Argument recap: Wallace v. Chicago Police on 11/6

The following recap is by Jameson Jones of the Stanford Supreme Court Clinic. Jameson’s earlier post previewing this case is here.

Monday’s argument in Wallace v. Chicago Police Officers (No. 05-1240) mostly seemed to favor the respondents. Although the petitioner argued that this case was a straightforward application of Heck in a slightly different context, most of the Justices seemed convinced that Heck was sufficiently distinguishable to merit a different rule in this context. Justice Ginsburg and Chief Justice Roberts both asked questions on the applicability of Heck outside of the habeas context, seemingly convinced that Heck’s purpose was to preserve habeas review as the primary means of collaterally attacking state court constitutional rulings. A number of Justices seemed concerned about the difficulty of determining ex ante when a Fourth Amendment claim would “necessarily” undermine a conviction. Petitioner’s continuing seizure argument also met with significant resistance: Justice Souter emphasized that police custody ended at the time of arraignment, and Justice Kennedy seemed concerned that a continuing seizure rule would undermine the applicability of statutes of limitations in this context.

Most of the oral argument focused on how to minimize the risk of conflicting judgments without unduly burdening court operations. Although Justice Breyer seemed to think that a federal equitable tolling rule would be appropriate, most of the other Justices seemed convinced that traditional rules of comity were sufficient to alleviate any clashes between federal and state criminal courts. In response to a comment by Chief Justice Roberts that tolling is a state law matter, Justice Breyer responded that tolling rules are only left to state law on constitutional claims if the rules are consistent with federal rights. Justice Breyer was unsure that the abstention doctrine would really be easily administered to prevent conflicts because it would require the same inquiry as the Heck rule: a determination of whether the Section 1983 Fourth Amendment claim would conflict with an ongoing prosecution. Chief Justice Roberts, however, seemed content that the comity rules were easier, allowed more flexibility, and would justify staying any Section 1983 proceedings when there would be any chance for inconsistency.

Justices Kennedy and Ginsburg seemed concerned with what to do with Fourth Amendment claims that are intertwined with Fifth Amendment claims. Because a Fifth Amendment violation requires the use of an involuntary confession at trial, it does not accrue when the confession is extracted. In cases in which claims are bound together (i.e., if excessive force leads to an involuntary confession), at least a few Justices seemed worried about forcing the plaintiff to bring the Fourth and Fifth Amendment claims at different times.

From an administrability standpoint, petitioner argued that an immediate accrual rule would burden federal dockets with a large number of speculative Section 1983 lawsuits. Justice Stevens expressed concern on this point, stating that the respondents’ theory fit “beautifully” with the law, but that an accrual rule forcing plaintiffs to file immediately would lead to claims that would otherwise not have been filed. Also, in a point that caught the attention of Justice Kennedy, petitioner argued that criminal defendants would be deterred from filing Section 1983 suits because prosecutors would impeach them with such a filing in order to impute an inappropriate monetary motive. When petitioner reiterated that this line of cross-examination would be allowed in the criminal courts in Cook County, Justice Souter responded that he should “come back” to the Court to challenge that practice at a later date.

In the end, I still think that the Court will side with the respondents although it will be interesting to see whether the Fifth Amendment accrual issue will have any effect on the disposition.