Marcus Gonzalez v. James Entress

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that a claim based on unlawful search or seizure is not barred by Heck
• observing that “a violation of the Fourth Amendment does not necessarily impugn the validity of a conviction”
• “[A] claim asserting a violation of the fourth amendment necessarily ‘accrues’ at the time of the unlawful search or seizure, as we have held several times.”
• “Although federal law defines the accrual of the claim for a constitutional tort, state law supplies the period of limitations and the associated doctrine of tolling.”
• “Application of excessive force at a police station violates the Constitution and is immediately actionable, even if the prosecutor never tries to use the confession at trial.”
• The Seventh Circuit has held “several times” that a “claim asserting a violation of the fourth amendment necessarily ‘accrues’ at the time of the unlawful search or seizure.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).