Opinion ID: 169496
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Malicious Prosecution Claims Under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments

Text: This case requires us to wade into the murky waters of § 1983-based malicious prosecution claims. Section 1983 provides a federal civil cause of action against state officials for the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution. 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Claims under § 1983 are often analytically similar toalthough still distinct fromcommon law torts, such as malicious prosecution. Most recently, in Pierce v. Gilchrist, 359 F.3d 1279 (10th Cir.2004), for example, we examined a claim for malicious prosecution under § 1983, recognizing the uneasy relationship between § 1983 constitutional torts and state common law causes of action. As we observed in Pierce, 359 F.3d at 1286, [s]ince Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247, 98 S.Ct. 1042, 55 L.Ed.2d 252 (1978), courts have used the common law of torts as a `starting point' for determining the contours of claims of constitutional violations under § 1983. In other words, the common law tortwhile not entirely imported into § 1983provides a useful guidepost in making sense of alleged constitutional injuries. See id. at 1286 n. 3. In some instances, a common law tort is sufficiently analogous to the alleged constitutional violation that its common law elements are grafted onto and themselves become elements of a § 1983 constitutional tort. But not all § 1983 actions have a common law analog, and no § 1983 action depends entirely on a common law analog to define its elements. The core inquiry under any § 1983 action, regardless of the analogous common law tort, is whether the plaintiff has alleged an actionable constitutional violation. Id. at 1290 (citing Taylor v. Meacham, 82 F.3d 1556, 1561 (10th Cir.1996)). The district court dismissed Becker's claim because it determined that no seizure existed under the Fourth Amendment which would support a § 1983 action for malicious prosecution. Becker argues the district court erred in two respects in considering her claims: she argues (1) that criminal charges alone, even though subsequently dismissed, constitute a sufficient restraint on her liberty to qualify as a seizure under the Fourth Amendment, and (2) that MFCU also violated her due process rights during the course of the investigation, which provides an additional constitutional basis for her malicious prosecution cause of action. We have repeatedly recognized in this circuit that, at least prior to trial, the relevant constitutional underpinning for a claim of malicious prosecution under § 1983 must be the Fourth Amendment's right to be free from unreasonable seizures. Taylor, 82 F.3d at 1561; see Pierce, 359 F.3d at 1285-86. Although we agree with the district court that a seizure is necessary to support a § 1983 malicious prosecution claim based on the initiation of criminal proceedings that are dismissed before trial, we also discuss whether Becker may rely on a theory that the defendants deprived her of liberty or property interests without due process of law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. [7] We conclude that Becker has not alleged a constitutional violation under either Amendment.
The Fourth Amendment protects the right of citizens to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures. U.S. Const. amend. IV. Becker advances two arguments under which MFCU violated her Fourth Amendment rights. First, she argues that MFCU unreasonably seized her person because the investigation into her billing practices imposed burdens on her time, finances, and reputation by requiring her to travel to and attend meetings, pay legal costs, and, eventually, face criminal charges. Second, she argues that MFCU unreasonably seized her property when it copied her medical records.
