Certainly you are right that just because something is unconstitutional does not mean it is a civil rights violaton. But I suspect that many of Nifong's actions including slandering the entire Duke lacrosse team will make him and Durham Co. liable. That is not my opinion but that of attorneys who understand the case law on the immunity of better than I do. [I am not an attorney.]
Actually that's not what I am saying at all. What I am saying is that just because something violates a state guideline does not mean it is also necessarily a violation of the US Constitution.
SirJohnBarleycorn has already explained what he actually said, but I would add that the fact something is unconstitutional certainly *does* mean it constitutes a civil rights violation for section 1983 purposes. In fact, it is a civil rights violation of the highest and most pernicious form, because unlike "rights" granted by statute, our constitutional rights are forever enshrined as the organic law of the republic unless and until the constitution itself is amended by the consent of the governed (or, as more often occurs, is interpreted otherwise by a majority of the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court).
Indeed, as I argued in a prior post to you two, any indictment obtained on the basis of an unconstitutionally (and intentionally) suggestive lineup most certainly would constitute a federal constitutional violation. It is regrettable and unfortunate that statutory enactments might be considered to be the only source of our "civil rights."
I would think that Duke has liability issues, as well. It was Duke U that fired the Lacrosse coach and in cancelling the season, slandered the team.
As to Nifong, it would make me feel really good if he ended up homeless and unemployable...and, generally, I don't ever feel that vindictive...even when it's called for.