Case: Shelton v. Ann Arbor Police Department

In the 1990s, the Ann Arbor Police Department took blood samples from more than 160 Black men who were seen in the Ann Arbor area during the course of an investigation of a series of rapes. On March 31, 1995, a Black man filed suit in the 22nd Circuit Court of Washtenaw County, asking for the return of his blood sample and DNA records which were collected during the Ann Arbor Police Department's investigation. The plaintiff sued the police department and city of Ann Arbor, Michigan. He alleged that as part of a search for a serial rapist in Ann Arbor that was described as being a Black man between the ages of 25-35 and 5’7” - 6’2” tall, he was repeatedly stopped and interrogated as a potential suspect. Under duress during an interrogation, he submitted to a DNA test, which showed he was not the rapist. Even after this, he was stopped at least seven other times during the investigation.

The plaintiff alleged that this violated his right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment and a similar provision of the Michigan Constitution; his equal protection rights under the Fourteenth Amendment and the Michigan Constitution; his due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment and the Michigan Constitution; the Michigan Elliot-Larsen Civil Rights Act; and the Michigan DNA Identification Profiling System Act. He also brought tort claims for slander, invasion of privacy, and gross negligence.

Represented by the Ann Arbor Chapter of the National Lawyers Guild, the plaintiff sought compensatory, exemplary, and/or punitive damages in an amount in excess of $10,000; an injunction prohibiting the police from stopping him without a reasonable and individualized belief that he has committed a crime; an order requiring the police to return and expunge his blood and DNA sample and any records that suggested the plaintiff was a serial rapist; and attorneys’ fees.

On November 14, 1995, the plaintiff filed a motion for declaratory judgment and an injunction ordering the return of his blood sample and DNA records. The plaintiff also filed a first amended complaint two days later. The next month, on December 13, the court granted the plaintiffs’ motion and ordered the release of the blood samples.

On January 1, 1996, the defendants filed a motion asking the court to either grant an injunction against the Michigan State Police (MSP) or grant relief from the court's previous order.

The parties attended settlement conferences in January and February 1996, and the court entered a settlement order on February 13. The Clearinghouse was unable to obtain information about the settlement.

The MSP was added as a defendant on February 28, 1996. A few months later, on May 1, the court granted the other defendants’ motion for injunctive relief against the MSP. The MSP appealed to the Michigan Court of Appeals later that month, on May 20. The court stayed its May 1 order on May 28, 1996.

On July 10, 1996, the Michigan Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal under Michigan Court Rule 7.216(A)(10), which allows dismissal for lack of jurisdiction or failure of the appellant to follow the court's rules. The Court of Appeals also denied the MSP's motion for rehearing on September 3, 1996. Subsequently, the Michigan Supreme Court denied leave to appeal on July 25, 1997.

On December 11, 1997, the plaintiff moved again to have the police records returned to him, and the trial court granted the motion several days later. The case is now closed.