context: Because the species of Fourth Amendment violation alleged in this case arises by way of analogy to the common law tort of malicious prosecution, courts historically have looked to the common law for guidance as to the constituent elements of the claim.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 91 F.3d 573, 579
citation_a.parenthetical: "In order to state a prima facie case for a section 1983 claim of malicious prosecution, the plaintiff must establish the elements of the common law tort as it has developed over time."
citation_a.sentence: See also Hilfirty v. Shipman, 91 F.3d 573, 579 (3rd Cir.1996) (“In order to state a prima facie case for a section 1983 claim of malicious prosecution, the plaintiff must establish the elements of the common law tort as it has developed over time.”).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.parenthetical: "Where an arrest is made after the filing of an information and the arrest is the basis of a Fourth Amendment section 1983 claim, we think the tort of malicious prosecution is the most analogous tort to the section 1983 claim."
citation_b.sentence: See Whiting, 85 F.3d at 585 n. 7 (“Where an arrest is made after the filing of an information and the arrest is the basis of a Fourth Amendment section 1983 claim, we think the tort of malicious prosecution is the most analogous tort to the section 1983 claim.”).