Violation of the Fourth Amendment requires an intentional acquisition of physical control. Brower v. County of Inyo, 489 U.S. 593, 596, 109 S.Ct. 1378, 103 L.Ed.2d 628 (1989). In our cases analyzing malicious prosecution under § 1983, we have always proceeded based on a seizure by the statearrest or imprisonment. See, e.g., Pierce, 359 F.3d at 1281 (plaintiff incarcerated for fifteen years); Taylor, 82 F.3d at 1558 & n. 5 (plaintiff arrested and held for seven weeks); Wolford v. Lasater, 78 F.3d 484, 487 (10th Cir.1996) (plaintiff arrested). Here, Becker conceded she was never arrested, incarcerated, or otherwise placed under the direct physical control of the state. Accordingly, Becker was never seized in the traditional sense. Becker nonetheless argues that we should adopt a broader theory of seizure, based on the Supreme Court's decision in Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 114 S.Ct. 807, 127 L.Ed.2d 114 (1994). In that case, the Court concluded that the Fourteenth Amendment does not provide a substantive due process right to be free from prosecution without probable cause, but left open the possibility that a plaintiff could bring such a claim under the Fourth Amendment. In a noteworthy concurrence to the Court's plurality opinion, Justice Ginsburg analyzed Albright's claim under the Fourth Amendment and urged the Court to adopt a non-custodial concept of continuing seizure in order to take into account under the Fourth Amendment the harms incident to the control exercised by the state over a citizen before trial. She argued that seizures for Fourth Amendment purposes include requiring a person to post bond, compelling a person to appear in court, or imposing restrictions on a person's right to interstate travel, all of which might create reputational, emotional, and financial harms. Id. at 278, 114 S.Ct. 807. Justice Ginsburg's continuing seizure analysis has yet to garner a majority of the justices of the Supreme Court, and we are not compelled to adopt it. The Court has been careful to tie all actions under § 1983 to specifically protected constitutional rights in order to avoid creating a free-standing constitutional tort regime under § 1983. To extend liability in cases without a traditional seizure would expand the notion of seizure beyond recognition and fall into the trap carefully avoided by the Albright majorityevery charging decision would support a § 1983 malicious prosecution-type claim no matter the context. See Nieves v. McSweeney, 241 F.3d 46, 55 (1st Cir.2001) ([I]f the concept of a seizure is regarded as elastic enough to encompass standard conditions of pretrial release, virtually every criminal defendant will be deemed to be seized pending the resolution of the charges against him. That would mean, in turn, that nearly every malicious prosecution claim could be brought before a federal court under the aegis of section 1983.). While the consequences of unfounded criminal charges are surely grave, the Fourth Amendment adequately covers constitutional interests in the pre-trial exercise of government control over a person or property. A groundless charging decision may abuse the criminal process, but it does not, in and of itself, violate the Fourth Amendment absent a significant restriction on liberty. We thus agree with the courts that have also declined to accept Justice Ginsburg's invitation to expand Fourth Amendment liability in cases where the plaintiff has not been arrested or incarcerated. See DiBella v. Borough of Beachwood, 407 F.3d 599, 603 (3d Cir.2005); Kingsland v. City of Miami, 382 F.3d 1220, 1236 (11th Cir. 2004); Karam v. City of Burbank, 352 F.3d 1188, 1193 (9th Cir.2003); Nieves v. McSweeney, 241 F.3d 46, 56 (1st Cir.2001); Britton v. Maloney, 196 F.3d 24, 29-30 (1st Cir.1999) (all declining to recognize typical pre-trial release conditions, such as receiving a summons, posting bond, restricting travel, and appearing in court, as a seizure); see also Washington v. County of Rockland, 373 F.3d 310, 317 (2d Cir. 2004) (finding no seizure when plaintiffs charged in administrative proceeding and suspended without pay but never physically detained). These cases, moreover, are consistent with those rejecting a continuing seizure rationale for post-arrest incarceration, which hold that even when a defendant is in custody, a seizure ends when pretrial incarceration begins. See Riley v. Dorton, 115 F.3d 1159, 1164 (4th Cir.1997); Reed v. City of Chicago, 77 F.3d 1049, 1052 n. 3 (7th Cir.1996) (citing Wilkins v. May, 872 F.2d 190, 194 (7th Cir.1989)). Even those courts that subscribe to the line of reasoning endorsed by Justice Ginsburg have recognized a seizure only when criminal charges are coupled with another significant restraint on liberty, such as restrictions on travel. See Evans v. Ball, 168 F.3d 856, 861 (5th Cir.1999) (A summons, coupled with [] additional liberty restrictions [in this case a bond and travel restrictions] may constitute a seizure under the Fourth Amendment.); Gallo v. City of Philadelphia, 161 F.3d 217, 222-25 (3d Cir.1998) (holding plaintiff seized when subjected to travel restrictions and required to contact pretrial services weekly); Murphy v. Lynn, 118 F.3d 938, 945 (2d Cir.1997) (holding plaintiff seized when ordered not to leave state and required to attend court). Becker does not argue that she was subject to any of these indicia of non-physical control arising from MFCU's investigation and prosecutionshe apparently never posted bond, was not required to appear in court, and had no specific restrictions on her freedom of movement. Under these circumstances, even if we were inclined to broaden the meaning of seizure beyond our traditional understanding, this case does not present a vehicle for doing so. Accordingly, the district court did not err in determining Becker was not seized under the Fourth Amendment.
