un i t e dS ta t e s v . B a i l ey ( In r e Su bp o e n a Du c e s Te c u m) , 228 F. 3d 341, 347–49 ( 4th C i r . 2000) ( hol di ng pr obabl e ca us e r equi r ed forw arr ant s butnot s ubpoenas beca us e w arr ant s ar e “i m m edi a[t e] and i ntrus i ve[] ” w her eas the s ubpoenae d partyhas an opportuni tyt o chal l enge a s ubpoena be for e compl y i ng w ith it ). T hatt he s ubpoena w as i s s ued admi ni s tr at i vel yw i th pot ent i al cr i m i nal r ami fi cat i ons does notchange the ana l y s i s . I n Un itedS ta tes v . Sm ith , 484 F. 2d 8, 1 1 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 7 3 ), w e h e ld th a t an a d m in istra tiv e su m m o n s is su e d b yth e IR S in th e in iti a l sta g e s o f

a tax f ra u d in v e stig a tio n d id n o t v io late th e F o u rth A m endmentw hen i tw as i s s ued i n good fai th and pr i ort o a r ecomm endat i on for cr i m i nal pr os ecut i on. M or e r ece nt l y , the Si xth C i r cui thel d thatan admi ni s tr at i ve s ubpoena i n a hea l th car e fr aud i nves t i gat i on bythe U . S. A t t or neyG ener al need n o t b e s u p p o rt e d b yp ro b a b le c a u s e . D oe v. Uni t ed Stat es ( In r e Adm i n. Subpoena) , 2 5 3 F .3 d 2 5 6 , 2 6 3

– 6 5 (6 th C ir. 2 0 0 1 ) (a p p ly in g “ re a so n a b le-22-

r el evanc e” t es t ) . Si m i l ar l y , gr and j ur ys ubpoenas need notbe s uppor t ed by p ro b a b le c a u se so lo n g a s th e in fo rm a tio n so u g h t is re lev a n t an d sp e c ifica lly id e n tifie d . R eno , 5 2 2 F .2 d a t 5 7 5 . T he s ubpoena he r e mett hes e mi ni m al r equi r ement s forFour th A m endment r eas onabl enes s , and B ecke rdoes notar gue otherw i s e. B ecke r ’ s M edi cai d fi l i ngs w e re flag g e d b yM F C U ’s a n a ly st, a n d th e re c o rd s s o u g h t w e re re lev a n t to M FC U ’ s i nves t i gat i on of pot ent i al up- codi ng. B ecke rdoes notar gue thatthe r eques tw as unr eas onabl ybur dens om e oroverbr oad, and M FC U w as abl e t o copy and r eturn t he fi l es i n a day . W e s ee no r eas on t o concl ude the s ubpoena w as unr eas onabl e underthe Four th A m endment , s o the s ubpoena a l one does not p r o v i d e th e b a s i s fo ra § 1 9 8 3 c l a i m.

Stat e Law Vi olat i ons S ec o n d , B ec k er a lso a rgu es th at, ev en if p rob ab le ca u se w as n o t a ne ce ssary pr edi cat e t o a val i d s ubpoena unde rthe Four th A m endment , M FC U vi ol at ed a num berof s t at e l aw pr ovi s i ons i n i s s ui ng t he s ubpoena forherm edi cal r ecor ds w hi ch col l ect i vel yamount t o an unr eas onabl e Four th A m endments ei zur e. For exampl e, s he ar gues thatthe s ubpoena s uffe r ed fr om pr obl ems i ncl udi ng ( 1) s ervi ce byan i nt er es t ed party , ( 2) fai l ur e of M FC U t o fi l e a s t atut or i l yr equi r ed r eturn of s ervi ce w i th the i s s ui ng court , and ( 3) fai l ur e t o not i fyB ecke rthatthe re c o rd s in th e c o u rt file w e re s e a le d .P ro c e d u ra l d u e p ro c e ss e n su re s th a t in d iv id u a ls a re e n tit led to c e rta in 8 p ro c e d u ra l s a fe g u a rd s b e fo re a s ta te c a n d e p ri v e th e m o f life , lib e rt yo r p ro p e rt y . See Al br ight , 5 1 0 U . S . at 27 5 (S ca li a, J. , co n cu rri n g ). B yco n tr ast, the m o re expans i ve not i on of s ubs t ant i ve due pr oces s as s um es t hats om e depr i vat i ons of l i fe, l i berty , orpr opertyar e s o gr i evous t hatno amount of pr ocedur e ca n j us t i fy (c o n tin u e d ...) -23- A s t at e’ s vi ol at i on of i t s ow n l aw , how ever , i s nots uffi ci ent , i n and of its e lf, to c re a te a fe d e ra l c o n s titu tio n a l v io la tio n . D avis v. Scher er , 468 U . S. 183, 1 9 4

– 9 6 (1 9 8 4 ); R ectorv. C i t y & C ount

y of D enve r , 3 4 8 F . 3 d 9 3 5 , 9 4 7 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). B e c k e r o n lyh a s a c a u se o f a c tio n u n d e r § 1 9 8 3 if th e S tate ’s a c tio n s “ fa il t o m eetbas i c fe der al cons t i tut i onal s t andar ds , ” R ector , 348 F. 3d at947, and none of the s t at e pr ocedur al r equi r ement s i nvol vi ng s ubpoenas r i s e t o thatl evel under the F o u rth A m en d m en t. B ec k er the refo re d id n o t suffe r an u n rea so n ab le seizu re o f h e rp r o p e r ty. B e c a u se B e c k e r h a s n o t su c c e ss f u llya lleg e d a v io latio n o f th e F o u rth A m endment , s he ca nnotpr ocee d i n a cl ai m form al i ci ous pr os ecut i on bas ed on an unr eas onabl e s ei zur e. 2 . Is Th e re a Ma licio u s P ro se c u tio n Cla im B a se do n a Fo u rte e n th Am e ndm e ntD ue Pr oc e s s Violati on? E v en w ith o u t a F o u rth A m en d m en t sei zu re, B ec k er a rgu es th at M F C U ’s conductvi ol at ed herdue pr oces s r i ght s beca us e the pr obe i nt o herbi l l i ng pr act i ces depr i ved herof l i bertyorpr operty“w i thoutdue pr oces s of l aw . ” She al l eges thatM FC U ’ s act i ons vi ol at ed both the pr ocedur al and s ubs t ant i ve component s of due pr oces s . W e not e att he out s ett hata natur al r eadi ng of 8( . . . cont i nued) 8 th e d e p ri v a tio n . P ar r at tv. Tayl or , 4 5 1 U .S . 5 2 7 , 5 4 5 (1 9 8 1 ) ( B la c k m u n , J ., concurr i ng) ( “[T] her e ar e ce r t ai n governm ent al act i ons that , even i f undert aken w i th a fu l l pan op l yof p rocedu ral prot ect i on , are, i n an d o f t hem sel ves, ant i thet i cal t o fundament al not i ons of due pr oces s . ”) . “Though i ti s s om et i m es hel pful , as a mat t erof doctr i ne, t o di s t i ngui s h betw een s ubs t ant i ve and pr ocedur al due pr oces s , t he tw o conce pt s ar e notm utual l yexcl us i ve, and thei rpr ot ect i ons oft en over l ap. ” A l br ight , 510 U . S. at301 ( St evens , J . , di s s ent i ng) ( ci t at i ons o m itte d ). -24- Supr eme C our tpr ece denti n A l brigh tv. O l i ver see m s to fo rec lose B ec k er’s ar gum entthatM FC U vi ol at ed herdue pr oces s r i ght s byi ni t i at i ng cr i m i nal p ro c e e d in g s a g a in s t h e r w ith o u t p ro b a b le c a u s e . 5 1 0 U .S . 2 6 6 . N everthel es s , r eadi ng B ecke r ’ s fi l i ngs l i ber al l y , s he al l eges s om e i nj ur i es r es ul t i ng fr om the fi l i ng of cr i m i nal char ges agai ns therthatar e out s i de the s cope of the F ou rth A m end m ent’ s subst anti ve an d p rocedu ral prot ect i on s. T hese inju rie s m ig h t b e c o g n iza b le a s d u e p ro c e ss v io latio n s th ro u g h a g a p in c o n s t i tu t i o n a l p r o t e c t i o n c r e a t e d b y A l br ight ’ s l i m i t at i on of § 1983 m al i ci ous pr os ecut i on cl ai m s t o thos e bas ed on the Four th A m endment . W e ther efor e go on t o exami ne B ecke r ’ s pot ent i al due pr oces s cl ai m s . E ven i f A lb rig h t does not forecl ose t hese cl ai m s, B ecker has no tst at ed a v i olat i on of h er due p rocess ri gh t s. a . Effe c t o f

