GRAND RAPIDS, MI -- A lawsuit against a Grand Rapids Police officer and the city has been dismissed, exonerating both from claims the officer used racial profiling while detaining a teen and taking his photos and fingerprints.
Kent County Circuit Court Judge George Quist issued a Nov. 18 opinion that cleared Capt. Curt VanderKooi and dismissed claims by Keyon Harrison that police violated his civil rights.
Harrison, a black teen, was never arrested and had not committed a crime during the May 31, 2012 stop as he walked home from school. Harrison was 16 at the time.
Harrison's attorneys argued VanderKooi and the city violated the teen's rights by detaining him for an extended period without authority, taking his photo and fingerprints without cause, and violating his constitutional right to privacy.
They also claimed he was stopped solely because he was black.
Quist, however, found that VanderKooi witnessed Harrison involved in activity that could be deemed suspicious, and there was no evidence "tending to show that VanderKooi's stop was racially motivated or discriminatory in purpose."
VanderKooi had seen Harrison take a model train or fire engine from another person, a Hispanic male, and walk alongside that person for a short distance before returning the model.
A few moments later, after circling around the block, VanderKooi saw Harrison crouching in a park and moving his arms by some brush. The incident happened near Lake Drive SE and East Fulton Street, an area VanderKooi knew to have a high burglary rate.
Related: Lawsuit says Grand Rapids police target minorities for photographs, thumbprints
It turned out Harrison was helping a friend carry an internship project and then went into the park to help an injured bird. The teen had no identification on him when VanderKooi approached him.
Quist ruled the captain had sufficient cause to detain Harrison because of what seemed to be a suspicious exchange of property, then some unusual behavior by Harrison.
He also said Harrison consented to stopping and talking to VanderKooi, a search of his backpack and having his photo and fingerprints taken.
"While plaintiff asked why he was stopped and if he had done anything wrong, he never attempted to leave or ask if he was free to go," the judge wrote.
Quist also determined the encounter lasted only 10-15 minutes, a reasonable amount of time, and then Harrison went on his way.
The teen's consent to the photographing and fingerprinting, known as "P & P," was key to the case, the judge said.
And he said Harrison's attorneys showed no state or federal case law that creates a constitutional right to privacy of his face or fingerprints.
"Plaintiff's face and fingerprints are observable by the general public and not protected under the common law right to privacy," Quist wrote.
The city has no liability with the "P & P" procedure, according to the judge's ruling, because there was never proof shown that Harrison's constitutional rights were violated.
City attorneys argued the procedure is used solely for identification purposes, typically with juveniles or older teens who do not have a driver's license or other ID.
Quist said he learned the police department's "P & P" policy has been in use for more than 30 years and evolved over time.
"Training materials indicate the P & P procedure is used in the context of investigative stops where an individual's identity cannot be ascertained," he wrote.
E-mail John Tunison: jtunison@mlive.com and follow him on Twitter at twitter.com/johntunison