Chong Lee v. City of Appleton, Wisconsin, 21-1310

Background

In 2013 Appleton police recorded interviews of three potential witnesses in a murder investigation, then destroyed those recordings; interviewees had expressed fear of retaliation and officers concealed their names from defense.
The witnesses' names became known in 2015 and they were reinterviewed; Lee moved in state court to dismiss the prosecution as a sanction for the destroyed recordings.
The state trial judge declined dismissal, barred the prosecutor from calling the three witnesses (but allowed Lee to call them), and the case proceeded to trial; Lee was convicted after his brother identified him and the prosecution presented multiple admissions by Lee.
The Wisconsin Court of Appeals held the destruction violated Lee's rights (which this opinion assumes arguendo) but concluded the trial court's remedy avoided prejudice and that the recordings were not materially exculpatory.
Lee then filed a §1983 suit for damages against the City/Police for intentional destruction of evidence; the district court reached the merits and rejected the claim.
The Seventh Circuit concluded the §1983 suit is barred by Heck because the conviction is still valid, amended the caption to name the City (not the police department), vacated the district judgment, and remanded with instructions to dismiss without prejudice.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Lee may maintain a §1983 damages suit for destroyed evidence while his conviction stands	Lee argues he can sue for constitutional wrongdoing (intentional destruction of evidence) now	City argues allowing suit would undermine the conviction; Heck bars such §1983 claims until conviction is invalidated	Heck bars the §1983 suit as premature; dismissal without prejudice required
Whether the district court properly decided the merits despite Heck	Lee seeks merits ruling on liability and damages	City contends court should not reach merits because claim is premature under Heck	Seventh Circuit: imprudent to decide merits here; Heck concerns claim timing though not jurisdictional, so merits should be left for after conviction is invalidated
Proper defendant: Appleton Police Department vs. City of Appleton	Lee sued the Police Department and asserted Monell liability for official policy	City/ district court: Wisconsin law treats police departments as part of the municipality; the City is the proper defendant	Caption amended to name the City; municipality is the proper defendant under state law
Materiality of destroyed recordings / prejudice from their destruction	Lee contends recordings contained exculpatory Brady material and their loss harmed his defense	City and state courts: remedy at trial prevented prejudice; recordings were not materially exculpatory	State appellate court found no material exculpatory evidence and no prejudice; federal court assumed violation arguendo but declined to rule on materiality because of Heck

Key Cases Cited

Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) (§1983 claim that would imply invalidity of conviction is premature until conviction is reversed or otherwise invalidated)
Savory v. Cannon, 947 F.3d 409 (7th Cir. 2020) (en banc) (discussing application of Heck to §1983 suits challenging criminal proceedings)
Post v. Gilmore, 111 F.3d 556 (7th Cir. 1997) (explaining how premature civil rulings can impair subsequent collateral review of a conviction)
Polzin v. Gage, 636 F.3d 834 (7th Cir. 2011) (noting Heck is not a subject-matter jurisdiction rule)
Johnson v. Rogers, 944 F.3d 966 (7th Cir. 2019) (a Heck-barred claim must be dismissed without prejudice)
Morgan v. Schott, 914 F.3d 1115 (7th Cir. 2019) (discussing dismissal procedures for claims affected by Heck)
Moore v. Burge, 771 F.3d 444 (7th Cir. 2014) (same)
Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (municipal liability under §1983 arises from official policy or custom)