attributable to an allegedly illegal search and seizure of property. However, the Supreme Court stated in footnote seven in its decision in Heck that 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-outstanding 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. Heck, 512 U.S. at 487 n. 7, 114 S.Ct. 2364 (citations omitted). There is a split in the circuits as to how Heck’s footnote seven should be interpreted. The Seventh, Eighth, Tenth and r.1995) (<HOLDING>). On the other hand, the Second and Sixth
holding that search of backpack constituted a search of defendants person and was not authorized by search warrant for premises holding that acquiescence to a strip and body cavity search did not extend the scope of defendants consent to search his person because of the highly intrusive nature of the search holding that evidence obtained from valid search warrant did not violate constitutional due process provisions holding that search of pertinent public records not required if evidence presented and inferences drawn therefrom show that first marriage is valid holding that heck did not bar datzs  1983 unlawful search claim because even if the pertinent search did violate the federal constitution datz conviction might still be valid considering such doctrines as inevitable discovery independent source and harmless error