How "The Heck Bar" Can Save You From A Lawsuit

This post is offered as a discussion topic only and does not represent legal advice. Officers must refer to the laws in their own State as well as their agency's policies, which can be more restrictive on officers than the law requires.

The Heck Bar is a legal principle that, if understood by officers and agencies, can stop frivolous lawsuits in their tracks. But it's almost never taught to cops. Let's change that.

In 1994, a United States Supreme Court Case called Heck v. Humphrey was decided. In that case, the Supreme Court said that a lawsuit by an arrestee against officers can not proceed if winning that lawsuit would imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence. This most often comes into play when an arrestee pleads guilty to or is found guilty of obstructing peace officers and then turns around and sues officers and their agency for excessive force during that incident. The reason this rule exists is because for a person to be guilty of obstructing a peace officer, the peace officer must be lawfully engaged in their duties. Excessive force is not part of an officers lawful duties. Therefore, if the arrestee is guilty of obstructing peace officers who were lawfully engaged in their duties, he can't turn around an sue officers saying they were not lawfully engaged in their duties.

Now, here's the kicker. In order for the Heck Bar to stop the lawsuit, the arrestee must be suing for the very same actions that he was found guilty of or pled guilty to. If there are multiple acts of obstruction of a peace officer and multiple uses of force during a single incident, an arrestee can claim they pled guilty to one act of obstruction earlier in the incident, but his later actions that led to the officers using force was not part what he pled guilty to. Those were exactly the circumstances in a recent 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Case from September 27, 2024 called Martell v. Cole.

“In this case…the record is silent about which one (or more) of (the arrestee’)s resisting or obstructing acts was (or were) the factual predicate of his guilty plea. Because of that silence, a finding that the deputies used excessive force when (the arrestee) was thrown face first down to the ground would not necessarily imply the invalidity of (his) conviction. Absent an indication in the record that the factual predicate for his conviction was resistance to or obstruction of the specific use of force he now challenges, (the arrestee’s) conviction would be sufficiently supported by any of his resisting or obstructing actions before and after that use of force.”

"A general guilty plea under § 148(a)(1) is not a plea to anything beyond one act of resistance to or obstruction of lawful use of force. It is not an across-the-board plea of guilt under § 148(a)(1) to all acts of resistance or obstruction during the encounter."

They contrasted this case with a 9th Circuit Case from 2021 called Sanders v. City of Pittsburg. In that case they said, “The plea agreement and preliminary hearing transcripts showed that (the arrestee’s) conviction under (Penal Code) 148(a)(1) was based on all three of the obstructive acts at issue in the case.” Therefore, in the Sanders case, the 9th Circuit dismissed the arrestee’s lawsuit against the officers because it was clear that his conviction was for his multiple acts of obstruction, including the use of force event he was claiming was excessive.

So, here’s how officers can use The Heck Bar to protect themselves and their agency from frivolous lawsuits. While officers can’t control everything the D.A.’s Office does, they can do something things to influence how they approach the filing and settling of their case. If officers think about an incident on a timeline from when an officer receives the call for service to the end when they leave the jail, the arrestee may have committed multiple acts of obstructing a peace officer. He may have refused to turn around when the officer ordered him to, then dropped his bodyweight and hid his arms underneath his body, then resisted even more after being handcuffed, requiring the use of restraint devices, and so forth. In the past, the officer may have simply charged him with a single count of obstructing a peace officer and written that simple statement in their report. But now, when the officer writes their report, they should include a sentence that makes it clear he was arrested for obstruction of a peace officer because of every action he did that met the elements of that crime. If the officer has someone from their agency delivering the cases to the District Attorney’s Office, they should make it clear to the Deputy D.A. that the obstruction charges are for the entirety of the subjects actions and any plea agreement should state that. When the officer testifies in the prelim, also make it clear to the Deputy D.A. that part of their questioning should make it clear the charges are for all of his actions that met the elements of the crime during the entirety of the event.

This blog topic serves as a summary of our video lesson on this crucial topic. If you're interested in accessing the full video lesson and additional resources, click the link to register for your free 30-day trial.