OPINION
This is a civil rights action filed by Helene and Zoltan Szajer (collectively, “Szajers”), owners and operators of the “L.A. Guns” gun shop in West Hollywood, against the City of Los Angeles (“City”), the Los Angeles Police Department (“LAPD”), and a number of individual LAPD officers (collectively “Appellees”). Following a “sting” operation wherein the Szajers purchased illegal firearms from the LAPD, officers searched the Szajers’ gun shop and their personal residence, pursuant to a warrant obtained by LAPD Detective Michael Mersereau. The searches resultеd in the discovery of illegal firearms and ammunition in both the gun shop and residence. The Szajers did not contest the validity of the warrant or seek to suppress the evidence obtained during the searches. As part of a plea agreement, the Szajers pled no contest to one count of possession of an illegal assault weapon found in their home.
The Szajers then filed this civil action, alleging that the LAPD executed an illegal search at the gun shop. Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, which the district court granted and the Szajers now appeal. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the district court’s decision granting summary judgment.
*609 Background
The Gun Sale
The circumstances of this action arise from activities on November 17, 2005. On that date, Detective Mersereau used a confidential informant to initiate thе undercover sale of firearms, including three illegal assault weapons, to the Szajers at the gun shop. Detective Mersereau audibly monitored the operation, as it took place, through a body wire worn by the informant. The assault weapons, which required a special permit, included: (1) a Springfield MIA semiautomatic centerfire rifle with flash suppressor; (2) a Whitney Wolverine semiautomatic pistol that accepted a detachable magazine and a threaded barrel; and (3) a Reising submachine gun. The assault weаpons were not registered to the informant.
After Zoltan Szajer inspected the weapons, he initially offered the informant $1,800 for all three weapons. Shortly thereafter he told the informant he could not purchase the submachine gun because it may be an illеgal weapon, and advised the informant to take that gun to the West Hollywood Sheriffs Department. When the informant refused, Zoltan Szajer offered to take the gun himself to the Sheriffs Department. The Szajers then purchased the other two weapons (the MIA assault rifle without the flash suppressor, which Zoltán Szajer had removed, and the Whitney Wolverine semiautomatic pistol) for $1,600, and the informant left the sub-machine gun with Zoltan Szajer.
As soon as the informant left, Zoltán Szajer called the West Hollywood Sheriffs Department to request an officer pick up the submachine gun. While Szajer was on the phone, Defendant Mersereau and several other LAPD officers entered the gun shop and, based on the Szajers’ purchase of two assault rifles and possession of the Reising submachine gun, detained the Szajers pending the application for a search warrant. Detective Mersereau then drafted an affidavit for a magistrate judge’s review.
The Arrest
In his affidavit, Detective Mersereau included three incidents to establish probable cause. First, he explained that in January 2005, he interviewed Charles Hanks concerning assault weapons that Hanks may have owned. The Hanks interview led to the discovery of an assault weapon last registered to the Szajers’ gun shop in 1995. Second, Detective Mersereau revealed that in January 2005, a confidеntial informant stated that in the late 1990s, Zoltán Szajer confided that he possessed sixteen machine guns that he kept under the floor boards of his residence. Third, Detective Mersereau described the undercover operation that had taken place in Novеmber 2005. A magistrate judge signed the search warrant authorizing the search of the gun shop, the Szajers’ residence and vacation home. Pursuant to the search warrant, LAPD officers seized assault weapons and computers at the residence and gun shop.
The Szajers were charged with thirteen criminal counts relating to illegal possession of firearms, including an H & K semiautomatic pistol found in the safe at the Szajers’ residence. The Szajers did not contest the validity of the warrant or seek to suppress the evidence obtainеd during the searches. In February 2007, the Szajers each pled no contest to a single count — felony possession of the H & K pistol. Their convictions have not been overturned, expunged or otherwise invalidated.