Al b r i g h t o n Du e P r o c e s s M a l i c i o u s P r o s e c u t i o n Cl a i ms I n A l br ight , the C o u rt sp e c ifica llyrejec ted th e p lain tiff ’s c laim th a t h is gr oundl es s arr es tvi ol at ed s ubs t ant i ve due pr oces s r i ght s bydepr i vi ng hi m of a

“ ‘lib e rtyin ter e st’ to b e f re e f ro m c rim in a l p ro se c u tio n e x c e p t u p o n p ro b a b le c a u se .” 5 1 0 U .S . at 2 6 9 . In ste a d , the C o u rt c o n c lu d e d th a t th e F o u rthI n appar entr egar d forthi s hol di ng i n A lbr ight , B ecke rpr es ent s her 9 m al i ci ous pr os ecut i on cl ai m s undera hea di ng s epar at e fr om hers ubs t ant i ve due p ro c e ss c laim s b a se d o n a rig h t to b e f re e f ro m c rim in a l p ro se c u tio n d e sig n e d to e x to rt m o n e y . W e c o n sid e r th a t th e g ra v a m e n o f B e c k e r’s c o m p lain t u n d e r b o th th e o r i e s i s th a ts h e wa s p r o s e c u t e d wi th o u tp r o b a b l e c a u s e . Ac c o r d i n g l y , we addr es s hers ubs t ant i ve due pr oces s ar gum ent s her e undert he hea di ng of m al i ci ous pr os ecut i on butdet erm i ne that , even i f A lb rig h t does notfor ecl os e her cl ai m , s he has notpr es ent ed a s ubs t ant i ve due pr oces s vi ol at i on. -25- A m e n d m e n t— n o t s u b s ta n tiv e d u e p ro c e s s — g o v e rn e d th e p la in tiff ’s c la im s . Id. at 270. T he pl ur al i tyopi ni on r eas oned, “W her e a pa r t i cul arA m endment‘ pr ovi des an expl i ci tt extual s our ce of cons t i tut i onal pr ot ect i on’ agai ns ta part i cul ars or tof go vernm ent behav i or, ‘that A m end m ent . . . m ustbe the gu i de fo r anal y zi ng these cl ai m s . ’ ” Id . at273 ( quot i ng G r aham v. C onnor , 490 U . S. 386, 395 ( 1989) ) . T he pl ur al i tyconcl uded, “i ti s evi dentthats ubs t ant i ve due pr oces s m aynotfurni s h t he c on s t i tut i on a l pe g o n whi c h t o h a ng ” a c l a i m of mal i c i ou s pr os e c ut i on , 51 0 U. S. at270 n. 4. 9 W e thi nk the unavoi dabl e cons truct i on of A l br ightis th a t n o § 1 9 8 3 c laim w i l l ar i s e fr om fi l i ng cr i m i nal char ges w i thoutpr obabl e ca us e undert he s ubs t ant i ve due pr oces s pr ot ect i ons of the Four t eenth A m endment . A nd al though the pl ai nt i ff i n A lb rig h t di d notr ai s e a pr ocedur aldue pr oces s cl ai m , 510 U . S. at 271, w e fi nd A l br ight ’s r e a so n in g re g a rd in g su b sta n tiv e d u e p ro c e ss e q u a lly p ersu asiv e w ith reg ard to the F o u rt ee n th A m en d m en t’ s p roc ed u ral co m p o n en t. In the ini t i al st ages of

a cri m i nal pr oceed i ng , t he F ou rth A m end m ent pr otect s a per s on’ s l i bertyi nt er es t s underthe cons t i tut i on byens ur i ng thatanyarr es tor-26-

p h y s ic a l in c a rc e ra tio n a tte n d a n t to a c ri m in a l p ro s e c u tio n is re a s o n a b le . See, e. g. A l br ight , 5 1 0 U . S . at 27 4 (“W e h av e in th e p ast n o ted th e F o u rth A m en d m en t’ s r el evanc e t o the depr i vat i ons of l i bertythatgo hand i n hand w i th cr i m i nal pr os ecut i ons . ”) ( ci t i ng G ers t i en v. P ugh , 4 2 0 U . S . 1 0 3 , 1 1 4 (19 7 5 )). T h e m o re g e n e ra l d u e p ro c e ss c o n sid e ra tio n s o f th e F o u rte e n th A m e n d m e n t ar e n o t a fa llb a c k to p ro tec t in ter e sts m o re sp e c ifica llya d d re ss e d b yth e F o u rth A m e n d m e n t in th is c o n te x t. See Al br ight , 510 U . S. at273 ( quot i ng G r aham v. C onnor , 4 9 0 U .S . 3 8 6 , 3 9 5 (1 9 8 9 )) . O u r p o st-A l br ightc a se s s im ilarlye m p h a siz e th e p ro m in e n c e o f th e F o u rth A m e n d m e n t in th e a n a lysis o f p re -t ri a l lib e rt yin te re s ts . See Pi er ce , 359 F. 3d at 1285 ( not i ng “[t ] he i ni t i al s ei zur e i s governed bythe Four th A m endment ” and fi ndi ng pl ai nt i ff s t at ed a Fourth A m endmentcl ai m w hen he w as arr es t ed and im p riso n e d ); Tayl or , 82 F . 3d at15 60 (not i ng “t he F ou rth A m end m ent gove rn[s] pr etr i al depr i vat i ons of l i berty ” and f i ndi ng a Four th A m endmentvi ol at i on w hen the pl ai nt i ff w as arr es t ed) ( both ci t i ng A lbr ight). U nderthe fa ct s of thi s cas e, w her e cr i m i nal char ges w er e br oughtbut d ism iss e d b e fo re trial, B e c k e r m u st a lleg e a v io latio n o f th e F o u rth A m e n d m e n t in o r d e r t o p r o c e e d o n a th e o r y o f § 1 9 8 3 ma l i c i o u s p r o s e c u t i o n . Th e S u p r e me C our tnonethel es s has y ett o cl ar i fyt he s cope of t he pl ur al i tyhol di ng i n A l br ight . A nd s ever al l i nes of ca s es s ugges tan al t ernat i ve theoryof l i abi l i tyundert he F o u rte e n th A m e n d m e n t. W e tu rn to th o se th e o rie s n e x t.She cl ai m s the fol l ow i ng ar e pr ocedur al due pr oces s vi ol at i ons : ( 1) t he 10 a b se n c e o f

p ro b a b le c a u se fo r th e su b p o e n a , (2 ) la c k o f n o tice th a t h e r c a se file had bee n s eal ed, ( 3) s ervi ce of the s ubpoena byan i nt er es t ed party , ( 4) r equi r i ng tr avel t o Sal tL ake Ci tyt o chal l enge the s ubpoena, ( 5) fai l ur e t o m ake a r etur n of s ervi ce of

the s ubpoena, ( 6) s ubs equent l yi nform i ng G ar dnert hatt he r ecor ds had b ee n o b tai n ed v o lun tari ly , an d (7) h iding ex cu lpato ryinfo rm ati o n . A p lt . B r. 32–38. B ecke ral s o ar gues thes e ci r cumst ance s amount t o a Four th A m endment vi ol at i on. -27- b . P roced u ral D u e P rocess B e c k e r a lleg e s s e v e n se p a ra te in sta n c e s w h ich sh e c laim s c o llec tiv e ly amount t o a vi ol at i on of herpr ocedur al due pr oces s r i ght s . Foranal yt i cal 10 c l a r i ty , we c o n s tru e h e rd u e p r o c e s s c l a i ms t o b e b a s e d o n t h e fo l l o wi n g t wo pot ent i al l ypr ot ect ed i nt er es t s : ( 1) a l i bertyi nt er es ti n bei ng fr ee f r om u n w arran ted in v esti g ati o n an d p rose cu ti o n w ith o u t pro b ab le ca u se, an d (2) a p ro p e rt yin te re s t in th e in te g ri ty o f h e r m e d ic a l a n d b illin g re c o rd s . W e con cl ud e t hat B ecker’s proced ural du e process i nter est s und er these fac t s w er e ade quat el ypr ot ect ed byt he Four th A m endment , s t at e t or tl aw , and the p ro c e d u re s o ffe re d to c h a lle n g e th e a d m in is tr a tiv e s u b p o e n a .