Nor did the defendants unreasonably seize Becker's property in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Becker makes two arguments that the subpoena of her records provides the Fourth Amendment violation necessary to her claim for malicious prosecution under § 1983:(1) the copying of her medical records was an unreasonable seizure because it occurred by means of a subpoena that was not supported by probable cause, and (2) MFCU's various violations of state law collectively add up to a Fourth Amendment violation. Probable Cause for the Subpoena First, MFCU's issuance of a subpoena to inspect Becker's medical records was not unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment because state administrative subpoenas need not be supported by probable cause. Under Fourth Amendment law, an investigatory or administrative subpoena is not subject to the same probable cause requirements as a search warrant. See v. City of Seattle, 387 U.S. 541, 544, 87 S.Ct. 1737, 18 L.Ed.2d 943 (1967); United States v. Reno, 522 F.2d 572, 575 (10th Cir.1975). The Fourth Amendment requires only that a subpoena be sufficiently limited in scope, relevant in purpose, and specific in directive so that compliance will not be unreasonably burdensome. City of Seattle, 387 U.S. at 544, 87 S.Ct. 1737; see also Matter of Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Issued on June 9, 1982, to Custodian of Records, 697 F.2d 277, 281 (10th Cir.1983) (holding a subpoena in a criminal investigation is not unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment if it: (1) commands the production only of things relevant to the investigation; (2) specifies the items with reasonable particularity; and (3) covers only a reasonable period of time); United States v. Bailey (In re Subpoena Duces Tecum), 228 F.3d 341, 347-49 (4th Cir.2000) (holding probable cause required for warrants but not subpoenas because warrants are immedia[te] and intrusive[] whereas the subpoenaed party has an opportunity to challenge a subpoena before complying with it). That the subpoena was issued administratively with potential criminal ramifications does not change the analysis. In United States v. Smith, 484 F.2d 8, 11 (10th Cir.1973), we held that an administrative summons issued by the IRS in the initial stages of a tax fraud investigation did not violate the Fourth Amendment when it was issued in good faith and prior to a recommendation for criminal prosecution. More recently, the Sixth Circuit held that an administrative subpoena in a health care fraud investigation by the U.S. Attorney General need not be supported by probable cause. Doe v. United States (In re Admin. Subpoena), 253 F.3d 256, 263-65 (6th Cir.2001) (applying reasonable relevance test). Similarly, grand jury subpoenas need not be supported by probable cause so long as the information sought is relevant and specifically identified. Reno, 522 F.2d at 575. The subpoena here met these minimal requirements for Fourth Amendment reasonableness, and Becker does not argue otherwise. Becker's Medicaid filings were flagged by MFCU's analyst, and the records sought were relevant to MFCU's investigation of potential up-coding. Becker does not argue that the request was unreasonably burdensome or overbroad, and MFCU was able to copy and return the files in a day. We see no reason to conclude the subpoena was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment, so the subpoena alone does not provide the basis for a § 1983 claim. State Law Violations Second, Becker also argues that, even if probable cause was not a necessary predicate to a valid subpoena under the Fourth Amendment, MFCU violated a number of state law provisions in issuing the subpoena for her medical records which collectively amount to an unreasonable Fourth Amendment seizure. For example, she argues that the subpoena suffered from problems including (1) service by an interested party, (2) failure of MFCU to file a statutorily required return of service with the issuing court, and (3) failure to notify Becker that the records in the court file were sealed. A state's violation of its own law, however, is not sufficient, in and of itself, to create a federal constitutional violation. Davis v. Scherer, 468 U.S. 183, 194-96, 104 S.Ct. 3012, 82 L.Ed.2d 139 (1984); Rector v. City & County of Denver, 348 F.3d 935, 947 (10th Cir.2003). Becker only has a cause of action under § 1983 if the State's actions fail to meet basic federal constitutional standards, Rector, 348 F.3d at 947, and none of the state procedural requirements involving subpoenas rise to that level under the Fourth Amendment. Becker therefore did not suffer an unreasonable seizure of her property. Because Becker has not successfully alleged a violation of the Fourth Amendment, she cannot proceed in a claim for malicious prosecution based on an unreasonable seizure. 