Cir.1998) (“[A]Ilegations that a war-rantless arrest or imprisonment was not supported by probable cause advanced a claim of false arrest or imprisonment .... ”). Montgomery, 159 F.3d at 126 n. 5, states that “[bjecause a conviction and sentence may be upheld even in the absence of probable cause for the initial stop and arrest, ... claims for false arrest and false imprisonment are not the type of claims contemplated by the Court in Heck.” We view this language as sufficient to clearly exclude Gibson’s Fourth Amendment claims of false imprisonment, and arrest and detention without probable cause from the Heck deferred accrual rule. Other circuits have taken a position similar to our decision in Montgomery. See Beck v. City of Muskogee Police Dep’t, 195 F.3d 553, 558 (10th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>); Simmons v. O’Brien, 77 F.3d 1093, 1095 (8th
holding that reasoning which would justify the arrest by the search and at the same time justify the search by the arrest  will not do holding that claims for false arrest and imprisonment under  1983 accrue at the time of the arrest holding that arrest interrogation and search and seizure claims accrue when they actually occur and heck does not affect them because ultimate success on them would not necessarily question the validity of a conviction holding that the searehincidenttoalawfularrest rule does not apply to a warrantless search that provides the probable cause for the subsequent arrest because one cannot justify the arrest by the search and then simultaneously justify the search by the arrest holding that the validity of the arrest does not depend on whether the suspect actually committed a crime the mere fact that the subject is later acquitted of the offense for which he is arrested is irrelevant to the validity of the arrest