The Inves t igat i on and P r os ecut i on B ecke rfi r s tar gues s he had a pr ot ect ed l i bertyi nt er es ti n fr eedom fr om t he bas el es s i nves t i gat i on i nt o herbi l l i ng pr act i ces and the s ubs equentfi l i ng of cr i m i nal char ges , w hen theyw er e nots upport ed bypr obabl e ca us e. W e do not a g re e sh e h a s e sta b lish e d a n a b se n c e o f p ro c e d u ra l p ro tec tio n s s u fficie n t to c re a te a due pr oces s vi ol at i on.T h e S ixth C ir cu it , h o w ev er, after A l br ight , has anal y zed mal i ci ous 11 pr os ecut i on- type cl ai m s bas ed on ongoi ng cus t odyundert he Four th A m endment ra th e r t h a n d u e p ro c e s s . G re g o ry v . C ity o f L o u isv ill e , 4 4 4 F .3 d 7 2 5 , 7 5 0 (6 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). C on tra Taylor v. Waters , 81 F. 3d 429, 436 ( 4th C i r . 1996) ( “[The F o u rt h A ]m e n d e m e n t r e q u ir e s th a t a rr e s ts b e m a d e b a s e d u p o n p ro b a b le c a u s e . . .

. O nce s uch a de t erm i nat i on of pr obabl e ca us e has been r ender ed, how ever , t he Four th A m endmentdoes noti m pos e anyfurtherr equi r ementof j udi ci al over s i ght orr eas onabl e i nves t i gat i on t o r enderpr etr i al s ei zur e r eas onabl e. I ns t ead, other cons t i tut i onal guar ant ees cont ai ned i n the B i l l of R i ght s — s uch as t he r i ghtt o a sp e e d ytrial— p ro tec t th e a c c u se d . . . . ” ) (in ter n a l cita tio n s o m itt e d ); Torr es v. McL a u g h lin , 163 F. 3d 169, 174 ( 3d C i r . 1998) ( “[P] os t - convi ct i on i ncar cer at i on c a n n o t b e a s e iz u re w ith in th e m e a n in g o f th e F o u rt h A m e n d m e n t.” ). See a lso G r aham v. C onnor , 490 U . S. 386, 395 n. 10 ( 1989) ( acknow l edgi ng the C our thas not“r es ol ved the ques t i on w hethert he Four th A m endmentcont i nues t o pr ovi de i ndi vi dual s w i th pr ot ect i on agai ns tt he del i ber at e us e of e xces s i ve phy s i cal for ce b ey o n d the p o int at w h ich a rrest en d s an d p retri al de tention b eg ins” ). -28- Sever al cas es s ugges tthatats om e poi nti n the pr os ecut or i al pr oces s , due p ro c e s s c o n c e rn s c a n b e s u ffic ie n t to s u p p o rt a c la im u n d e r § 1 9 8 3 . See , e. g. , P i er ce , 359 F. 3d at1285–86. I n P i er ce , w e r ecogni zed that“ats om e poi ntaft er arr es t , and ce r t ai nl ybythe t i m e of tr i al , cons t i tut i onal anal y s i s [of a m al i ci ous p ro se c u tio n c laim ] sh if ts to th e D u e P ro c e ss C lau se .” 3 5 9 F .3 d a t 1 2 8 5

– 8 6 ; s ee als o C ast el lan o v. Frago zo , 352 F. 3d 939, 942 ( 5th C i r . 2003) ( anal y zi ng know i ng us e of manufac tur ed evi dence and per j ur ed t es t i m onyattr i al as vi ol at i ons of due pr oces s s uffi ci entt o s uppor ta § 1983 mal i ci ous pr os ecut i on c laim ); R i l ey v . D or t on , 115 F. 3d 1159, 1162 ( 4th C i r . 1997) ( hol di ng t hatonce a s us pecti s s ubj ectt o pr e- tr i al det ent i on, due pr oces s governs the condi t i ons of ongoi ng cus t ody ) . H ow ever , w e det erm i ned i n P i er ce , “It is n o t n e c e ss a ryin 11 this case t o d et erm i ne w here Fo urth A m end m ent anal y si s ends an d d ue p rocess-29-

anal y s i s begi ns , beca us e M r . Pi er ce r ai s ed cl ai m s underbot h cons t i tut i onal pr ovi s i ons , and nei therpartyar gues thatthe di ffe r ence i n s t andar ds has any b e a rin g o n th is a p p e a l.” 3 5 9 F .3 d a t 1 2 8 6 . B yc o n tra st, th e d iffe re n c e in s t andar ds does m att ert o B ecke r ’ s appea l , beca us e, unl i ke M r . Pi er ce, s he w as n e v e r a rre ste d in v io latio n o f th e F o u rth A m e n d m e n t. B u t ev e n if

w e a ss u m e a p ro c e d u ra l d u e p ro c e ss a n a ly sis a p p lies to B ecke r ’ s cas e, s he has notes t abl i s hed a due pr oces s vi ol at i on. Fi r s t , under A lb rig h t and ours ubs equentcas es , the Four th A m endmentadequa t el ypr ot ect ed B ecke r ’ s cons t i tut i onal l i bertyi nt er es t s , and s he ther efor e has no pr ocedur al due p ro c e s s c la im b a s e d o n p re -t ri a l d e p ri v a tio n s o f p h y s ic a l lib e rt y . See Al br ight , 510 U . S. 266; P i er ce , 3 5 9 F .3 d a t 1 2 8 5

– 8 6 ; Tayl or , 82 F. 3d at1560. W e ar e not aw ar e, m or eover , of anyotherci r cui tthathas ext ended Fourt eenth A m endment p ro c e d u ra l d u e p ro c e s s g u a ra n te e s to p re -t ri a l d e p ri v a tio n s o f lib e rt y . N ev erthe less, w e a ck n o w ledg e tha t th e F o u rt ee n th A m en d m en t’ s p ro tec tio n s e n c o m p a ss h a rm s to lib e rtyo u tsid e th e sc o p e o f th e F o u rth A m endment ’ s conce r n w i th fr eedom fr om r es tr ai nt , s uch as harm t o r eput at i on resu lt ing in so m e tan g ible injury , fro m w h ich a p lai n ti ff in B ec k er’s c ir c u m s ta n c e s m a yin d e e d s u ffe r. See , e. g. , Mi c h a e lH. v . Ge r a ldD. , 49 1 U. S. 1 1 0 , 1 2 1 (1 9 8 9 ); P a u l v. D a v is , 4 2 4 U .S . 6 9 3 , 7 0 1 (1 9 7 6 ); Wis cons i n v. C ons tant i neau , 400 U . S. 433, 437 ( 1971) . B uteven i f B ecke rdi d s uffe rs uch i njur i es ot her than ph y si cal res trai nt, proced ural du e process onlyprot ect s agai nst-30-

them bypr ovi di ng an ade quat e pos t - depr i vat i on hear i ng i n w hi ch the i nj ur ed p a rt ym a yv in d ic a te th e s e in te re s ts . See Constant i neau , 4 0 0 U .S . a t 4 3 6

– 3 7 . I n thi s cas e, s t at e t or tr emedi es m eetthe pr ocedur al r equi r ement s of the D ue Pr oces s C l aus e. T he Supr eme C our thas hel d thatw her e pr e- depr i vat i on re m e d ies c a n n o t an ticip a te a n d p re v e n t a s tate a c to r’s w ro n g f u l ac t, po std e p ri v a tio n s ta te to rt re m e d ie s a re a d e q u a te to s a tis f yd u e p ro c e s s re q u ir e m e n ts . P ar r at tv. Tayl or , 4 5 1 U .S . 5 2 7 , 5 3 5

– 4 4 (1 9 8 1 ) (h o ld in g sta te c o u ld n o t an ticip a te e m p lo y e e ’s n e g lig e n c e ); s ee als o Huds on v. P alm er , 468 U . S. 517, 533 ( 1984) ( ext endi ng P a rra tt ’s l og i c t o int enti on al t ort s) . In hi s A lb rig h t concurr ence , Ju stic e K e n n e d ya rg u e d th a t in § 1 9 8 3 m a licio u s p ro se c u tio n c a se s, a “ sta te act or ’ s r andom and unauthor i zed de pr i vat i on of [Four t eenth A m endmentdue pr oces s i nt er es t s ] cannotbe cha l l enged unde r42 U . S. C . § 1983 s o l ong as the St at e pr ovi des an ade quat e pos tdepr i vat i on r emedy . ” 510 U . S. at284 ( K e n n e d y, J . , concurr i ng) . A s he expl ai ned, “I n the or di narycas e w her e an i nj ur yhas been c a u s e d . . . b ya r a n d o m a n d u n a u th o r i z e d a c tth a tc a n b e r e me d i e d b ys t a t e l a w, ther e i s no bas i s fori nt ervent i on under§ 1983, atl eas ti n a s ui tbas ed on ‘ the D ue Pr oces s C l aus e of the Four t eenth A m endment . ’ ” Id. at285 ( quot i ng P a rr a tt , 451 U .S . at 5 3 6 ); s ee als o Ni eve s , 24 1 F . 3d at53 (r ej ect i ng proced ural du e process claim u n d er § 1 9 8 3 fo r m ali ciou s p rose cu ti o n b ec au se state p rov ides ad eq u ate tort re m e d y ); New s om e v. McC abe , 2 5 6 F .3 d 7 4 7 , 7 5 1 (7 th C ir. 2 0 0 1 ) (h o ld in g sta te-31-

