the Troopers violated the Fourth Amendment by: — Detaining Plaintiff without probable cause; — Searching and seizing the car Plaintiff was in without probable cause; — Searching Plaintiff without probable cause; — Arresting Plaintiff without probable cause; — Falsely imprisoning Plaintiff; (Appellant App. at A-101.) 10 . Gibson argues that we should engage in a fact-intensive analysis of each of his claims to determine if they would necessarily imply that his underlying conviction is unlawful. To be certain, some courts have engaged in a fact-intensive analysis of each claim. Wiley v. City of Chicago, 361 F.3d 994, 997 (7th Cir.2004) ("Heck may in fact occasionally bar a civil rights claim premised on a false or wrongful arrest."); Ballenger v. Owens, 352 F.3d 842, 846 (4th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>); Hughes v. Lott, 350 F.3d 1157, 1161 (11th
holding on facts similar to this case that when evidence seized in violation of the fourth amendment is the only evidence underlying a conviction a successful civil challenge would necessarily imply the invalidity of the conviction holding that where a conviction is reversed after trial the double jeopardy clause does not bar a government appeal that if successful would only reinstate the conviction and would not subject defendant to a second trial holding that that if the success of a  1983 damages claim brought by a prisoner would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence the prisoner may only bring the claim where the conviction or sentence has been invalidated holding the petitioners challenge of his conviction is not rendered moot by the expiration of the underlying sentence because collateral consequences flowing from the conviction give the petitioner a substantial stake in the judgment of conviction which survives the satisfaction of the sentence imposed on him holding that a finding of excessive force in a  1983 action would not necessarily imply the invalidity of the plaintiffs conviction for resisting arrest