2. Is There a Malicious Prosecution Claim Based on a Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Violation? Even without a Fourth Amendment seizure, Becker argues that MFCU's conduct violated her due process rights because the probe into her billing practices deprived her of liberty or property without due process of law. She alleges that MFCU's actions violated both the procedural and substantive components of due process. [8] We note at the outset that a natural reading of Supreme Court precedent in Albright v. Oliver seems to foreclose Becker's argument that MFCU violated her due process rights by initiating criminal proceedings against her without probable cause. 510 U.S. 266, 114 S.Ct. 807, 127 L.Ed.2d 114. Nevertheless, reading Becker's filings liberally, she alleges some injuries resulting from the filing of criminal charges against her that are outside the scope of the Fourth Amendment's substantive and procedural protections. These injuries might be cognizable as due process violations through a gap in constitutional protection created by Albright 's limitation of § 1983 malicious prosecution claims to those based on the Fourth Amendment. We therefore go on to examine Becker's potential due process claims. Even if Albright does not foreclose these claims, Becker has not stated a violation of her due process rights. a. Effect of Albright on Due Process Malicious Prosecution Claims In Albright, the Court specifically rejected the plaintiff's claim that his groundless arrest violated substantive due process rights by depriving him of a `liberty interest' to be free from criminal prosecution except upon probable cause. 510 U.S. at 269, 114 S.Ct. 807. Instead, the Court concluded that the Fourth Amendmentnot substantive due processgoverned the plaintiff's claims. Id. at 270, 114 S.Ct. 807. The plurality opinion reasoned, Where a particular Amendment `provides an explicit textual source of constitutional protection' against a particular sort of government behavior, `that Amendment . . . must be the guide for analyzing these claims.' Id. at 273, 114 S.Ct. 807 (quoting Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 395, 109 S.Ct. 1865, 104 L.Ed.2d 443 (1989)). The plurality concluded, it is evident that substantive due process may not furnish the constitutional peg on which to hang a claim of malicious prosecution, 510 U.S. at 270 n. 4, 114 S.Ct. 807. [9] We think the unavoidable construction of Albright is that no § 1983 claim will arise from filing criminal charges without probable cause under the substantive due process protections of the Fourteenth Amendment. And although the plaintiff in Albright did not raise a procedural due process claim, 510 U.S. at 271, 114 S.Ct. 807, we find Albright 's reasoning regarding substantive due process equally persuasive with regard to the Fourteenth Amendment's procedural component. In the initial stages of a criminal proceeding, the Fourth Amendment protects a person's liberty interests under the constitution by ensuring that any arrest or physical incarceration attendant to a criminal prosecution is reasonable. See, e.g. Albright, 510 U.S. at 274, 114 S.Ct. 807 (We have in the past noted the Fourth Amendment's relevance to the deprivations of liberty that go hand in hand with criminal prosecutions.) (citing Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103, 114, 95 S.Ct. 854, 43 L.Ed.2d 54 (1975)). The more general due process considerations of the Fourteenth Amendment are not a fallback to protect interests more specifically addressed by the Fourth Amendment in this context. See Albright, 510 U.S. at 273, 114 S.Ct. 807 (quoting Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 395, 109 S.Ct. 1865, 104 L.Ed.2d 443 (1989)). Our post- Albright cases similarly emphasize the prominence of the Fourth Amendment in the analysis of pre-trial liberty interests. See Pierce, 359 F.3d at 1285 (noting [t]he initial seizure is governed by the Fourth Amendment and finding plaintiff stated a Fourth Amendment claim when he was arrested and imprisoned); Taylor, 82 F.3d at 1560 (noting the Fourth Amendment govern[s] pretrial deprivations of liberty and finding a Fourth Amendment violation when the plaintiff was arrested) (both citing Albright ). Under the facts of this case, where criminal charges were brought but dismissed before trial, Becker must allege a violation of the Fourth Amendment in order to proceed on a theory