t or tr emedy“knocks outanycons t i tut i onal t or tof m al i ci ous pr os ecut i on” bas ed on du e process) . W e agree w i th thi s anal y si s. B ecke rdoes nots ugges tw hatpr e- depr i vat i on pr oces s coul d have ant i ci pat ed the mal fea s ance of the M FC U i nves t i gat or s and pr ot ect ed herfr om an a b u siv e in v e stig a tio n , an d w e d e c lin e to su p p lyp ro c e d u ra l re q u ire m e n ts in addi t i on t o al r eady - es t abl i s hed cr i m i nal pr ocedur e underthe C ons t i tut i on and s t at e l aw . U t ah t or tl aw pr ovi des an ade quat e pos tdepr i vat i on r emedyt o pr ot ect B e c k e r’ s n o n -F o u rt h A m e n d m e n t lib e rt yin te re s ts . See G i l ber tv. Ince , 981 P. 2d 841 ( U t ah 1999) ( r ecogni zi ng s t at e ca us es of ac t i on form al i ci ous pr os ecut i on and a b u se o f p ro c e ss ); se e g e n e ra lly 2 D a n B . D o b b s , The L aw of Torts § 438 ( 2001) ( d e s c r i b i n g d a m a g e s fo rm a l i c i o u s p r o s e c u t i o n o ra b u s e o f p r o c e s s ) . A c c o r d i n g l y, in th is c a se , w h e re B e c k e r w a s n e v e r se ize d in v io latio n o f th e F o u rth A m endment , U t ah t or tl aw pr ovi des an ade quat e pr ocedur al due pr oces s r emedy fo r a n yinju ri e s n o t c o g n iz a b le a s a F o u rt h A m e n d m e n t s e iz u re . B ecke rhas t her efor e s uffe r ed no depr i vat i on of l i bertyi n vi ol at i on of her p ro c e d u ra l d u e p ro c e s s ri g h ts .

The Medi calR ecords N ordoes the s ubpoena of herm edi cal r ecor ds cr eat e a s epar at e ca us e of ac ti o n u n d er F o u rt ee n th A m en d m en t pro ce d u ral du e p roc ess. F ir st, B ec k er’s part i ci pat i on i n t he s t at e and feder al M edi cai d pr ogr am est abl i s hed a c ont i nui ng obl i gat i on t o m ake r ecor ds avai l abl e t o s t at e off i ci al s . M FC U w as ent i t l ed t o t he-32-

re c o rd s, w h ich it co p ied a n d re tu rn e d th e sa m e d a y . A c c o rd in g ly , an yp ro p e rty in te re s t B e c k e r h a d in th e re c o rd s w a s m in im a l. S econ d, “[u]nd er the F ou rt eenth A m end m ent, proced ural du e process req u ir es n o ti ce an d a p re-d ep ri v ati o n h ea ri n g b efo re p rop ertyinterests are negat i vel yaffect ed bygovernm ent al act or s . ” Mar cus v. McC ol l um , 394 F. 3d 813, 81 8 (10th C i r. 20 04 ). T he sub po ena in this case com pli ed w i th those re q u ir e m e n ts b yo ffe ri n g B e c k e r t h e o p p o rt u n ity fo r a p re -d e p ri v a tio n h e a ri n g . T he di s tr i ctcourtfound that“i ti s undi s put ed thatpl ai nt i ff r ead the s ubpoena a nd u n d e rsto o d th a t sh e c o u ld e ith e r p ro d u c e th e re c o rd s im m e d iate lyo r a p p e a r in Sal tL ake Ci tya fe w day s l at er . ” B e c ke r v . Kro ll , 3 4 0 F . S u p p . 2 d 1 2 3 0 , 1 2 4 1 ( D. U ta h 2 0 0 4 ). A n d o f

c o u rs e B e c k e r c o u ld h a v e c h a lle n g e d th e s u b p o e n a in c o u rt . See In r e Subpoena D uces Tecum , 228 F. 3d at348 ( “[T] he i s s uance of a s ubpoena i ni t i at es an adve r s arypr oces s t hatcan c om m and the pr oduct i on of document s and th in g s o n lya f

ter ju d icia l p ro c e ss is a ffo rd e d .”). T h is o p p o rtu n ityto b e h e a rd is a ll p ro c e d u ra l d u e p ro c e s s re q u ir e s . See Stanko v. Mahar , 419 F. 3d 1107, 1115 (10t h C i r. 20 05 ) ( du e process r equ i res “ oppor t uni t y t o be hea r d ata meani ngful t i m e and i n a meani ngful m anner ”) ( quot i ng Mathew s v. E ldr i dge , 424 U . S. 319, 3 3 3 (1 9 7 6 )) (e m p h a sis a d d e d ); B oddi e v. C onnect i cut , 401 U . S. 371, 378–79 (19 7 1 ) (ho lding that “the h ea ri n g req u ir ed b yd u e p roc ess is su bject t o w aive r”); Mill e r v . C a mp b e ll C o u n ty , 945 F. 2d 348, 354 ( 10th C i r . 1991) ( fi ndi ng no-33-

proced ural du e process vi olat i on w hen plai nti ffs w ere offered bu tdid not use o p p o rt u n ity fo r h e a ri n g ). A d m itt e d ly , the o p p o rtu n ityfo r a h e a rin g o ffe re d w a s in c o n v e n ien t, re q u irin g a 3 0 0 -m ile trip to S a lt L a k e C ity . N e v e rth e les s, th a t B e c k e r c h o se to compl yw i th the s ubpoena r atherthan ava i l her s el f of the pr oces s pr ovi ded does no tam ou nt t o a v i olat i on of an yproced ural du e process r i gh t s. T he d i stri ctcou rtdid not err i n d i sm i ssi ng B ecker’s proced ural du e process cl ai m s. c. S u b st an ti ve D u e P rocess J us t i ce Sout er ’ s concurr ence i n A lb rig h t s ugges t ed the pos s i bi l i tyt hat i n i t i a t i n g a n u n wa r r a n t e d p r o s e c u t i o n t h a ti s d i s mi s s e d b e fo r e t r i a l ma yi n s o me u n u s u a l c i r c u ms t a n c e s r e s u l ti n s u b s t a n t i v e d u e p r o c e s s v i o l a t i o n s s e p a r a t e f r o m a F o u r th Ame n d me n ts e i z u r e : “ Th e r e ma yi n d e e d b e e x c e p t i o n a l c a s e s wh e r e s o me quantum of harm occur s i n t he i nt er i m per i od aft ergr oundl es s cr i m i nal char ges ar e fi l ed butbefor e anyFour th A m endments ei zur e. W hetheranys uch unus ual c a se m a yre v e a l a s u b sta n tial d e p riv a tio n o f lib e rty. . . ind e p e n d e n t o f th e F o u rth A m endment , ar e i s s ues t o be fa ced onl yw hen theyar i s e. ” A l br ight , 510 U . S. at 2 9 1 (S o u ter , J. co n c u rrin g ); see also D arrah v. C i t y of O ak P ark , 255 F. 3d 301, 309 ( 6th C i r . 2001) ( not i ng “§ 1983 mal i ci ous pr os ecut i on cl ai m s m ays t i l l be avail able pursuantt o the Fo urt eenth A m end m ent’ s subst anti ve d ue p rocess ri gh t s” in c a se s th a t d o n o t in v o lv e a F o u rth A m e n d m e n t se izu re ); To rr e s v . McL a u g h lin ,-34-

163 F. 3d 169, 173 ( 3d C i r . 1998) ( concl udi ng A lb rig h t for ecl os es s ubs t ant i ve due p ro c e s s a n a lysis o n ly if th e c la im “ is c o v e re d b yth e F o u rt h A m e n d m e n t” ). B ecke rar gues thatM FC U offi ci al s vi ol at ed hers ubs t ant i ve r i ght s undert he F ou rt eenth A m end m ent’ s due p rocess cl ause w hen theyeng aged i n a g round l ess i nves t i gat i on des i gned t o obt ai n ci vi l penal t i es fr om herand w i thhel d m at er i al evidence tendi ng t o ex on erat e her. W e con cl ud e t his i s not a case that r eveals a subst anti al dep ri vati on suffici ent t o ri se t o the l evel of a subst anti ve d ue p rocess vi ol at i on. C lai m s A r is i ng Fr om the Inves t igat i on O u r c a se s re c o g n ize a § 1 9 8 3 c laim fo r a v io latio n o f F o u rte e n th A m e n d m e n t s u b s ta n tiv e d u e p ro c e s s ri g h ts in th e n a rr o w e s t o f c ir c u m s ta n c e s . T he conduc tal l eged “ m us tdo m or e than s how thatthe governm entact or i nt ent i onal l yorr eckl es s l ycaus ed i nj ur yt o the pl ai nt i ff byabus i ng orm i s us i ng governm entpow er. . . [I t ] m us tdemonstr at e a de gr ee of out r ageous nes s and a m agni tude of pot ent i al oractual harm thati s trul ycons ci ence s hocki ng. ” Li vs ey v . Sa lt L a ke C o u n ty , 2 7 5 F . 3 d 9 5 2 , 9 5 7

