Likewise in this case. It was not possible for the State of Michigan to provide the Barniers notice and a hearing
before they were deprived of their “liberty” by the defendants.
The issue, therefore, is whether the process provided by the State of Michigan
after the deprivation comports with Constitutional requirements. Clearly it does. It provided plaintiffs a panoply of tort remedies, including assault and battery, false arrest, and malicious prosecution, which plaintiffs quite properly asserted in their complaint. Furthermore, plaintiffs' claims were vindicated, at least in part, by the jury's verdict on the malicious prosecution count of the complaint.
There is no suggestion, nor does the court think there reasonably could be, that those state tort remedies are in any way inadequate.