SCOTUS argument Monday: Wallace v. City of Chicago

The Supreme Court hears oral argument today in Wallace v. City of Chicago, 04-1240 (docket), decision below: Wallace v. City of Chicago, 440 F.3d 421 (7th Cir. 2006), cert. granted June 19, 2006 as Wallace v. Kato. The question presented: “When does a claim for damages arising out of a false arrest or other search or seizure forbidden by the Fourth Amendment accrue when the fruits of the search were introduced in the claimant’s criminal trial and he was convicted?” The petitioner’s brief here, and respondent’s brief here.

From Willamette University College of Law summary delivered by list serv:

The issue in this case is whether damages arising under a claim for false arrest, brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, arise at the time a false arrest occurs, or upon a claimant’s criminal conviction.

The present civil case arises out of a criminal case. Andre Wallace (Petitioner) was arrested, charged, and found guilty of murder. On January 17, 1994, a construction worker was shot and killed. The police brought Petitioner in for questioning two days later. Officers Roy and Kato (“Officers”) tricked the Petitioner into making a false confession by using various interrogation techniques. During his trial, Petitioner filed several motions to suppress his statements, all of which were denied. He was subsequently found guilty and served 8 years in prison. After several years of appeals, his conviction was reversed. The Illinois Appellate Court held that his arrest had not been based upon probable cause and the court remanded for a new trial. The Illinois Supreme Court denied review and the prosecutor eventually dropped all charges against the Petitioner.

In 2003, Petitioner filed the § 1983 action asserting violation of his Fourth Amendment right by the Officers as well as state claims for malicious prosecution and false arrest. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted summary judgment for the Officers. On appeal, the Seventh Circuit held that the § 1983 claim accrued at the time of the arrest, rather than when the Petitioner’s criminal conviction was overturned, thus the claim was time barred. Judge Posner wrote a lengthy dissent in the denial for rehearing en banc, upon which the Petitioner bases his arguments.

On cert. to the United States Supreme Court, Petitioner will argue the Seventh Circuit rule is an unwarranted extension of the rule in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477(1994), which held that damages for an allegedly unconstitutional conviction are the conviction and sentence, and do not accrue until the direct reversal of the conviction. Petitioner will further argue that the Seventh Circuit’s rule does not remedy the “injury” of being falsely convicted and imprisoned—-this is in direct conflict with the Court holding that the “injury is the false arrest. [Summarized by Loren Cohen.]