– 5 8 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ); Uhlr ig v. Har der , 64 F . 3 d 5 6 7 , 5 7 3 ( 1 0 th Ci r . 1 9 9 5 ) . Th i s s t a n d a r d i s me ti n o n l yth e mo s te x tr e me ci r cumst ance s , t ypi cal l yi nvol vi ng s om e vi ol at i on of phy s i cal l i bertyorper s onal p h y s ic a l in te g ri ty. S e e , e .g ., Ho lla n dv . Ha r r in g to n , 2 6 8 F . 3 d 1 1 7 9 (10 th C ir . 2001) ( fi ndi ng s ubs t ant i ve due pr oces s vi ol at i on w hen pol i ce he l d chi l dr en at gunpoi ntforext ens i ve per i od of t i m e eve n aft ercontr ol of hom e had be en-35-

se c u re d ); D ubbs v. Head Star t, Inc. , 336 F. 3d 1194 ( 10th C i r . 2003) ( r ecogni zi ng pot ent i al par ent al cl ai m fors ubs t ant i ve due pr oces s vi ol at i on w her e governm ent di d nots eek c ons entbefor e per form i ng bl ood t es t s and geni t al exams on mi nor c h ild re n ). T he S up rem e C ou rtset s a si m i l arl yhigh hu rdl e for subst anti ve d ue p rocess cl ai m s . I t“has al w ay s been r el uct antt o expand the conc eptof s ubs t ant i ve due pr oces s beca us e the gui depos t s forr es pons i bl e dec i s i onm aki ng i n thi s unchart er ed ar ea a r e s car ce a nd open- ended. ” C o lli n s v . Ha rk e r He ig h ts , 503 U . S. 115, 125 ( 1992) . “The pr ot ect i ons of s ubs t ant i ve due pr oces s have forthe mostpartbeen a c c o rd e d to m a tters re latin g to m a rria g e , fa m ily , p ro c re a tio n , an d th e rig h t to bodi l yi nt egr i ty . ” A l br ight , 510 U . S. at272 ( ci t i ng P lanned Parenthood of Se. P a. v. C as ey , 5 0 5 U .S . 8 3 3 , 8 4 7

– 4 9 (1 9 9 2 )) . T he conduc tal l eged he r e does notm eetthi s r i gor ous s t andar d. W hi l e the enfor cementt act i cs and abs ence of pr ofes s i onal i s m i n thi s cas e— i f true as al l eged— fai l t he mostobvi ous s t andar ds of pr operconduct , theydo notm eetthe aff r ont s t o per s onal aut onom ys ugges t ed byourcas e l aw . B ecke rhas a numberof w el l - defi ned ca us es of ac t i on unders t at e and feder al l aw t o vi ndi cat e her i nter est s. T o resther cl ai m s on the un defined co ntours of sub st anti ve d ue p rocessE ven i f w e agreed thatB ecker has st at ed a sub st anti ve d ue p rocess 12 cl ai m , gi ven the novel natur e of Becker ’ s theoryw hen compar ed w i th ear l i er c a s e s , q u a lifie d im m u n ity w o u ld lik e ly ap p ly to th e o ffic ia ls in v o lv e d . See Hol land , 268 F. 3d at1186. A ft erthe Mor an cas e w as r emanded t o the tr i al courtand appe al ed 13 agai n, the courthear i ng the s econd appeal appar ent l yr ej ect ed A l br ight ’ s l anguage l i m i t i ng § 1983 m al i ci ous pr os ecut i on t o cl ai m s bas ed on the Four th A m endment beca us e the cha l l enged c onductw as “w el l bey ond the r eal m of m al i ci ous p ro s e c u tio n ” in lig h t o f th e “ p u rp o s e f

u l c o n s p ir a c y ” in v o lv e d . Mor an v. C larke , 3 5 9 F .3 d 1 0 5 8 , 1 0 6 1 (8 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). T o th is e x te n t, Mor an se e m s to b a se its hol di ng, w hi ch otherw i s e s eems c l ear l ycontr aryt o A l br ight , i n the s ubs t ant i ve due pr oces s pr ot ect i ons agai ns toutr ageous and arbi tr arygovernm entconduct Just i ce S ou t er al l ud ed to i n h i s A lb rig h t con curr ence. 510 U . S . at29 1 (So uter , J. (c o n tin u e d ...) -36- w oul d onl yi ntr oduce unc ert ai ntyand ana l yt i cal confus i on t o an al r eadyunw i el dy b o d y o f l a w. 12

C lai m s A r is i ng Fr om the Wi thholdi ng of E vi dence B ecke ral s o cl ai m s M FC U vi ol at ed herdue pr oces s r i ght s byw i thhol di ng excul pat oryevi dence . Sever al otherci r cui t s have r ecogni zed a § 1983 m al i ci ous p ro s e c u tio n -t yp e c la im u n d e r s im ila r c ir c u m s ta n c e s . See Mor an v. C larke , 296 F. 3d 638, 647 ( 8th C i r . 2002) . T he Ei ghth C i r cui ti n Mor an concl uded that A lb rig h t di d notfor ecl os e a s ubs t ant i ve due pr oces s cl ai m beca us e “[ a] l though t he F o u rth A m e n d m e n t co v e rs s e izu re s, w h ich w o u ld b e sa tisfied b yM o ra n ’s a rre st, law e n fo rc e m e n t’s in ten tio n a l cr e a tio n o f d a m a g in g fa c ts w o u ld n o t fa ll w ith in its ambi t . H er e, w e s ee no s peci fi cal l yappl i cabl e cons t i tut i onal r emedyt hat pr ovi des M or an w i th expl i ci tpr ot ect i on t o a l evel s uffi ci entt o excl ude s ubs t ant i ve due pr oces s anal y s i s . ” Id. 13( . . . cont i nued) 13 c o n c u rr in g ). A lte rn a tiv e ly, A lb rig h t pot ent i al l ydi d notappl yi n Mor an becau se the cons t i tut i onal vi ol at i on al l eged w as a vi ol at i on of the r i ghtt o a fa i rtr i al , even th o u g h th e E ig h th C irc u it d id n o t m a k e th is re a so n in g e x p licit. -37- B ecke rpr es ent s a s i m i l arcl ai m : thatthe defendant s vi ol at ed herdue pr oces s r i ght s , as di s t i ngui s hed fr om herFour th A m endmentr i ght s , by s u p p re s s in g e x c u lp a to ry e v id e n c e a n d d e n y in g h e r a fa irh e a ri n g . A n d th is c laim has cons t i tut i onal w ei ght : t he Supr eme C our ti n B r ady v. Mar yland , 373 U . S. 83, 8 7 (1 9 6 3 ) d e ter m in e d th a t a d e fe n d a n t’s rig h t to a c c e ss e x c u lp a to rye v id e n c e is s e c u re d b yth e D u e P ro c e s s C la u s e . O thercourt s al l ow i ng thi s type of c l ai m des pi t e A lb rig h t h a v e sp e c ifica lly ro o te d th e c o n s titu tio n a l v io la tio n in th e d u e p ro c e s s ri g h t to a fa irtr ia l. See C as t el lano , 352 F. 3d at942, 959 ( r eas oni ng thatpr es ent i ng per j ur yand m anufa ctur ed evi dence attr i al vi ol at ed s ubs t ant i ve due pr oces s r i ght s , and A lb rig h t d id n o t app lyb ec au se e v en ts attr ial are o u tsi d e the F o u rth A m en d m en t’ s sc o p e ); Ne ws o me , 2 5 6 F .3 d a t 7 5 2 (h o ld in g th e p lain tiff h a d “ a d u e p ro c e ss c laim i n the or i gi nal s ens e of thatphr as e— he di d notr ece i ve a fai rtr i al i f the p rose cu tors w ith h eld m aterial ex cu lpato ryd etail s”); Jean v . C ol l i ns , 107 F. 3d 1 1 1 1 , 1 1 1 4

