process violation. We turn next to Netland’s alternative argument — that the officer violated her right to due process because his behavior shocks the conscience. A defendant’s right to due process has been held to be violated where the action of the government agent is such that it “shocks the conscience.” United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 746, 107 S.Ct. 2095, 95 L.Ed.2d 697 (1987) (“So-called ‘substantive due process’ prevents the government from engaging in conduct that ‘shocks the conscience,’ .... ” (citations omitted)). A cognizable claim under this standard must describe “egregious” governmental conduct, and we have said that “[o]nly the most extreme instances of governmental misconduct satisfy this exacting standard.” Mumm v. Mornson, 708 N.W.2d 475, 487, 490 (Minn.2006) (<HOLDING>). Such behavior has generally included acts
holding that compliance with an officers orders is a material fact when deciding whether the officers use of force was reasonable holding that deadly force was unreasonable where the suspect possessed a gun but was not pointing it at the officers and was not facing the officers when they shot holding that an officers use of deadly force to stop a dangerous car chase did not shock the conscience because an officers poor judgment in using unreasonable force does not automatically convert the officers acts into conscience shocking conduct holding officers decision to use deadly force to stop truck driver was not objectively unreasonable because officer believed driver posed an imminent threat of serious physical harm to the officers in the pursuit as well as other innocent motorists holding that an excessive force claim is governed by the fourth amendments objectively reasonable standard rather than the fourteenth amendments shock the conscience standard