With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 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

A: recognizing the tort of intentional infliction of emotion distress for the first time in indiana
B: recognizing that the indiana tort claims act grants broad immunity to governmental employees from suit for malicious prosecution and intentional infliction of emotional distress
C: holding that act did not bar intentional infliction of emotional distress claim
D: recognizing the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress
B.