– 1 5 (4th C ir . 1 9 9 7 ) (“A lb rig h t does notpr ecl ude [thi s ] caus e of a ct i on beca us e the r i ghtt o di s cl os ur e of e xcul pat or yevi dence i s gr ounded di r ect l yi n t he D u e P ro c e s s C la u s e its e lf [ ra th e r t h a n th e F o u rt h A m e n d m e n t] .” ).-38-

N evertheles s, B ecker nev er pr oceed ed to tri al , and she can no ttherefore r est her§ 1983 cl ai m s on a B r ady v io la tio n . See Brady , 373 U . S. at86–88 ( fr ami ng th e rig h t to e x c u lp a to rye v id e n c e o n lyin ter m s o f p ro v id in g a fa ir trial); see also Jean v . C ol l i ns , 2 2 1 F . 3 d 6 5 6 , 6 6 3 ( 4 th Ci r . 2 0 0 0 ) ( e n b a n c ) ( “ A B r ady vi ol at i on th a tr e s u l t e d i n t h e o v e r tu r n i n g o f th e § 1 9 8 3 p l a i n t i ff ’ s c o n v i c t i o n i s a n e c e s s a r y, bu tno ta suffici ent, con dit i on for § 1 98 3 li abil i tyon the p artof the po l i ce. Iti s a nece s s arycondi t i on beca us e the B r ady v io latio n e sta b lish e s th e re q u isite thr es hol d of cons t i tut i onal i nj ury( a convi ct i on r es ul t i ng i n l os s of l i berty ) bel ow w hi ch no § 1983 ac t i on can l i e. ”) . W e have hel d that , t o es t abl i s h a B r ady vi ol at i on, the defendantm us tpr ove “( 1) the pr os ecut i on s uppr es s ed evi dence ; ( 2) th e e v id e n c e w a s fa v o ra b le to th e a c c u se d ; an d (3 ) th e e v id e n c e w a s m a ter ial to the defens e. ” Uni t ed Stat es v. G eam es , 4 2 7 F .3 d 1 3 3 3 , 1 3 3 7 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). A pl ai nt i ff c annotes t abl i s h m at er i al i tyunl es s the ca s e goes t o tr i al and the s u p p re s s io n o f

e x c u lp a to ry e v id e n c e a ffe c ts th e o u tc o m e . See Uni t ed Stat es v. B agl ey , 473 U . S. 667, 678 ( 1985) ( “[A ] cons t i tut i onal err oroccur s . . . onl yi f the evi dence i s m at er i al i n the s ens e thati t s s uppr es s i on underm i nes confi dence i n t he out come of t he tr i al . ”) . T hus , B ecke rs uffe r ed no due pr oces s vi ol at i on bas ed on B r ady a n d th e s u p p re s s io n o f e v id e n c e . S e e id . ( “[S] uppr es s i on of evi dence a m o u n ts to a c o n stitu tio n a l v io latio n o n lyif it d e p riv e s th e d e fe n d a n t o f a fa ir trial.” ); Taylor v. Waters , 81 F. 3d 429, 436 n. 5 ( 4th C i r . 1996) ( al l ow i ng no §-39-

1983 cl ai m bas ed on w i thhol di ng excul pat oryevi dence w her e pl ai nt i ff di d notgo to tr ial ). A ccor di ngl y , w e agr ee w i th the di s tr i ctcour tthatB ecke rhas not e sta b lish e d a c laim fo r a v io latio n o f su b sta n tiv e d u e p ro c e ss u n d e r th e F o u rte e n th A m e n d m e n t. * * * I n s um , the di s tr i ctcourtdi d noterri n di s m i s s i ng B ecke r ’ s m al i ci ous prosecuti on cl ai m s based o n the Fo urth an d F ou rt eenth A m end m ents . Be c a u s e we d e ter m in e th a t B e c k e r’s F o u rth a n d F o u rte e n th A m e n d m e n t cla im s w e re p ro p e rly di s m i s s ed bythe di s tr i ctcourt , i tfol l ow s t hathercl ai m of cons pi r acybyt he vari ou s defen dan t s t o co m m i tthese co nst i tuti on al viol at i on s al so fai l s. B . R eta li a ti o n C laim U n d er th e F irst A m en d m en t B ecke ral s o as s ert s a § 1983 cl ai m forr et al i at orypr os ecut i on undert he Fi r s tA m endment . She cont ends t hatG ar dnerfi l ed cr i m i nal char ges agai ns ther as a r esul tof h er publi c den un ci at i on s of M F C U . S he p oint s t o the factt hat j ust hour s aft erherhus band t es t i fi ed befor e a s t at e l egi s l at i ve comm i t t ee r egar di ng M FC U ’ s i nves t i gat i ve pr act i ces , M FC U fi l ed i t s cr i m i nal cas e. W e agr ee w i th t he d istric t co u rt th a t G a rd n e r is a b so lu telyim m u n e f ro m su it fo r th e d e c isio n to file c h a rg e s, b u t w e re m a n d fo r f u rth e r c o n sid e ra tio n o f B e c k e r’s re talia tio n c laim againstotherdefe nd ants .W e hav e al so recogn i zed in the co ntextof m al i ci ou s prosecut i on a cause 14 of ac t i on agai ns ta per s on w ho i nfl uence s t he dec i s i on t o pr os ecut e butdoes not (c o n tin u e d ...) -40- A pr os ecut or ’ s char gi ng deci s i ons ar e abs ol ut el yi m m une fr om ci vi l s ui tfor m o n e ta ry d a m a g e s . Hartm an v. Moo re , 126 S. C t . 1695, 1704–05 ( 2006) ( ci t i ng Im bl erv. P achtm an , 4 2 4 U .S . 4 0 9 , 4 3 1 (1 9 7 6 )); see also Mi nk v. Suthers , 482 F. 3d 1244, 1258–59 ( 10th C i r . 2007) . I m m uni tyext ends t o thos e ac t i vi t i es “i nt i m at el yas s oci at ed w i th the j udi ci al phas e of the cr i m i nal pr oces s , ” w hi ch u n d o u b te d ly in c lu d e s in itia tin g c ri m in a l p ro c e e d in g s . Im bl er v. P achtm an , 424 U . S. 409, 430 ( 1976) . T hi s i m m uni tyappl i es even i f the pr os ecut orfi l es char ges k n o w in g h e la c k s p ro b a b le c a u s e . S e e id . at431 n. 34 ( appl y i ng i m m uni tyeven w h en p rose cu tor d eli b era tel yw ith h o lds e x cu lpato ryinfo rm ati o n fro m the c o u rt ). A cc o rdin g ly , B ec k er c an n o t pro ce ed o n a re tal iat ion claim b ase d o n G ard n er’s d e c is io n to c h a rg e h e r c ri m in a lly. T h e d o c tr in e o f

