Keyon Harrison v. Curtis Vanderkooi, 948 N.W.2d 650

Two young men (Denishio Johnson and Keyon Harrison) were stopped by Grand Rapids police based on reasonable suspicion; both lacked ID and were released without charges after officers took photographs and fingerprints under the department’s Photograph-and-Print (P&P) practice.
GRPD patrol officers carried cameras, fingerprint kits, and print cards; completed prints were checked against local databases and stored; the City conceded a custom permitting P&Ps whenever an officer deemed them appropriate.
Plaintiffs sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging Fourth Amendment violations (and municipal liability) because P&Ps were performed on reasonable suspicion rather than probable cause; they initially alleged racial-motivation claims (later partly dropped).
The trial court granted summary disposition for the City and officers; the Court of Appeals affirmed; Michigan Supreme Court reversed as to municipal-policy factual issues and remanded for determination whether P&Ps violated the Fourth Amendment.
On remand, the Court of Appeals framed plaintiffs’ claim as a facial challenge to the policy authorizing P&Ps on reasonable suspicion and held that taking photographs and fingerprints during valid Terry stops did not constitute a Fourth Amendment search under current caselaw; it affirmed summary disposition for the City.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether taking fingerprints/photographs during a Terry investigatory stop is a Fourth Amendment "search" requiring probable cause	Fingerprints are biometric data; taking them without probable cause during a Terry stop is a Fourth Amendment search and unconstitutional	Fingerprints and photographs are physical characteristics exposed to the public and, under existing precedent, do not implicate a protected privacy interest	Not a search under current caselaw; P&Ps during valid Terry stops were permissible based on reasonable suspicion
Whether a city policy/custom authorizing P&Ps on reasonable suspicion is facially unconstitutional	The policy is facially invalid because it permits P&Ps without probable cause	The policy is lawful because P&Ps during valid Terry stops do not constitute Fourth Amendment searches; municipal liability requires a constitutional violation	Because P&Ps were not searches, the policy was not shown to be unconstitutional; plaintiffs failed to prove municipal liability
Whether retention of photos/fingerprints creates an ongoing intrusion beyond the stop	Continued retention magnifies the invasion and is beyond permissible scope of stop	Retention issue was beyond the remand scope and requires further factual development	Court declined to decide retention; issue beyond the scope of the Supreme Court’s remand

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (authorizes brief investigatory stops on reasonable suspicion)
Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) (Fourth Amendment protects reasonable expectations of privacy)
Davis v. Mississippi, 394 U.S. 721 (1969) (suggests that fingerprinting may, in narrow circumstances, be permissible without probable cause)
United States v. Dionisio, 410 U.S. 1 (1973) (compares voice/facial characteristics to fingerprints; indicates limited privacy interest)
Hayes v. Florida, 470 U.S. 811 (1985) (suggests fingerprinting during a stop may be permissible if reasonably related to investigation)
Maryland v. King, 569 U.S. 435 (2013) (treats fingerprinting and DNA collection incident to arrest as permissible)
Monell v. New York City Dep’t of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (municipal liability requires official policy or custom causing constitutional injury)
Connick v. Thompson, 563 U.S. 51 (2011) (clarifies municipal liability and causation standards)
United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012) (property-trespass theory of Fourth Amendment search)
Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001) (use of sense-enhancing technology to obtain information from protected areas can be a search)
Nuriel v. Young Women’s Christian Ass’n, 186 Mich. App. 141 (1990) (Michigan appellate court held taking fingerprints does not violate the Fourth Amendment)