Aw Heck, As-Applied Challenges do not Implicate a Conviction

A new ruling from SCOTUS gives a lesson in Greek mythology, but more importantly makes it a near certainty that civil-rights plaintiffs will be able to run their malicious prosecution suit through summary judgment, despite a conviction. The oral argument led many to believe that the justices felt this was a complicated case, but in Olivier v. City of Brandon, a unanimous Court found that a suit that seeks prospective relief from arrest is not barred by the previous ruling in Heck v. Humphrey.

Heck holds that a civil suit cannot invalidate a criminal conviction and is most often cited in cases arguing dismissal of a malicious prosecution claim because the plaintiff had been found guilty of the relevant charge. However, under Olivier, if the same plaintiff pleads prospective injunctive relief, the case may continue without an ad damnum request for damages. The result is an as-applied constitutional challenge of the law under which the plaintiff was convicted.

There is no question that there is merit in reviewing the constitutionality of statutes and ordinances – but the as-applied challenge comes with significant expense and limited functional results. The Court even acknowledges that for Olivier to succeed in his suit for prospective relief, a court would find “something past should not have occurred” – that “something past” being a conviction in most cases. To come to this conclusion and avoid the implications of Heck, Justice Kagan drew a parallel to a citizen that seeks to enjoin enforcement of an ordinance that would prevent the plaintiff from exercising his free speech in the manner he desires – of course before the exercise actually occurs. There is no question that Heck does not apply in the case of a preliminary injunction, but Olivier presents an interesting glance into a criminal justice system that allows an accused to challenge the constitutionality during the criminal trial, get convicted, then challenge the constitutionality again in a civil suit.

Practitioners should consider a request for prospective relief as an as-applied constitutional challenge that will likely need to be briefed at the summary judgment stage, therefore requiring discovery into the circumstances of the arrest.