a b s o lu te im m u n ity, h o w e v e r, i s n o t w ith o u t lim its . Pr os ecut or s and othergovernm entoffi ci al s ar e notent i t l ed t o i m m uni tyfor a d m in istra tiv e a n d in v e stig a tiv e a c tio n s th a t m a yh a v e in flu e n c e d th e d e c isio n to file c ri m in a l c h a rg e s . See Har tm an , 126 S. C t . at1704–05 & n. 8 ( not i ng a defe ndantm aypr ocee d i n a r et al i at orypr os ecut i on act i on agai ns tan off i ci al “w ho m ayhave i nfl uence d t he pr os ecut or i al deci s i on butdi d nothi m s el f m ake i t , and the ca us e of a ct i on w i l l notbe s tr i ct l yforr et al i at or ypr os ecut i on, butfor su cc essf u l r etali atoryind u ce m en t t o p rose cu te”). 14( . . . cont i nued) 14 in itia te c ri m in a l p ro c e e d in g s . P i er ce , 359 F. 3d at1292. T he Supr eme C our ti s s ued Har tm an a f ter b rie fin g to o k p lac e in th is 15 c a se , so n e ith e r th e p a rties n o r th e d istric t co u rt h a d th e o p p o rtu n ityto d ire c tly addr es s the abs ence of pr obabl e ca us e i n the r et al i at or ypr os ecut i on cont extei t her in p ro c e e d in g s b e lo w o r b e fo re th is c o u rt . -41- T o est abli sh a § 1 98 3 ret al i at i on cl ai m againstno n-i m m un e offi ci al s, B e c k e r m u st p lea d a n d p ro v e (1 ) th a t sh e w a s e n g a g e d in a c o n stitu tio n a lly pr ot ect ed ac t i vi ty ; ( 2) thata defendant ’ s act i on caus ed hert o s uffe ran i nj ur ythat w oul d chi l l a per s on of or di naryfi r m nes s fr om cont i nui ng t o engage i n that act i vity ; and (3) that a defend ant’ s act i on w as subst anti al l ym oti vated as a re s p o n s e to h e r e x e rc is e o f h e r F ir s t A m e n d m e n t s p e e c h ri g h ts . Worrel lv. Henry , 219 F. 3d 1197, 1212 ( 10th C i r . 2000) . She al s o m us tpl ead a nd pr ove the abs ence o f p ro b a b le c a u s e fo r t h e p ro s e c u tio n . Har tm an , 126 S. C t . at1707. 15 W e b eli ev e the rec o rd o n ap p ea l prese n ts a p o ssible infere n ce o f re tal iat o ry act i on . T o survi ve sum m aryj ud gm ent on t he ret al i at i on cl ai m , B ecker m ust pr es enta genui ne i s s ue of mat er i al fac tas t o w hethera non- i m m une defendant i nfl uence d the dec i s i on t o pr os ecut e i n r et al i at i on forpr ot ect ed s peec h. V i ew i ng the fa ct s i n t he l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o B ecke r , w e ca n i nfert he fol l ow i ng fr om the r ecor d: ( 1) i n N ovemberand D ece m berof 1999, B ecke rbegan s peaki ng out a b o u t M F C U b yfili n g a N o tice o f C laim a g a in st th e sta te a n d w riting to sta te l aw m aker s ; ( 2) B ecke r ’ s s peec h w as partof a l ar gerpol i t i cal debat e ar ound t he s ame t i m e thatr es ul t ed i n m anage m entchange s atM FC U : i n D ece m ber1999,I n t he s econd or dergr ant i ng s um m aryj udgementt o K r ol l and W r i ghton 16 m al i ci ous pr os ecut i on, the di s tr i ctcourtnot ed that“D r . B ecke rhas cr eat ed fa ctual di s put es as t o w hetherdefe ndant s K r ol l and W r i ghtdel i ber at el ys uppl i ed m is le a d in g in fo rm a tio n th a t r e s u lte d in D r. B e c k e r b e in g c h a rg e d a n d p ro s e c u te d . (c o n tin u e d ...) -42- G a rd n e r b e c a m e th e M F C U lea d p ro se c u to r a n d so m e tim e th e re a f ter , the sta te leg isla tu re tra n sfe rre d o v e rsig h t o f M F C U f

ro m th e D e p a rtm e n t o f P u b lic S a fe ty t o the A t t orneyG ener al ’ s offi ce; ( 3) s om e defendant s s t at ed atthei rdepos i t i ons thattheyw er e aw ar e of the publ i c cr i t i ci s m and ats om e poi ntw er e aw ar e of B ecke r ’ s pl anned l i t i gat i on agai ns tthe s t at e; ( 4) w hi l e G ar dnerw as r evi ew i ng B ecker’s case, he d i scussed t he invest i gati on w i th som e defend ants ; (5) these d efen d an ts m ayh av e w ith h eld in fo rm ati o n ab o u t th e inv esti g ati o n fro m G ard n er; ( 6) as a r es ul t , G ar dnerdi d nothave c om pl et e i nform at i on aboutthe B ecke r i nves t i gat i on befor e he made the dec i s i on t o fi l e cha r ges ; and ( 7) i f G ar dnerhad compl et e i nform at i on, he w oul d nothave f i l ed cr i m i nal char ges i n J anuary2000. If B e c k e r h a s e sta b lish e d a g e n u in e iss u e o f m a ter ial fa c t as to th e p o in ts above a gai ns tdefe ndant s notent i t l ed t o i m m uni ty , herr et al i at i on cl ai m m aybe a b le to p ro c e e d to a ju ry. See, e. g. , Meye rv. B d. of C ount y C om m ’ rs of

Har per C o u n ty , 4 8 2 F .3 d 1 2 3 2 , 1 2 4 4 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 7 ) (“ T h e c ru c ial p o in t, of c o u rse , is that itis fo r th e juryto d ec ide w h at i n fe ren ce to d raw . ”); P ier cy v . Ma ke ta , 480 F. 3d 1192, 1198 ( 10th C i r . 2007) . T he di s tr i ctcour t ’ s s um m aryj udgm entor der di d notdi s cus s B ecke r ’ s t heoryof r et al i at i on bynon- i m m une defendant s w ho m ay h av e ind u ce d the p rose cu ti o n b yw ith h o lding k eyev iden ce fro m G ard n er. 16( . . . cont i nued) 16 T he s ame hol ds true w i th r es pectt o w hetherM r . K r ol l and M r . W r i ghts uppr es s ed e x c u lp a to rye v id e n c e th a t re su lted in D r. B e c k e r’s c o n tin u in g p ro se c u tio n .” A p lt. A pp . 46 . B ut i tnev er appl i ed these fi nd i ng s t o B ecker’s ret al i at i on cl ai m s. -43- N ei therdi d i taddr es s the r ol e part i cul ardefe ndant s pl ay ed i n i nfl uenci ng G a rd n e r’ s d e c is io n . W e ther efor e r emand t he r et al i at i on cl ai m t o the di s tr i ctcour tforfur ther c o n s id e ra tio n o n s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. C . S ta te L ib e l C la im Fi nal l y , i n a pende nts t at e l aw cl ai m B ecke rar gues t hatG ar dnerand Evans c o mmi t t e d l i b e l b yp u b l i s h i n g u n tru e s t a t e me n t s a b o u th e rc a s e o n t h e M F CU w ebs i t e, w hi ch w as avai l abl e t o the publ i c. W e conc l ude thatB ecke rhas e s ta b lis h e d s u ffic ie n t e v id e n c e fo r a ju ry to c o n s id e r h e r l ib e l c la im . In bri ef, the M F C U w ebsi t e detai l ed M F C U act i vit i es, i ncludi ng cases, d ispo sit ion s, an d g en era l new s. B ec k er’s ca se w as re p o rt ed u n d er a ca tego ry cal l ed “Fr aud C as es - D i s m i s s al s , ” on J anuary12, 2001, w el l aft erM FC U had di s m i s s ed al l of i t s char ges agai ns ther . T he M FC U r eporti ncl uded the fol l ow i ng pas s age: Ta jBe c k e r, M. D. T hi s neur ol ogi s tw as char ged w i th one Second D egree F el on ycou nt of Fa l se C l ai m s for M edical B enefi t s. T he case s t emm ed fr om U t ah M FC U i nves t i gat i on w hi ch uncove r ed w id e s p re a d [ ] u p c o d in g . P ati en t r ec o rds o b tai n ed fro m the d o ctor’s offi ce fai l ed t o s ubs t ant i at e corr es pondi ng s ervi ces had bee n pr ovi ded t o j us t i fythe upcode d bi l l s s ubm i t t ed t o M edi cai d. Fr aud es t i m at e appr oxi m at ed $17, 000. Fol l ow i ng the Pr el i m i naryH ear i ng ( PH ) i n t hi s cas e, the defendantw as bound overfort r i al as char ged,Sect i on 63- 30- 4 w as r epea l ed i n J ul y2004. I thas been r epl ace d byU t ah 17 C o d e A n n . § 6 3 -3 0 d -2 0 2 . T h e d iffe re n c e s b e tw e e n th e tw o s ta tu te s a re m in o r. B eca us e § 63- 30- 4 w as the l aw i n effectatt he t i m e of the al l eged l i bel , w e r efe r to it. -44- buts i gni fi cantpr obl ems w er e di s cl os ed dur i ng the PH , i ncl udi ng key m eet i ngs w i th the defendantw hi ch had notbeen doc um ent ed, and re fe rr a l o f

th e c a s e to a n e u ro lo g is t e x p e rt , a ls o n o t d o c u m e n te d . Be c a u s e o

f p o l i t i c a lp r e s s u r e wh i c h h a db e e n b r o u g h to n th e M FCU as a resul tof this case an d several others i nvo lvi ngruraldo ct ors, the cas e w as dis m is s ed w i th pr ej udi ce, and r ef er r ed t o the Utah D epar tm entof

Heal th f

orci vi loradm i nis tr at i ve r ecov er y of the over pai d Medi cai d f

unds . A p lt . A p p . 1 6 1 (em p h asis ad d ed ). B ecke ral l eges thatthi s publ i s hed s t at ementabouthercas e i s l i bel ous under U t ah s t at e l aw . T o s t at e a c l ai m fordefa m at i on i n U t ah, a pl ai nt i ff musts how “[1] thatdefe ndant s publ i s hed the s t at ement s conce rni ng hi m [ei theri n pr i ntorby sp o k e n w o rd s], [ 2 ] th a t th e sta tem e n ts w e re fa lse , d e fa m a to ry , an d n o t su bjec t to anypr i vi l ege, [3] thatthe s t at ement s w er e publ i s hed w i th the r equi s i t e degr ee of faul t , and [4] thatthei rpubl i cat i on r es ul t ed i n damage. ” Wes tv. Thom s on New spap ers , 8 7 2 P .2 d 9 9 9 , 1 0 0 7