of § 1983 malicious prosecution. The Supreme Court nonetheless has yet to clarify the scope of the plurality holding in Albright. And several lines of cases suggest an alternative theory of liability under the Fourteenth Amendment. We turn to those theories next. b. Procedural Due Process Becker alleges seven separate instances which she claims collectively amount to a violation of her procedural due process rights. [10] For analytical clarity, we construe her due process claims to be based on the following two potentially protected interests: (1) a liberty interest in being free from unwarranted investigation and prosecution without probable cause, and (2) a property interest in the integrity of her medical and billing records. We conclude that Becker's procedural due process interests under these facts were adequately protected by the Fourth Amendment, state tort law, and the procedures offered to challenge the administrative subpoena. The Investigation and Prosecution Becker first argues she had a protected liberty interest in freedom from the baseless investigation into her billing practices and the subsequent filing of criminal charges, when they were not supported by probable cause. We do not agree she has established an absence of procedural protections sufficient to create a due process violation. Several cases suggest that at some point in the prosecutorial process, due process concerns can be sufficient to support a claim under § 1983. See, e.g., Pierce, 359 F.3d at 1285-86. In Pierce, we recognized that at some point after arrest, and certainly by the time of trial, constitutional analysis [of a malicious prosecution claim] shifts to the Due Process Clause. 359 F.3d at 1285-86; see also Castellano v. Fragozo, 352 F.3d 939, 942 (5th Cir.2003) (analyzing knowing use of manufactured evidence and perjured testimony at trial as violations of due process sufficient to support a § 1983 malicious prosecution claim); Riley v. Dorton, 115 F.3d 1159, 1162 (4th Cir.1997) (holding that once a suspect is subject to pre-trial detention, due process governs the conditions of ongoing custody). [11] However, we determined in Pierce, It is not necessary in this case to determine where Fourth Amendment analysis ends and due process analysis begins, because Mr. Pierce raised claims under both constitutional provisions, and neither party argues that the difference in standards has any bearing on this appeal. 359 F.3d at 1286. By contrast, the difference in standards does matter to Becker's appeal, because, unlike Mr. Pierce, she was never arrested in violation of the Fourth Amendment. But even if we assume a procedural due process analysis applies to Becker's case, she has not established a due process violation. First, under Albright and our subsequent cases, the Fourth Amendment adequately protected Becker's constitutional liberty interests, and she therefore has no procedural due process claim based on pre-trial deprivations of physical liberty. See Albright, 510 U.S. 266, 114 S.Ct. 807; Pierce, 359 F.3d at 1285-86; Taylor, 82 F.3d at 1560. We are not aware, moreover, of any other circuit that has extended Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process guarantees to pre-trial deprivations of liberty. Nevertheless, we acknowledge that the Fourteenth Amendment's protections encompass harms to liberty outside the scope of the Fourth Amendment's concern with freedom from restraint, such as harm to reputation resulting in some tangible injury, from which a plaintiff in Becker's circumstances may indeed suffer. See, e.g., Michael H. v. Gerald D., 491 U.S. 110, 121, 109 S.Ct. 2333, 105 L.Ed.2d 91 (1989); Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693, 701, 96 S.Ct. 1155, 47 L.Ed.2d 405 (1976); Wisconsin v. Constantineau, 400 U.S. 433, 437, 91 S.Ct. 507, 27 L.Ed.2d 515 (1971). But even if Becker did suffer such injuries other than physical restraint, procedural due process only protects against them by providing an adequate post-deprivation hearing in which the injured party may vindicate these interests. See Constantineau, 400 U.S. at 436-37, 91 S.Ct. 507. In this case, state tort remedies meet the procedural requirements of the Due Process Clause. The Supreme Court has held that where pre-deprivation remedies cannot anticipate and prevent a state actor's wrongful act, post-deprivation state tort remedies are adequate to satisfy due process requirements. Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 535-44, 101 S.Ct. 1908, 68 L.Ed.2d 420 (1981) (holding state could not anticipate employee's negligence); see also Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533, 104 S.Ct. 3194, 82 L.Ed.2d 393 (1984) (extending Parratt 's logic to intentional torts). In his Albright concurrence, Justice Kennedy argued that in § 1983 malicious prosecution cases, a state actor's random and unauthorized deprivation of [Fourteenth Amendment due process interests] cannot be challenged under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 so long as the State provides an adequate post deprivation remedy. 510 U.S. at 284, 114 S.Ct. 807 (Kennedy, J., concurring). As he explained, In the ordinary case where an injury has been caused . . . by a random and unauthorized act that can be remedied by state law, there is no basis for intervention under § 1983, at least in a suit based on `the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.' Id. at 285, 114 S.Ct. 807 (quoting Parratt, 451 U.S. at 536, 101 S.Ct. 1908); see also Nieves, 241 F.3d at 53 (rejecting procedural due process claim under § 1983 for malicious prosecution because state provides adequate tort remedy); Newsome v. McCabe, 256 F.3d 747, 751 (7th Cir.2001) (holding state tort remedy knocks out any constitutional tort of malicious prosecution based on due process). We agree with this analysis. Becker does not suggest what pre-deprivation process could have anticipated the malfeasance of the MFCU investigators and protected her from an abusive investigation, and we decline to supply procedural requirements in addition to already-established criminal procedure under the Constitution and state law. Utah tort law provides an adequate post deprivation remedy to protect Becker's non-Fourth Amendment liberty interests. See Gilbert v. Ince, 981 P.2d 841 (Utah 1999) (recognizing state causes of action for malicious prosecution and abuse of process); see generally 2 Dan B. Dobbs, The Law of Torts § 438 (2001) (describing damages for malicious prosecution or abuse of process). Accordingly, in this case, where Becker was never seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment, Utah tort law provides an adequate procedural due process remedy for any injuries not cognizable as a Fourth Amendment seizure. Becker has therefore suffered no deprivation of liberty in violation of her procedural due process rights. The Medical Records Nor does the subpoena of her medical records create a separate cause of action under Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process. First, Becker's participation in the state and federal Medicaid program established a continuing obligation to make records available to state officials. MFCU was entitled to the records, which it copied and returned the same day. Accordingly, any property interest Becker had in the records was minimal. Second, [u]nder the Fourteenth Amendment, procedural due process requires notice and a pre-deprivation hearing before property interests are negatively affected by governmental actors. Marcus v. McCollum, 394 F.3d 813, 818 (10th Cir.2004). The subpoena in this case complied with those requirements by offering Becker the opportunity for a pre-deprivation hearing. The district court found that it is undisputed that plaintiff read the subpoena and understood that she could either produce the records immediately or appear in Salt Lake City a few days later. Becker v. Kroll, 340 F.Supp.2d 1230, 1241 (D.Utah 2004). And of course Becker could have challenged the subpoena in court. See In re Subpoena Duces Tecum, 228 F.3d at 348 ([T]he issuance of a subpoena initiates an adversary process that can command the production of documents and things only after judicial process is afforded.). This opportunity to be heard is all procedural due process requires. See Stanko v. Mahar, 419 F.3d 1107, 1115 (10th Cir.2005) (due process requires  opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner) (quoting Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333, 96 S.Ct. 893, 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976)) (emphasis added); Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, 378-79, 91 S.Ct. 780, 28 L.Ed.2d 113 (1971) (holding that the hearing required by due process is subject to waiver); Miller v. Campbell County, 945 F.2d 348, 354 (10th Cir.1991) (finding no procedural due process violation when plaintiffs were offered but did not use opportunity for hearing). Admittedly, the opportunity for a hearing offered was inconvenient, requiring a 300-mile trip to Salt Lake City. Nevertheless, that Becker chose to comply with the subpoena rather than avail herself of the process provided does not amount to a violation of any procedural due process rights. The district court did not err in dismissing Becker's procedural due process claims.
