Careers

Experiences

Industries

Offices

Our Firm

Pages

Our People

Updates

Practices

Warner Norcross + Judd LLP is a corporate law firm with over 230 attorneys serving clients in nine offices throughout Michigan. Among the largest law firms in Michigan, Warner works in virtually all areas of business law.

Michigan Law Firm - Warner Norcross + Judd LLP

When police officers take someone’s photograph and fingerprints, such conduct does not “clearly violate” a constitution right, thus immunity remained in place and shielded the officers from civil liability, said the Michigan Court of Appeals in <a href="http://publicdocs.courts.mi.gov:81/OPINIONS/FINAL/COA/20170523_C330536_51_330536.OPN.PDF" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><em>Johnson v. Vanderkooi, </em>No. 330536</a><em>. </em>

contentpilot/introduction

In August of 2011 police received a complaint regarding an individual wandering through a parking lot and looking through car windows. Police arrived on the scene and found the plaintiff, Denishio Johnson. Mr. Johnson did not have any identification on him, so police took his photograph and fingerprints to try to further identify him. Mr. Johnson sued the officers for a violation of his Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights, claiming that photos and fingerprints were an unlawful search and seizure as well as an unlawful taking.

core/paragraph

Photographs and fingerprints constituting an unlawful search and seizure was one of first impression for the Court of Appeals.&nbsp; The Court relied on prior statements from the United States Supreme Court to determine that taking fingerprints and photographs is lawful, if the initial stop was justified by a reasonable suspicion. Therefore, taking photographs and fingerprints in these circumstances did not “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known,” and the doctrine of qualified immunity applied.&nbsp; The Court also found that Mr. Johnson’s likeness was not impaired, thus his Fifth Amendment rights were not violated and the doctrine of qualified immunity again applied.&nbsp;

Partner

Jason L. Byrne

Labor and Employment

COA: Photographs and fingerprints do not trigger a clear Fourth Amendment violation eliminating immunity

Warner Norcross + Judd LLP is responsible for the contents of our advertising and this website. Please read our full <a href="/privacy-policy/" aria-label="see privacy policy">privacy policy</a> available on our website. If you have any questions or comments about our website or our Privacy Policy please contact us at <a href="mailto:info@wnj.com">info@wnj.com</a> or 616.752.2000. 

COA: Photographs and fingerprints do not trigger a clear Fourth Amendment violation eliminating immunity

professionals