– 0 8 (U tah 1 9 9 4 ); see also Waym entv. C l ear C hannelB r oad. , Inc. , 1 1 6 P .3 d 2 7 1 , 2 7 8 (U ta h 2 0 0 5 ) ( a p p lyin g th e s e e le m e n ts ). In a d d iti o n , li b e l cla im s a g a in st s tate o fficia ls m u st s h o w th a t th e d e fe n d a n ts “ac t ed orfai l ed t o actthr ough fr aud orm al i ce” i n or dert o w ai ve s over ei gn im m u n ity . U tah C o d e A n n . § 6 3 -30 -4(3 )(b)(I). 17 U nderU t ah l aw , the l i bel pl ai nt i ff mustpr ove “mal i ce” t o es t abl i s h the r equi s i t e degr ee of

faul tforthe thi r d el ementof Tho m son New spap ers . T heB ecke ral s o ar gues s he i s ent i t l ed t o the “f r aud” e xcept i on i n § 63- 30- 18 4( 3) ( b) ( I ) . She has neverart i cul at ed, how ever , how s he meet s t he el ement s of a f ra u d c la im a g a in s t G a rd n e r a n d E v a n s . See G old Standar d, Inc. v. G et t y O i lC o. , 915 P. 2d 1060, 1066–67 ( U t ah 1996) ( l ay i ng outni ne es s ent i al el ement s t o pr ove fr aud) . T hus , the di s tr i ctcourtpr oper l yhel d thata fr aud theoryt o s uppor tt he l i be l c l a i m w a s no tpl e a de d wi th the r e qu i s i t e pa r t i c ul a r i tyun de rFe d. R. Ci v. P. 9 (b). -45- di s tr i ctcourtdi s m i s s ed B ecke r ’ s l i bel cl ai m beca us e s he “fai l ed t o pr oduce evi dence s uffi ci entt o s uppor ta fi ndi ng of fr aud orm al i ce i n the publ i cat i on [by G a rd n e r o r E v a n s ] o f th e re p o rt o n th e In te rn e t.” B e c ke r v . Kro ll , 340 F. Supp. 18 2 d a t 1 2 3 9 . T h e d istric t co u rt d e fin e d m a lice a s re q u irin g a sh o w in g o f “ ill w ill ors pi t e, ” ci t i ng Mur

phr ee v . US B ank of

Utah , 2 8 2 F . S u p p . 2 d 1 2 9 4 , 1 2 9 7 ( D. U t ah 2003) . T he U t ah Supr eme C our thas pr ovi ded a mor e expa ns i ve def i ni t i on: U nderthe comm on l aw s t an d ard o f m al i ce, t o over come a condi t i onal p riv ileg e [ su c h a s tha t p ro v id e d b y th e U tah G o v e rn m e n ta l I m m u n ity A ct ] , a pl ai nt i ff musts how ‘ an i m pr operm ot i ve s uch as a d esire t o do harm or thatthe defendantdi d nothones t l ybel i eve hi s s t at ement s t o be tru e o r t h a t th e p u b lic a tio n w a s e x c e s s iv e .’ R ussel lv. Tho m son New spap ers , 842 P. 2d 896, 904 ( U t ah 1992) ( quot i ng Seegm i l l erv. KSL, Inc. , 626 P. 2d 968, 975 ( U t ah 1981) ) . I n ourvi ew , B ecke rhas sh o w n su fficie n t ev id e n c e o f m a lice to su rv iv e su m m a ryju d g m e n t. T he r ecor d s uppor t s an i nfer ence of m al i ce unde rt he Tho m son New spap ers s t andar d. A tthe t i m e M FC U dr opped i t s cas e aga i ns tB ecke ri n Sept ember2000, G ar dnerhad det erm i ned thatevi dence of B ecke r ’ s i nnocenc e had pos s i bl ybeen w ith h eld f

rom h im . B ythe tim e the ca se su m m aryw as p u b li sh ed in Ja n u ary 2001, m or eover , both ci vi l and cr i m i nal cl ai m s had bee n di s m i s s ed foroverfi ve-46-

m onths . G ar dnerand Evans thus had conc l uded w el l befor e the publ i cat i on on th e w e b site th a t th e c h a rg e s w e re u n p ro se c u tab le, a m o n g o th e r th in g s, d u e to pr obl ems as s oci at ed w i th the s ubpoena, m i s s i ng not es of al l eged meet i ngs , and the fa i l ur e t o di s cl os e mat er i al excul pat oryevi dence . A nd B ecke rl at erpr evai l ed in a n a d m in is tr a tiv e h e a ri n g o n th e b illin g a lle g a tio n s . D es pi t e thes e fa ct s , t he I nt ernetpubl i cat i on us es l oaded j ar gon s uch as “pol i t i cal pr es s ur e” t o i m pl yt hatB ecke rw as gui l tyas char ged, and thatdi s m i s s al w as notbas ed on the mer i t s of the cha r ges . T o compound t he i m pl i cat i on, the p u b lica tio n tells th e re a d e r th a t B e c k e r’s c a se h a d b e e n re fe rre d to a n o th e r sta te agenc yforcol l ect i on of “ove rpai d M edi cai d funds , ” a c l ears t at ementthatB ecke r h a d c o m m itte d f

ra u d a g a in s t th e s ta te a n d w a s le t o ff th e h o o k fo r o th e r r e a s o n s . W hi l e G ar dnerar gues he s ubj ect i vel ybel i eved Beckerw as a l aw - br eake rat th e tim e o f

th e re p o rt’s p u b lica tio n , a re a so n a b le ju ryc o u ld c o n c lu d e th a t b o th G a rd n e r a n d E v a n s c o u ld n o t h a v e re a s o n a b ly b e lie v e d th e s ta te m e n ts w e re tru e . T h e d e fe n d a n ts w ill b e a b le to p ro v id e e v id e n c e o f th e ir su bjec tiv e b e lief a t trial, b u t at th e sta g e o f

su m m a ryju d g m e n t, en o u g h e v id e n c e o f m a lice e x ists to m e rit c o n s id e ra tio n b yth e ju ry. G a rd n e r a n d E v a n s a lso a rg u e th a t th e ir in v o lv e m e n t in th e c a se su m m a ryis i m m une underU t ah l aw . U nderU t ah’ s l i bel l aw , a r eportr equi r ed bys t at e or fede r al l aw i s i m m une fr om s ui t s forl i bel ors l anderi f m ade “ i n the pr oper di s char ge of a n offi ci al dut y ” or“bya fa i rand true r eport , w i thoutm al i ce, of aW e D E N Y B ec k er’s M o ti o n fo r P erm issi o n to S u p p lem en t th e R ec o rd 19 dat ed N ovember10, 2005. -47- j udi ci al , l egi s l at i ve orotherpubl i c off i ci al pr ocee di ng. ” U t ah C ode A nn. § 45- 2- 3( 1) and ( 4) . E vans and G ar dnercl ai m the pr i vi l ege f r om s ui tbeca us e the M F C U an n u al rep o rtis a p u b li ca ti o n req u ir ed b ythe fed era l go v ern m en t as p art of U t ah’ s part i ci pat i on i n the M edi cai d pr ogr am. W hi l e the s t atut e w i l l pr ovi de a n i mmu n i tyf

r o m s u i tfo r“ fa i ra n d tru e ” r e p o r t s , i te x p r e s s l yp r o v i d e s th e s a me s ta te -o f-m in d e x c e p tio n a s th e g o v e rn m e n ta l im m u n ity sta tu te

— m a lic e . In su m , the d istric t co u rt e rre d in d ism iss in g B e c k e r’s sta te la w lib e l cla im a g a in s t G a rd n e r a n d E v a n s fo r fa ilu re to p re s e n t e v id e n c e o f m a lic e . I V . C oncl usi on Forthe for egoi ng r eas ons , w e A FFIRM t he di s tr i ctcourt ’ s di s m i s s al of B ecke r ’ s Four th and Four t eenth A m endmentcl ai m s under42 U . S. C . § 1983 and R E V E R SE the court ’ s di s m i s s al of B ecke r ’ s Fi r s tA m endmentr et al i at i on and r el at ed cons pi r acycl ai m s . W e al s o R E V E R SE t he di s m i s s al of the s t at e l aw l i bel c l a i m a g a i n s td e fe n d a n t s / a p p e l l e e s Ga r d n e ra n d E v a n s . We t h e r e fo r e RE M AND the re tal iat ion an d co n sp ir ac yclaim s an d the s tat e law claim to the d istri ct co u rt forfur therpr ocee di ngs cons i s t entw i th thi s opi ni on. 19