Denishio Johnson v. Curt Vanderkooi, 330536

Background

On Aug. 15, 2011, GRPD officers stopped Denishio Johnson after complaints he was "looking into" vehicles; he had no ID. Sgt. Bargas photographed and fingerprinted Johnson (the department’s "P&P" procedure); he was briefly handcuffed and released to family after identification was confirmed.
Johnson sued Sgt. Bargas, Capt. VanderKooi, and the City of Grand Rapids under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (and other statutes), alleging Fourth Amendment unlawful search/seizure (taking photos/fingerprints), Fifth Amendment taking of likeness, and discriminatory enforcement; he later abandoned equal‑protection/§1981 claims.
Defendants moved for summary disposition arguing qualified immunity for the officers, lack of constitutional violation, and that the City had no unconstitutional policy or custom causing the injury. The trial court granted motions and struck plaintiff’s proposed expert (Dr. Terrill) under MRE 702/Daubert grounds.
The Court of Appeals confined the legal challenge to the P&P procedure (not the initial stop, handcuffing, or detention length, which were not pled), and addressed (1) whether the officers were entitled to qualified immunity and (2) whether municipal liability under Monell was established.
The court held the officers were entitled to qualified immunity because the law was not clearly established that photographing and fingerprinting during an investigatory stop violates the Fourth or Fifth Amendments; and the City was entitled to summary disposition because plaintiff failed to show an official policy or custom caused the alleged constitutional deprivation.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Qualified immunity re: Fourth Amendment (P&P during investigatory stop)	P&P of Johnson without probable cause/search warrant violated Fourth Amendment; law clearly established that fingerprints/photos cannot be taken without probable cause	Officers argue law was not clearly established; photographing/fingerprinting exposed features and courts have not treated them as searches per se; reasonable suspicion could justify field P&P	Held: Officers entitled to qualified immunity; law not clearly established that P&P during valid investigative stop is unconstitutional
Fifth Amendment takings claim (image/likeness, fingerprints)	Seizure of image/fingerprints was a taking without just compensation	Defendants: no recognized property interest or seizure of title; photos/fingerprints taken under police power, not eminent domain; no controlling precedent that this is a compensable taking	Held: Qualified immunity applies; no clearly established Fifth Amendment takings right for P&P in these circumstances
Municipal liability (Monell)	City maintained a custom/practice of P&P of innocent persons (disproportionately black), causing constitutional injury; documentary evidence and departmental materials support a policy/custom	City: P&P exists but is discretionary and tied to specific facts (citations, lack of ID, traffic infractions); plaintiff produced no evidence of an official policy or persistent widespread custom that mandated P&P of innocent pedestrians	Held: No genuine issue that an official policy or a custom with force of law caused the injury; summary disposition for City affirmed
Admissibility of expert (Dr. Terrill)	Expert would show P&P was unreasonable and provide statistical/contextual analysis on police practices	Defendants: Dr. Terrill unqualified for racial‑profiling statistics, methodology unreliable, and his legal conclusions invade jury province	Held: Trial court did not abuse discretion in excluding Dr. Terrill under MRE 702/Daubert; much testimony also irrelevant (equal‑protection claim abandoned); exclusion harmless to outcome

Key Cases Cited

Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (establishes two‑step qualified immunity analysis)
Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (courts may use discretion in the order of qualified immunity prongs)
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (standards for investigatory stops and scope)
Davis v. Mississippi, 394 U.S. 721 (challenges to fingerprinting where detention unlawful)
Hayes v. Florida, 470 U.S. 811 (field fingerprinting may be permissible under reasonable suspicion; not per se impermissible)
United States v. Dionisio, 410 U.S. 1 (non‑testimonial physical characteristics — fingerprints/voice/photographs — generally not protected as searches)
Maryland v. King, 569 U.S. 435 (discusses DNA/fourth‑amendment balance and evidentiary collection in investigations)
Monell v. Dept. of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (municipal liability under § 1983 requires an official policy or custom)
Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (clarifies "clearly established" right standard for qualified immunity)
Messerschmidt v. Millender, 565 U.S. 535 (qualified immunity protects reasonable but mistaken judgments)
White v. Pauly, 137 S. Ct. 548 (2017) (clearly established law must be particularized to the facts)