MI: Taking ptf’s photo and prints after a valid arrest did not violate 4A

The taking of plaintiff’s photograph and fingerprints after an apparently valid arrest was not a clearly established violation of the Fourth Amendment where he was innocent of a crime. Plaintiff did not contest his arrest, but he contended that the taking of photographs and fingerprints were racially discriminatory based on the fact that 75% were African-American but the population of the city was 20%. Johnson v. VanderKooi, 2017 Mich. App. LEXIS 861 (May 23, 2017).

The Franks challenge in this case was somewhat “troublesome” because officers relied on a pill bottle in the house to get a search warrant. In photographs, the pill bottle wasn’t visible, but officers testified it was there. At bottom, however, the issuing magistrate relied on the affidavit and not the photographs, and it was apparent that the pill bottle was in the house; where was the issue. Therefore, the Franks violation, if there was one, wasn’t material. State v. Trapp, 2017 S.C. App. LEXIS 46 (May 24, 2017).*

This entry was posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Franks doctrine, Qualified immunity, Reasonable expectation of privacy. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.