Goldyn

MEMORANDUM **

“[P]robable cause requires only a probability or substantial chance of criminal activity, not an actual showing of such activity.” Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 , 243 n. 13, 103 S.Ct. 2317 , 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983). The Las Vegas police knew that Goldyn had written eleven checks to ten people over eight days, that she’d failed to respond to a certified letter from the Credit Union demanding repayment, that she was a fugitive wanted in both California and Colorado and that she was using several aliases. This “suffice[d] for the practical, common-sense judgment called for in making a probable cause determination.” Id. at 244 , 103 S.Ct. 2317 .

Goldyn’s substantive due process claim fails because she provides no evidence of police conduct “so egregious, so outrageous, that it may be fairly said to shock the contemporary conscience.” County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833 , 848 n. 8, 118 S.Ct. 1708 , 140 L.Ed.2d 1043 (1998).

The police are also shielded from liability by the independent decisions of the magistrate who issued the warrant and the prosecutor who filed the complaint. See, e.g., Awabdy v. City of Adelanto, 368 F.3d 1062, 1067 (9th Cir.2004). Goldyn’s…