Wrongful arrest claim not barred by Heck while ALJ’s DL determination is

Plaintiff’s wrongful arrest claim does not imply the invalidity of his conviction, so it is not barred by Heck‘s fn. 7. Marshall v. Krzoska, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94834 (E.D. Wis. December 17, 2007):

At this point in the proceedings, the court does not believe that plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment unlawful search claim is barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S. Ct. 2364, 129 L. Ed. 2d 383 (1994) (bars civil actions seeking damages where a decision in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity of the plaintiff’s conviction or sentence unless the conviction or sentence has been “reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus” under 28 U.S.C. § 2254). In general, unreasonable search claims and similar Fourth Amendment claims are not barred under Heck because such claims do not necessarily imply the invalidity of a criminal conviction. See Booker v. Ward, 94 F.3d 1052, 1056 (7th Cir. 1996) (“one can have a successful wrongful arrest claim and still have a perfectly valid conviction”); Copus v. City of Edgerton, 151 F.3d 646, 648 (7th Cir. 1998) (unreasonable search) (citing Heck, 512 U.S. at 487 n.7).

An ALJ’s determination on a DWI arrest can be preclusive under Heck. Nasca v. County of Suffolk, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 176 (E.D. N.Y. January 2, 2008):

An adjudication by an Administrative Law Judge has the same preclusive effect on a false arrest or malicious prosecution claim. See, e.g., Zanghi v. Inc. Vill. of Old Brookville, 752 F.2d 42, 46 (2d Cir. 1985) (granting summary judgment on false arrest claim where ALJ made probable cause finding as to charge of driving while intoxicated); Davenport v. County of Suffolk, No. 99-CV-3088, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12696, 2007 WL 608125, at *5-8 (E.D. N.Y. Feb. 23, 2007) (holding that ALJ finding of probable cause on the charge of driving under the influence of drugs is an absolute bar to any false arrest or malicious prosecution based on that claim). In the instant case, since plaintiff’s guilt of the traffic offense has not been invalidated, any malicious prosecution, false arrest or other claim challenging the lawfulness of that summons and adjudication must fail as a matter of law.

The fact that the person arrested was mentally deficient, and was outside the knowledge of the arresting officer who was assaulted by the arrestee, did not nullify the officer’s probable cause for arrest for qualified immunity purposes. Delong v. Arms, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95184 (E.D. Ky. December 21, 2007).*