mr. eisenhammer. >> mr. chief justice, and may it please the court, i would like to make three initial points. first, what this case is about is whether the petitioner may bring a fourth amendment claim for unlawful detention pursuant to legal process. second this case is not about whether the decision to prosecute is governed by due process, the fourth amendment or any other amendment. and third this case is not about whether there's some constitutional tort named malicious prosecution. all we ask the court to do is to affirm your numerous suggestions made in albright that the fourth amendment supports this cause of action. and bring the seventh circuit in line with all other -- with the tenth circuit -- >> but you need to get past the statute of limitations problem and to do that you need to characterize it, as i understand it, as a malicious prosecution claim. otherwise, it's time barred. >> what we need to do is determine the -- not the statute of limitations, which is two years set by state -- by the st

mr. eisenhammer. >> mr. chief justice, and may it please the court, i would like to make three initial points. first, what this case is about is whether the petitioner may bring a fourth amendment claim for unlawful detention pursuant to legal process. second this case is not about whether the decision to prosecute is governed by due process, the fourth amendment or any other amendment. and third this case is not about whether there's some constitutional tort named malicious prosecution. all we ask the court to do is to affirm your numerous suggestions made in albright that the fourth amendment supports this cause of action. and bring the seventh circuit in line with all other -- with the tenth circuit -- >> but you need to get past the statute of limitations problem and to do that you need to characterize it, as i understand it, as a malicious prosecution claim. otherwise, it's time barred. >> what we need to do is determine the -- not the statute of limitations, which is two years set by state -- by the st