v. Satterfield, 167 F.3d 995, 1006-07 (6th Cir.1999), the court in Gregory explained that no new constitutional right was created, but rather that the cause of action was being “restyled” from a Fourteenth Amendment claim to one pursued under the Fourth Amendment, and should be analyzed accordingly. Gregory, 444 F.3d at 748-50; see also Pitt v. District of Columbia, 491 F.3d 494, 510-11 (D.C.Cir.2007) (summarizing cases from and joining with the majority of circuits that held “that malicious prosecution is actionable under the Fourth Amendment to the extent that the defendant’s actions cause the plaintiff to be ‘seized’ without probable cause”). Moreover, this applies to other individuals working for the police, and not just law enforcement officials. See Gregory, 444 F.3d at 749 n. 11 (<HOLDING>). Gregory also made clear that, even if a
holding that probable cause may be determined on basis of collective knowledge of police holding that in a  1983 action issue of probable cause is for the jury holding that a determination of probable cause does not bar a state law malicious prosecution claim where the claim is based on the police officers supplying false information to establish probable cause holding that a forensic examiner in the employ of the state police could be liable in a claim for continued detention without probable cause holding that detention for three hours in a checkpoint station required probable cause