are examined through the prism of substantive, as opposed to procedural, due process. Id. at 572. The Eighth Circuit has adopted the Seventh Circuit’s analysis, e.g., Hayes v. Faulkner County, Ark, 388 F.3d 669, 673-75 (8th Cir.2004), and several district courts have either explicitly or implicitly done so as well. E.g., Sanchez v. Campbell, No. 4:09-CV-420-SPM-WCS, 2010 WL 547620, at *3 (N.D.Fla. Feb. 10, 2010) (“Plaintiffs five day detention prior to first appearance, pursuant to a valid arrest warrant for which the Plaintiff was properly identified, ... does not rise to the level of an unconstitutional deprivation of the Plaintiffs liberty in contravention of the Fourteenth Amendment.”); Afeworki v. Thompson, No. C06-628MJP, 2007 WL 2572293, at *3-5 (W.D.Wash. Sept. 5, 2007) (<HOLDING>); Jackson v. Hamm, 78 F.Supp.2d 1233, 1241
holding that mere neglect for prisoners safety does not amount to a substantive due process violation implying that intent to do harm would be an abuse of government power and amount to a substantive due process violation holding that when acting pursuant to a valid warrant the police did not violate the fourth amendment by acting outside their jurisdiction in violation of state law holding that seventeenday delay between arrest pursuant to valid warrant did not amount to a due process violation holding that evidence obtained from valid search warrant did not violate constitutional due process provisions holding that an arrest warrant  without a search warrant  does not permit law enforcement authorities to enter a third partys home to legally search for the subject of the arrest warrant