Case: Harrison v. Vanderkooi

This case concerns the constitutionality of fingerprinting an individual during a search. In March 2014, a Black teenager sued a Grand Rapids Police Department (“GRPD”) officer and the City of Grand Rapids (“City”) in the Kent Circuit Court under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, and 1988. The plaintiff alleged that he was walking home from school on May 31, 2012 and gave a friend a large model train engine for a school project. As he walked into a nearby park, the police stopped him, searched him and his backpack, and took his photograph and fingerprints (also known as “photograph and print,” or “P&P”). The officers eventually released the plaintiff and did not charge him with a crime. The complaint alleged that the GRPD officers’ actions (1) violated the Fourth Amendment because they occurred without probable cause; (2) constituted racial discrimination in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause; and (3) violated the plaintiff’s constitutional right to privacy. The complaint sought damages, the destruction of the photograph and fingerprint, and attorneys’ fees and costs. The case was assigned to Judge George J. Quist.

The plaintiff later amended his complaint to allege that the GRPD’s conduct constituted an illegal taking in violation of the Fifth Amendment and to add a claim for municipal liability against the City under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

The trial court consolidated this case with Johnson v. Vanderkooi for discovery purposes.

In 2015, the plaintiff moved for partial summary judgment on the Fourth and Fifth Amendment claims, the Equal Protection Claim against the officer, and the municipal liability claim against the City. The defendants also moved for summary judgment. 

The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants. Judge Quist held that the plaintiff had consented to the P&P, the length of the stop was reasonable, and the GRPD officer deserved qualified immunity regarding the Fourth and Fifth Amendment claims. The court also found that no Fifth Amendment taking had occurred, the defendants’ actions did not violate the plaintiff’s right to privacy, and the plaintiff had not presented evidence of a racially discriminatory purpose.

The plaintiff appealed to the Michigan Court of Appeals on December 3, 2015. Judges Kurtis T Wilder, Mark. T. Boonstra, and Colleen A. O’Brien heard the case.

On May 23, 2017, the Court of Appeals issued an unpublished per curiam opinion affirming summary judgment for the defendants. The court held that qualified immunity protected the GRPD officer with respect to the Fourth and Fifth Amendment claims arising from the P&P procedure. The court also found that the GRPD officer did not violate the plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment rights by stopping him or searching his backpack because the plaintiff consented to the search, the stop was made with reasonable suspicion, and the length of detention was not excessive. Finally, the court affirmed the trial court’s holding that the plaintiff did not provide enough evidence of racially discriminatory purpose to survive summary judgment.

Now represented by the ACLU of Michigan, the plaintiff in this case filed a joint appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court with the plaintiff in Johnson v. Vanderkooi on June 4, 2017. The plaintiffs argued that the City had a policy or custom of performing P&Ps without probable cause during investigatory stops made pursuant to Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). They alleged that the P&P policy violated the Fourth Amendment. The Michigan Supreme Court heard oral arguments on the joint appeal on April 12, 2018.

The Michigan Supreme Court remanded the cases to the Court of Appeals on July 30, 2018. Writing for the entire bench, Justice Richard Bernstein disagreed with the Court of Appeals and held that a policy that authorizes police officers to engage in specific conduct, but does not require that conduct, may be the basis for municipal liability. Because a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether P&P was an official city policy, and thus whether municipal liability existed, Justice Bernstein remanded to the Court of Appeals to determine the constitutionality of the P&Ps in this case. 502 Mich. 751.

The court officially consolidated the Harrison and Johnson cases on November 30, 2018. On remand, the Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for the defendants on November 21, 2019. Judge O’Brien, Judge Anica Letica, and Judge Boonstra held that the P&P did not violate the plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment rights because the P&P portion of a stop based on reasonable suspicion did not constitute a “search” under the Fourth Amendment. 330 Mich. App. 506. The plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration on December 12, 2019, which the Court of Appeals denied on January 3, 2020.

The plaintiffs appealed on February 14, 2020, to the Michigan Supreme Court. Several civil rights organizations filed amicus briefs on behalf of the plaintiffs in August 2021. The Michigan Supreme Court heard oral argument on November 9, 2021. 

On July 22, 2022, the Michigan Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion in favor of the plaintiffs. 509 Mich. 524. Writing for the bench, Justice Bernstein held that fingerprinting constituted a “search” because it required a physical trespass onto a person’s body, a “constitutionally protected area.” Thus, the court deemed the city’s P&P policy facially unconstitutional because it authorized the officers to engage in unreasonable searches, in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Justice Bernstein also held that the plaintiffs’ searches did not fall within the stop-and-frisk exception to the warrant requirement because the P&P policy impermissibly exceeded both the scope and duration of a Terry stop. The court remanded the Johnson plaintiff’s case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with the opinion, and the Harrison plaintiff’s case to the Court of Appeals to determine whether that plaintiff voluntarily consented to fingerprinting.

The court officially severed the Harrison and Johnson cases on August 15, 2022. On remand, the Court of Appeals granted two successive motions to stay, which halted the proceedings until January 1, 2023. 

The parties reached a settlement on December 28, 2022. They voluntarily dismissed the appeal on January 17, 2023. The case is closed.