challenged the Muskrats’ § 1983 claim, arguing that no conscience-shocking behavior had occurred. The Muskrats’ response briefs focused entirely on rebutting that argument. But those briefs also included a passing reference to the Fourth Amendment: To determine whether there is a substantive due process violation, the Court should analyze the unreasonableness of the violation of the child’s liberty interests or seizure under the 4th and 14th Amendments. Couture v. Board of Education of Albuquerque Public Schools, 535 F.3d 1243, 1249 (10th Cir.2008) [ (a school discipline case litigated under both the Fourth Amendment’s reasonableness standard and the Fourteenth Amendment’s shocks-the-conscience standard) ]; Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U.S. 651, 674 [97 S.Ct. 1401, 51 L.Ed.2d 711] (1977) [ (<HOLDING>) ]. App. 160; 217; 306 (bracketed material
holding that schooladministered corporal punishment implicates fourteenth amendment due process rights holding that a hearing is not required before a junior high school imposes corporal punishment on a student holding that the constitutional rights in a termination proceeding  are derived from the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment of the united states constitution and not the sixth amendment holding that juvenile pretrial detention implicates due process rights holding that the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment incorporates the eighth amendments guarantee against cruel and unusual punishment