The Civil Action
Following their no contest plea, the Szajers filed this сivil suit, alleging that the *610 City and LAPD officers violated the Szajers’ civil rights by conducting illegal searches, and by seizing their personal property. The Szajers also alleged that the LAPD officers were pursuing a City policy “to put all gun stores in the City of Los Angeles out of business by relying on stale information, creating fictitious informants, falsifying information included in search warrants, [and] illegally entering the premises of gun stores and planting evidence.” Finally, the Szajers alleged that the City was liable for its failure to train and supervise its officers, which evidenced a pоlicy of condoning “acts which would constitute illegal seizures of lawfully possessed personal property.”
Defendants moved for summary judgment, which the district court granted. In its order, the district court held that the Szajers’ claims were barred by
Heck v. Humphrey,
Discussion
Summary Judgment Standard of Review
This Court reviews the district cоurt’s grant of summary judgment
de novo. Universal Health Servs., Inc. v. Thompson,
The Szajers argued below that the affidavit for the search warrant omitted material information that misled the magistrate, and had the magistrate been provided this information, he would not have authorized the search. On appeal, the Szajers challenge the decision of the district court, alleging: (1) the district court disregаrded an exception to the Heck doctrine; and (2) this lawsuit is not a direct challenge to the state court convictions.
The Heck Doctrine
In
Heck,
the petitioner was convicted of voluntary manslaughter for killing his wife and was sentenced to a fifteen-year prison term.
The Court held that in order for an individual to recover damages for “hаrm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid,” the conviction or sentence must be called into question in some way — either through direct appeal, expungement, invalidation by a state tribunal, or by a federal cоurt’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.
Id.
at 486-87,
[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. But if the district court determines that the plaintiffs action, even if successful, will not demonstrate the invalidity of any outstanding criminal judgment against the plaintiff, the action should be allоwed to proceed, in the absence of some other bar to the suit.
Id.
at 487,
As support for reversal, the Szajers point to footnote seven of thе
Heck
opinion where the Court stated: “For example, a suit for damages attributable to an allegedly unreasonable search may lie even if the challenged search produced evidence that was introduced in a state criminal trial resulting in the § 1983 plaintiffs still-outstаnding conviction. Because of doctrines like independent source and inevitable discovery, and especially harmless error, such a § 1983 action, even if successful, would not necessarily imply that the plaintiffs conviction was unlawful.”
Id.
at 487 n. 7,
Although footnote seven lеft open the question of the applicability of
Heck
to Fourth Amendment claims, this Court has since answered that question affirmatively.
See, e.g., Whitaker v. Garcetti
In
Whitaker,
this Court held that
Heck
barred plaintiffs, who were convicted of cocaine possession, from bringing § 1983 claims alleging defendants fаlsified the warrant application for wiretaps which ultimately produced the evidence that triggered the investigations against them.
Whitaker,
Nonetheless, the Szajers urge this Court to follow two Seventh Circuit cases:
Copus v. City of Edgerton,
We decline to take up the Szajers’ invitation to follow the Seventh Circuit’s approach because this Court must follow its own precedent.
United States v. Vasquez-Ramos,
The Szajers further argue that Heck is inapplicable here because they are challenging only the search of their gun shop, not them conviction for possession of the unregistered weapon found in their home. However, the searches of their residence and gun shop were based on the same search wаrrant and supporting affidavit of Detective Mersereau.
The district court correctly found the magistrate must have relied on the November 17 undercover operation in finding probable cause because, for example, the residence information was so stale that the district court found it “inconceivable” that the magistrate would find probable cause on that piece of information alone. The information regarding the illegal assault weapon last registered to the Szajers’ gun shop in 1995, and the illegal fireаrms and ammunition stored at their residence in the 1990s, was patently stale because it was five to fifteen years old at the time of the warrant.
See United States v. Lacy,
The November 17 undercover operation was the only basis for finding probable cause to search both the gun shop and residence. Yet, the Szajers failed to challenge the search. Just as in Whitaker, if the Szajers prevailed on their Section 1983 claim, it would necessarily imply the invalidity of them state court convictions. Their civil claims necessarily challenge the validity of the undercover operation and in doing so imply that there was no probable cause to search for wеapons. The conclusion that Heck bars such a challenge is buttressed by the fact that the Szajers have not set forth, either on appeal or to the district court below, any other basis for the discovery of the assault weapon found in them home, which formed the basis for their plea and conviction.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the decision of the district court granting summary judgment.