Michigan Supreme Court Looks At Intrusive Police Fingerprint Collecting
A Mackinac Center amicus brief backs ACLU's complaint, along with Cato Institute and others
In a case now before the Michigan Supreme Court, the ACLU alleges that Grand Rapids police have conducted unreasonable and unconstitutional searches. The department has photographed and took fingerprints from individuals who were not carrying identification but were not charged with a crime.
The photos and fingerprints from 2011 and 2012 remain in a police database, according to the ACLU.
The Mackinac Center for Public Policy has written an amicus brief supporting the suit, also signed by the Washington-based Cato Institute, that contends the practice violates the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
“The Fourth Amendment protects individuals from unreasonable search and seizure,” said Patrick Wright, vice president of legal affairs at the Mackinac Center.
The ACLU alleges that if the practice is allowed, there is nothing to keep police agencies from stopping people without cause or any suspicion, mandate fingerprinting and creating a general fingerprinting database registry.
The Grand Rapids Police Department’s policy was changed in 2016 and now requires police officers to get the consent of the people it cannot identify before taking a photo and fingerprinting. The city of Grand Rapids stated it would not comment because of the pending litigation.
Wright noted in a press release, “Not every interaction with the police should result in a background check.”
The state Court of Appeals ruled that the attorneys for the two subjects in the lawsuit admitted their clients were validly detained. In its brief, the ACLU noted that the trial court ruled, “There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in one's fingerprints.”
Michigan Capitol Confidential is the news source produced by the Mackinac Center for Public Policy. Michigan Capitol Confidential reports with a free-market news perspective.
Masks in School and Misplaced Priorities
Children are more at risk from fatal accidents than from COVID-19
With vaccines having been widely available to adults for months, people concerned about their vulnerability to COVID-19 can protect themselves. This should mean that requiring children to wear masks in schools to protect adults is no longer necessary. In fact, earlier this year, Gov. Gretchen Whitmer declared, “[Y]ounger children are not major sources of transmission — either to their peers or to adults.” But today’s proponents of mask mandates in schools are now arguing they are needed to keep children themselves safe.
It was obvious from very early on in the pandemic that children faced very little risk from COVID-19. Through Aug. 17, the disease was associated with only 19 deaths in Michigan for people aged 19 and under. That amounts to 0.01% of all the COVID-19 deaths over the period.
When compared to common risks that children face, COVID-19 pales in comparison. They are much more likely to die as the result of an unfortunate accident than they are from COVID-19. According to state data, more children under 19 died last year from poisoning (25) than COVID-19, and the same is true for drowning (19) and choking (62). And 90 children died in car accidents last year, too.
Children in Michigan were also more likely to be the victims of suicide or homicide in 2020 than they were to die of COVID-19. Government statistics show that 71 people under 19 took their own life in Michigan last year. Another 94 were victims of homicide.
There are more than 2.4 million children under 19 in Michigan, so, fortunately, the chance of a child dying from accidents is extremely rare. The same is true for COVID-19, but to an even greater extent. The data shows that for every child who died with COVID-19 in 2020, another 57 died from accidents such as fires, drownings, electrocutions, poisonings, chokings, car crashes, homicides, or suicide. And yet these tragedies receive little attention from public health officials, with so much of their focus devoted to one disease.
Before last year, the idea that students should wear masks in school all day to protect themselves would have been considered extreme. It is historically unprecedented and burdensome to children. The side effects are not well studied or known. But if mask mandates are justified because masks make children safer, than just about any intervention could be justified, too.
Based on the data, public health officials should devote even more energy to preventing deaths from things other than COVID-19. They should be more concerned with limiting access to unsupervised pools, choking hazards and poisonous chemicals. They should focus more on improving students’ mental and emotional health in an effort to prevent suicides. They should do more to keep children away from situations that could result in violent confrontations.
The focus public health officials give to protecting children from COVID-19 is disproportionate to the risk it poses. There are expensive tradeoffs to a laser-like focus on this one disease, but many of them are not yet known. Nevertheless, all the resources used to prevent children from being harmed by COVID-19 are resources that cannot be used to combat threats that data shows should be much more of a concern.
Michigan Capitol Confidential is the news source produced by the Mackinac Center for Public Policy. Michigan Capitol Confidential reports with a free-market news perspective.
More From CapCon