GRAND RAPIDS, Mich. — The Michigan Supreme Court ruled Friday afternoon that the practice of fingerprinting people without probable cause or a warrant is unconstitutional.
The court unanimously said the Grand Rapids Police Department violated the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure.
Two African American teenagers sued a Grand Rapids police captain who stopped, photographed and fingerprinted them in separate incidents in 2011 and 2012, but neither were charged with a crime.
“The policy of photographing and fingerprinting people just on the side of the road who haven’t been charged with a crime, that needs to go in the dustbin of history,” Dan Korobkin, ACLU Michigan Legal Director, told FOX 17 Friday.
GRPD stopped Denishio Johnson when he cut through a fitness club parking lot where cars had been broken into.
They stopped Keyon Harrison after he handed a model train engine to someone. He said it was part of a school project.
The ACLU filed the lawsuit several years ago on their behalf.
“The Grand Rapids Police Department for decades had a policy that basically turned what was already a problematic practice, stop and frisk, into an even more problematic practice, stop and fingerprint,” added Korobkin.
The ACLU’s lawsuit argued that the act of fingerprinting someone should be considered a search, which the Fourth Amendment protects us from without probable cause.
Friday, the court agreed.
“It was a threat to personal privacy. It was an example of racial profiling, of police overreach, and now it’s time to reimagine policing and center the needs of the communities that officers are sworn to serve and protect,” Korobkin said.
In response to the ruling, the city released the following statement to FOX 17:
“The City of Grand Rapids has received the decision and is currently reviewing what its next steps may be. As this ruling now requires additional consideration for lower courts, we will withhold further public comment as each case works towards a final resolution.”
Additionally, Grand Rapids dropped the practice of print and photo procedures back in 2015.
FOX 17 checked the department's handbook, and the current policy says an officer can take fingerprints without consent when:
- It’s believed the individual has committed a crime
- The individual cannot provide reliable identification due to “physical incapacitation or defect, mental incapacitation or defect or death – and immediate identification is needed.”
- There is a valid court order
Now, the lower court is expected to weigh in on the department's database of those fingerprints collected without probably cause, along with any possible damages that should be awarded.
