Opinion ID: 169875
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Federal C onstitutional Claims

Text: Lynch’s federal constitutional claims also fail. Lynch failed to allege any facts supporting his Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment due process claims and his Fourteenth Amendment privileges and immunities and equal protection claims. W ith regard to his Fourth Amendment unlawful arrest/detention claims, the district court dismissed them without prejudice under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487 (1994) (“[W ]hen a state prisoner seeks damages in a § 1983 suit, the district court must consider whether a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence; if it would, the complaint must be dismissed unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the conviction or sentence has already been invalidated.”). It concluded Lynch could -8- not prove lack of probable cause for his arrest without first proving his conviction was invalid. W e disagree. Although Defendants claimed in the district court that Bulman’s statements in his affidavit in support of probable cause for the arrest warrant were based on the same evidence used to convict Lynch, this claim was unsupported and the court did not make such a finding. Therefore, it is unclear whether a judgment in favor of Lynch on his unlaw ful arrest claim would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence. Indeed, Heck generally does not apply to unlawful arrest claims. See Beck v. City of M uskogee Police Dep’t, 195 F.3d 553, 558-59 & n.4 (10th Cir. 1999) (finding Heck did not apply to plaintiff’s unlawful arrest claim based on a lack of probable cause). 6 Nevertheless, we reject Lynch’s unlawful arrest/detention claims. See Smith v. Plati, 258 F.3d 1167, 1174 (10th Cir. 2001) (“W e are free to affirm a district court decision on any grounds for w hich there is a record sufficient to permit conclusions of law , even grounds not relied upon by the district court.”). “[A]n arrest w arrant must be supported by probable cause to comply with the Fourth Amendment.” Taylor v. M eacham, 82 F.3d 1556, 1562 (10th Cir. 1996). “Probable cause for an arrest warrant is established by demonstrating a 6 An exception to the general rule exists when an individual convicted of resisting arrest, i.e., intentionally preventing a police officer from effecting a lawful arrest, brings a § 1983 action challenging the legality of his arrest. Under these circumstances, in order to prevail, the individual would have to negate an element of the offense of conviction. See Heck, 512 U.S. at 486 n.6; Beck, 195 F.3d 553 at 558-59. -9- substantial probability that a crime has been committed and that a specific individual committed the crime.” Id. (quotations omitted). It is a Fourth Amendment violation for a police officer to “knowingly, or with reckless disregard for the truth,” include false statements in an affidavit in support of an arrest warrant or to “knowingly or recklessly omit from the affidavit information which, if included, would have vitiated probable cause.” Id. (quotations omitted). Lynch has not presented any evidence suggesting Bulman included the allegedly false statements, or omitted any facts, knowingly or with reckless disregard for the truth. Id. at 1563 (concluding summary judgment appropriate on illegal arrest claim, where, inter alia, plaintiff presented no evidence suggesting the officer included the false statements or omitted any facts knowingly or with reckless disregard for the truth). Furthermore, even were we to remove the allegedly false statements and add the alleged omissions, see id., Bulman’s affidavit still would have provided probable cause for the arrest w arrant. Specifically, it still would have established, inter alia, (1) Lynch, without Nichols’ permission, withdrew money from her bank accounts to pay off debts/loans not belonging to her, (2) Lynch, without Nichols’ permission, issued checks from her bank accounts to businesses linked w ith Lynch (Lynch had unlimited access to these businesses’ bank accounts and handled their finances) and (3) this money has never been paid back. Because Lynch’s arrest w as lawful, his subsequent detention in the city jail was valid. Therefore, Lynch’s unlaw ful arrest/detention claims w ere improperly -10- dismissed without prejudice; Defendants were entitled to summary judgment on these claims.