In the 1993 case of Kevin Albright v. Roger Oliver, etc., et al., the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Albright, who had been arrested based on false charges filed by Officer Oliver. The court held that a person's substantive due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment are not violated when an officer files false charges leading to arrest and prosecution without probable cause; however, such actions could violate Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable seizures if they lead to unlawful detention or imprisonment. In this case, since Albright was released after his arraignment and did not face any restrictions on his liberty before trial other than having to appear for court dates, he failed to establish a Fourth Amendment violation related to pretrial seizure but succeeded in proving malicious prosecution which is actionable under state law rather than federal constitutional law.

In the dissenting opinion for Albright v. Oliver, Justice Ginsburg argued that the majority's decision to limit their review to Fourth Amendment grounds was too narrow. She contended that malicious prosecution could be a violation of substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment if it involved deliberate abuse of legal processes by officials. This would include cases where charges were brought without probable cause and with improper motives, as alleged by Albright in this case. Furthermore, she disagreed with the majority's view that state law provided an adequate remedy for such abuses because not all states recognize claims for malicious prosecution or provide sufficient remedies when they do occur.