CA4: Ptf’s 1983 claim a Stingray was used on him survives Heck bar

Plaintiff’s claim that he was the subject of unlawful surveillance with a Stingray survives a Heck challenge and can proceed. Marcantoni v. Bealefeld, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 22798 (4th Cir. Aug. 16, 2018):

Specifically, a Fourth Amendment claim will not necessarily imply that the resulting criminal conviction is unlawful if “(1) the conviction derives from a guilty plea rather than a verdict obtained with unlawfully obtained evidence, and (2) the plaintiff does not plead facts inconsistent with guilt.” Covey v. Assessor of Ohio Cty., 777 F.3d 186, 197 (4th Cir. 2015). Here, the claimed Fourth Amendment violation does not necessarily imply the invalidity of Marcantoni’s criminal conviction. Marcantoni pleaded guilty to the charge and in his complaint does not assert facts inconsistent with guilt. Therefore, the district court erred in dismissing his complaint as barred by Heck.

This entry was posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Stingray / Hailstorm. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.