Aprileo v. Clapprood, 2025 WL 3139817 (1st Cir. 2025)
We occasionally discuss court rules of evidence and criminal procedure that can impact officers in subtle — but vital — ways. This case illustrates a rule known as the Heck v. Humphrey bar, or simply the Heck bar. So, what the heck is the Heck bar? Read on. Chances are, you’ve dealt with a similar situation.
Guistina Aprileo called police to intervene in a squabble with her adult children, Ana-Bella and Antonio Aprileo. The first two officers who arrived successfully separated the two combatants. When Officer Richard Ward of the Springfield (Massachusetts) Police Department arrived to assist, Guistina Aprileo told Officer Ward he was no longer needed and pushed him as he walked out the door. Officer Ward told her she was under arrest and tried to handcuff her. Guistina resisted. Antonio Aprileo lunged at Officer Ward to prevent him from arresting his mother. Additional officers arrived and helped Officer Ward take Guistina to the ground and handcuff her. Guistina suffered an elbow fracture in the process.
Timely legal analysis on law enforcement-related cases: SUBSCRIBE NOW!
Giustina Aprileo was charged with resisting arrest, disorderly conduct, and assault and battery on a police officer. She was not required to enter a plea to those charges. Instead, the prosecutor allowed Giustina to enter a diversion program with three months’ probation. She was not required to admit to any wrongdoing or facts. As long as Giustina refrained from committing any new crimes, obeyed court orders, kept the probation department informed of her contact information, and did not make any false statements to court officers, the charges would be dismissed.
After the three months passed, Giustina Aprileo sued the city and the officers, claiming she was subjected to excessive force during her arrest. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing Giustina’s claims were barred by Heck v. Humphrey (512 U.S. 477 (1994)). The Supreme Court’s Heck v. Humphrey doctrine bars a civil rights claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if the claims necessarily imply the invalidity of their existing conviction or sentence. The trial court denied summary judgment on this ground, ruling the Heck bar did not apply because Giustina had not been convicted of any crime.
“The Heck bar does not apply when there is no underlying criminal conviction or sentence.”
The defendant officers appealed, arguing Giustina’s agreement to pretrial probation should be “treated as a conviction.” Giustina simply countered that she was neither convicted nor sentenced for the conduct that led to her arrest. The court of appeals agreed and affirmed the trial court’s decision.
So what can we take away from this case? The Heck bar does not apply when there is no underlying criminal conviction or sentence. Because Giustina was not required to admit guilt or admit to the factual finding that would have supported a finding of guilt, her civil rights claim of excessive force could proceed.
Officers can’t be expected to understand all the nuances of diversion agreements allowing probation. Nonetheless, an officer can (and should) ask the prosecutor the vital question, “How will this agreement affect the Heck bar?” If the prosecutor hems and haws, or doesn’t know the answer, push back against the plea bargain or diversion agreement. The officers sued by Giustina Aprileo could have been spared court costs, lost time, and emotional angst if the plea diversion had simply been crafted so that she admitted the facts that led to her arrest.
- Tip Sheets
