Johnson v. Vanderkooi
Decision Date | 21 November 2019 |
Docket Number | No. 330537,No. 330536,330536 |
Parties | Denishio JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Curtis VANDERKOOI, Elliott Bargas, and City of Grand Rapids, Defendants-Appellees. Keyon Harrison, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Curtis VanderKooi and City of Grand Rapids, Defendants-Appellees. |
Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
ON REMAND
These consolidated appeals1 are back before this Court on remand from our Supreme Court. The Supreme Court directed that we determine "whether [the challenged policies] violated plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures." Johnson v. VanderKooi , 502 Mich. 751, 781, 918 N.W.2d 785 (2018). We conclude, under current caselaw, that they did not and that plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment rights were not violated by the on-site taking of photographs and fingerprints based on reasonable suspicion (i.e., during valid Terry2 stops). We therefore affirm the trial court's orders granting summary disposition in favor of defendant city of Grand Rapids (the City) in these matters.
The facts underlying these appeals are set forth in detail in our previous opinions.3 Our Supreme Court summarized the relevant underlying facts as follows:
In our previous opinions, we affirmed the trial court's orders granting summary disposition in favor of the individual defendants and the City. Johnson v. VanderKooi , 319 Mich. App. 589, 903 N.W.2d 843 (2017) ; Harrison v. VanderKooi , unpublished per curiam opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued May 23, 2017 (Docket No. 330537). Relevant to the issue now before us on remand, as the Supreme Court stated, we concluded in Part III of each opinion that "plaintiffs did not demonstrate that any of the alleged constitutional violations resulted from a municipal policy or a custom so persistent and widespread as to practically have the force of law," Johnson , 502 Mich. at 760, 918 N.W.2d 785, and we therefore affirmed the trial court's orders granting summary disposition in favor of the City. See, e.g., Johnson , 319 Mich. App. at 626-627, 903 N.W.2d 843 (, )quoting Connick v. Thompson , 563 U.S. 51, 61, 131 S. Ct. 1350, 179 L. Ed. 2d 417 (2011). Plaintiffs thereafter filed a joint application for leave to appeal in our Supreme Court.4
Our Supreme Court directed that oral argument be scheduled on whether to grant the application or take other action and ordered that the parties file supplemental briefs addressing "whether any alleged violation of the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights were [sic] the result of a policy or custom instituted or executed by [the City]." Johnson v. VanderKooi , 501 Mich. 954, 954-955, 905 N.W.2d 233 (2018). Subsequently, after supplemental briefing and oral argument, the Supreme Court reversed Part III of this Court's opinions, stating:
In summary, we hold that it has been conclusively established by the City's concession that there exists a custom of performing a P&P during a field interrogation when an officer deems it appropriate. We further hold that, even without the City's concession as to the existence of a custom, the City's admissions, the officers’ testimony, the GRPD manual, and the training materials, when viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, are sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the City's custom has become an official policy. Genuine issues of material fact also remain concerning causation. Therefore, the Court of Appeals erred by affirming the trial court's order granting summary disposition based on the Court's conclusion that the alleged constitutional violations were not the result of a policy or custom of the City. We express no opinion with regard to whether plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment rights were violated. Therefore, we reverse Part III of the Court of Appeals’ opinion in both cases. [ Johnson , 502 Mich. at 781, 918 N.W.2d 785.]
Because this Court, in its earlier opinions, had not reached the issue of whether plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment rights were violated by the P&P procedure, the Supreme Court remanded these cases to this Court "to determine whether the P&Ps at issue here violated plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures." Id. , 918 N.W.2d 785. We subsequently issued an order granting plaintiffs’ motion to file supplemental briefs "limited to issues in the scope of the remand from the Michigan Supreme Court[.]"5 The parties filed supplemental briefs in accordance with that order, and we have considered the arguments presented in those briefs.
We review de novo preserved questions of constitutional law. Hardrick v. Auto Club Ins. Ass'n , 294 Mich. App. 651, 685, 819 N.W.2d 28 (2011) (opinion by Markey, J.).
Our Supreme Court directed us to determine on remand "whether the P&Ps at issue here violated plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures." Johnson , 502 Mich. at 781, 918 N.W.2d 785. The question before us, therefore, is whether the P&Ps were constitutionally permissible. In answering that question, it is necessary first to precisely identify the nature of plaintiffs’ claim relating to the P&Ps. Indeed, our Supreme Court has already done so, describing plaintiffs as arguing "that the record demonstrated that the City had a policy or custom of performing P&Ps without probable cause during investigatory stops ..., which may be based on reasonable suspicion of criminal conduct, and that execution of that policy or custom violated their Fourth Amendment rights." Johnson , 502 Mich. at 760, 918 N.W.2d 785. In other words, the linchpin of plaintiffs’ claim was, is, and remains...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Johnson v. VanderKooi
...the basis of reasonable suspicion (rather than probable cause), resulted in a constitutional violation." Johnson v. VanderKooi (On Remand) , 330 Mich App 506, 517, 948 N.W.2d 650 (2019). The Court of Appeals held that the P&Ps did not infringe on plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment rights, having ......
-
Wolfenbarger v. Wright
...Court's purpose is to determine if the trial court made an error when it rendered its decision. See Johnson v. VanderKooi (On Remand) , 330 Mich. App. 506, 526, 948 N.W.2d 650 (2019). Because this malpractice case was not known to the trial court and, in fact, was not even in existence at t......
-
Composite Innovation Grp. v. Mich. State Univ.
... ... Mays I , 323 Mich.App. at 38, does not deprive its ... decision on this issue of its precedential effect. In ... Johnson v VanderKooi , 330 Mich.App. 506, 527; 948 ... N.W.2d 650 (2019), lv granted Mich.; 954 N.W.2d 524 (2021), ... this Court held that ... ...