Opinion ID: 2998914
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: False Confession Claim

Text: Wallace also asserts a “false confession” claim that he claims is actionable under the Fourth Amendment, relying on the following language in Gauger: [Gauger’s] incarceration resulted from the combination of a false arrest with (if his testimony is believed) a false account of his interrogation. If his testimony is believed, therefore, the seizure of his person was from the beginning to the end of his incarceration unreasonable, and shouldn’t that bring the allegedly fraudulent account of his interrogation under the Fourth Amendment? 349 F.3d 360. In support of his claim, Wallace tries to distinguish a “continuing Fourth Amendment violation” from the “continuing seizure” theory discussed in Justice Ginsburg’s concurring opinion in Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266 (1994). See id. at 279 (Ginsburg, J., concurring). His efforts are necessary, at least in this court, because we have already rejected a “continuing seizure” theory in the Fourth Amendment context. See McCullah v. Gadert, 14 No. 04-3949 344 F.3d 655, 661 (7th Cir. 2003) (citing Reed v. City of Chicago, 77 F.3d 1049, 1052 n.3 (7th Cir. 1996)). Nonetheless, we find them unavailing. Wallace tries to find some support for it in Chavez v. Martinez, 538 U.S. 760 (2003), but as we read that case it dealt only with the Fifth Amendment and the due process clauses. We reject the idea of a stand-alone “false confession” claim based on the Fourth Amendment, rather than the Fifth Amendment or the due process clauses.