## Facts

- Illinois authorities obtained an arrest warrant charging Kevin Albright with selling a substance resembling an illegal drug.
- Albright surrendered to Detective Roger Oliver, denied guilt, posted bond, and was released subject to a condition restricting travel outside Illinois without court permission.
- At a preliminary hearing, Oliver testified about the alleged sale; the court found probable cause and bound Albright over for trial.
- Before trial, the state court dismissed the prosecution because the charging instrument did not state an offense under Illinois law.
- Albright sued Oliver under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging a Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process “liberty interest” to be free from criminal prosecution except upon probable cause.

## Issues

1. Whether the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, as substantive due process, provides a § 1983 right to be free from criminal prosecution except upon probable cause.
2. Whether alleged pretrial deprivations of liberty associated with criminal process should be analyzed under substantive due process or under a more specific constitutional provision.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed dismissal of the § 1983 action; no substantive due process right exists to be free from criminal prosecution except upon probable cause.
- A plurality reasoned that when a specific constitutional provision supplies protection, that provision—not substantive due process—governs the analysis.
- The plurality treated Albright’s complaint as challenging pretrial restraints tied to criminal prosecution and stated that the Fourth Amendment is the proper framework for such claims.
- The Court expressed no view on whether Albright could have stated a viable Fourth Amendment claim because he did not present that question in his petition.
- The judgment was affirmed in a plurality decision with multiple concurrences and a dissent.

## Legal Principles

- Substantive due process generally does not supply a basis for a constitutional tort when another Amendment provides an explicit textual source of protection for the alleged misconduct.
- Claims arising from pretrial restraints on liberty in connection with criminal prosecution must be analyzed, if at all, under the Fourth Amendment rather than generalized substantive due process.
- The Due Process Clause does not create a free-standing federal constitutional standard for initiating prosecution akin to a substantive due process “malicious prosecution” tort.
- The decision leaves unresolved the elements and availability of any Fourth Amendment-based theory in similar circumstances when properly pleaded and preserved.

## Conclusion

The Court rejected a § 1983 theory that substantive due process guarantees freedom from criminal prosecution absent probable cause, directing that challenges to pretrial liberty restraints associated with criminal process must proceed, if at all, under the Fourth Amendment.


Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266 (1994)