Justice Souter's concurrence in Albright suggested the possibility that initiating an unwarranted prosecution that is dismissed before trial may in some unusual circumstances result in substantive due process violations separate from a Fourth Amendment seizure: There may indeed be exceptional cases where some quantum of harm occurs in the interim period after groundless criminal charges are filed but before any Fourth Amendment seizure. Whether any such unusual case may reveal a substantial deprivation of liberty . . . independent of the Fourth Amendment, are issues to be faced only when they arise. Albright, 510 U.S. at 291, 114 S.Ct. 807 (Souter, J. concurring); see also Darrah v. City of Oak Park, 255 F.3d 301, 309 (6th Cir.2001) (noting § 1983 malicious prosecution claims may still be available pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment's substantive due process rights in cases that do not involve a Fourth Amendment seizure); Torres v. McLaughlin, 163 F.3d 169, 173 (3d Cir.1998) (concluding Albright forecloses substantive due process analysis only if the claim is covered by the Fourth Amendment). Becker argues that MFCU officials violated her substantive rights under the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause when they engaged in a groundless investigation designed to obtain civil penalties from her and withheld material evidence tending to exonerate her. We conclude this is not a case that reveals a substantial deprivation sufficient to rise to the level of a substantive due process violation. Claims Arising From the Investigation Our cases recognize a § 1983 claim for a violation of Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process rights in the narrowest of circumstances. The conduct alleged must do more than show that the government actor intentionally or recklessly caused injury to the plaintiff by abusing or misusing government power . . . [It] must demonstrate a degree of outrageousness and a magnitude of potential or actual harm that is truly conscience shocking. Livsey v. Salt Lake County, 275 F.3d 952, 957-58 (10th Cir.2001); Uhlrig v. Harder, 64 F.3d 567, 573 (10th Cir.1995). This standard is met in only the most extreme circumstances, typically involving some violation of physical liberty or personal physical integrity. See, e.g., Holland v. Harrington, 268 F.3d 1179 (10th Cir.2001) (finding substantive due process violation when police held children at gunpoint for extensive period of time even after control of home had been secured); Dubbs v. Head Start, Inc., 336 F.3d 1194 (10th Cir. 2003) (recognizing potential parental claim for substantive due process violation where government did not seek consent before performing blood tests and genital exams on minor children). The Supreme Court sets a similarly high hurdle for substantive due process claims. It has always been reluctant to expand the concept of substantive due process because the guideposts for responsible decisionmaking in this unchartered area are scarce and open-ended. Collins v. Harker Heights, 503 U.S. 115, 125, 112 S.Ct. 1061, 117 L.Ed.2d 261 (1992). The protections of substantive due process have for the most part been accorded to matters relating to marriage, family, procreation, and the right to bodily integrity. Albright, 510 U.S. at 272, 114 S.Ct. 807 (citing Planned Parenthood of Se. Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 847-49, 112 S.Ct. 2791, 120 L.Ed.2d 674 (1992)). The conduct alleged here does not meet this rigorous standard. While the enforcement tactics and absence of professionalism in this case  if true as alleged  fail the most obvious standards of proper conduct, they do not meet the affronts to personal autonomy suggested by our case law. Becker has a number of well-defined causes of action under state and federal law to vindicate her interests. To rest her claims on the undefined contours of substantive due process would only introduce uncertainty and analytical confusion to an already