the detainee appears before a magistrate). Rather, the Fourth Amendment claim appears to be simply a repackaged claim for malicious prosecution. Our circuit doesn’t permit, this maneuver; we’ve held that a federal claim for malicious prosecution implicates (or at most may implicate) the right to due process, not the Fourth Amendment, and that no federal malicious-prosecution claim is available if state law provides a similar cause of action. Newsome v. McCabe, 256 F.3d 747, 750-51 (7th Cir. 2001). Indiana does provide a remedy for malicious prosecution, but the Indiana Tort Claims Act confers on public employees a broad immunity' from suit for acts committed within the scope of their employment. Ind. Code § 34-13-3-3(6); see also Serino v. Hensley, 735 F.3d 588, 593-95 (7th Cir. 2013) (<HOLDING>). We’ve held that this statutory immunity
recognizing the tort of intentional infliction of emotion distress for the first time in indiana holding that act did not bar intentional infliction of emotional distress claim recognizing the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress holding that intentional infliction of emotional distress is a personal injury tort recognizing that the indiana tort claims act grants broad immunity to governmental employees from suit for malicious prosecution and intentional infliction of emotional distress