CA6: Heck does not bar Ohio false arrest case

A 1983 case over the legality of plaintiff’s arrest does not implicate the validity of his conviction because an illegal arrest does not prevent a trial in Ohio [and almost everywhere else]. Therefore, the case is not barred by Heck v. Humphrey. Graves v. Mahoning County, 534 Fed. Appx. 399 (6th Cir. 2013)*:

The district court erred because a finding of a Fourth Amendment violation would not necessarily imply the invalidity of their convictions. In Ohio, “an illegal arrest does not invalidate a subsequent conviction which is otherwise proper.” State v. Rutland, 786 N.E.2d 530, 533 (Ohio Ct. App. 2003) (quoting State v. Henderson, 554 N.E.2d 104, 106 (Ohio 1990)). In some cases, a Fourth Amendment violation invalidates a conviction where an unconstitutional search uncovered key evidence that must be suppressed. In this case, however, there is no allegation that authorities seized any evidence during the arrests. Thus, a finding that Graves’s and Sexton’s arrests violated the Fourth Amendment would not necessarily invalidate their convictions. For this reason, the Heck doctrine does not bar Graves and Sexton from bringing their claims.