unwieldy body of law. [12] Claims Arising From the Withholding of Evidence Becker also claims MFCU violated her due process rights by withholding exculpatory evidence. Several other circuits have recognized a § 1983 malicious prosecution-type claim under similar circumstances. See Moran v. Clarke, 296 F.3d 638, 647 (8th Cir.2002). The Eighth Circuit in Moran concluded that Albright did not foreclose a substantive due process claim because [a]lthough the Fourth Amendment covers seizures, which would be satisfied by Moran's arrest, law enforcement's intentional creation of damaging facts would not fall within its ambit. Here, we see no specifically applicable constitutional remedy that provides Moran with explicit protection to a level sufficient to exclude substantive due process analysis. Id. [13] Becker presents a similar claim: that the defendants violated her due process rights, as distinguished from her Fourth Amendment rights, by suppressing exculpatory evidence and denying her a fair hearing. And this claim has constitutional weight: the Supreme Court in Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963) determined that a defendant's right to access exculpatory evidence is secured by the Due Process Clause. Other courts allowing this type of claim despite Albright have specifically rooted the constitutional violation in the due process right to a fair trial. See Castellano, 352 F.3d at 942, 959 (reasoning that presenting perjury and manufactured evidence at trial violated substantive due process rights, and Albright did not apply because events at trial are outside the Fourth Amendment's scope); Newsome, 256 F.3d at 752 (holding the plaintiff had a due process claim in the original sense of that phrase  he did not receive a fair trial if the prosecutors withheld material exculpatory details); Jean v. Collins, 107 F.3d 1111, 1114-15 (4th Cir.1997) ( Albright does not preclude [this] cause of action because the right to disclosure of exculpatory evidence is grounded directly in the Due Process Clause itself [rather than the Fourth Amendment].). Nevertheless, Becker never proceeded to trial, and she cannot therefore rest her § 1983 claims on a Brady violation. See Brady, 373 U.S. at 86-88, 83 S.Ct. 1194 (framing the right to exculpatory evidence only in terms of providing a fair trial); see also Jean v. Collins, 221 F.3d 656, 663 (4th Cir.2000) (en banc) (A Brady violation that resulted in the overturning of the § 1983 plaintiff's conviction is a necessary, but not a sufficient, condition for § 1983 liability on the part of the police. It is a necessary condition because the Brady violation establishes the requisite threshold of constitutional injury (a conviction resulting in loss of liberty) below which no § 1983 action can lie.). We have held that, to establish a Brady violation, the defendant must prove (1) the prosecution suppressed evidence; (2) the evidence was favorable to the accused; and (3) the evidence was material to the defense. United States v. Geames, 427 F.3d 1333, 1337 (10th Cir.2005). A plaintiff cannot establish materiality unless the case goes to trial and the suppression of exculpatory evidence affects the outcome. See United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 678, 105 S.Ct. 3375, 87 L.Ed.2d 481 (1985) ([A] constitutional error occurs . . . only if the evidence is material in the sense that its suppression undermines confidence in the outcome of the trial.). Thus, Becker suffered no due process violation based on Brady and the suppression of evidence. See id. ([S]uppression of evidence amounts to a constitutional violation only if it deprives the defendant of a fair trial.); Taylor v. Waters, 81 F.3d 429, 436 n. 5 (4th Cir.1996) (allowing no § 1983 claim based on withholding exculpatory evidence where plaintiff did not go to trial). Accordingly, we agree with the district court that Becker has not established a claim for a violation of substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment.