Was Kendra Aney Falsely Detained by the Muskegon Heights Police?

[XLFD]

You may have seen this story on other local media outlets, or even international ones, but if you haven't, a woman used her yoga skills in a novel way, escaping from the back of a Muskegon Heights police cruiser's window while she was handcuffed.  A Muskegon Heights local caught it on his cell phone, where they were amazed and somewhat supportive of the daring escape, which happened while clueless cops were only a couple of dozen yards away, too distracted to notice until she was out of sight.

While this is obviously embarrassing for the MHPD, it could even potentially be very embarrassing for them when you read about what led to this detainment/arrest of the woman and wonder whether she deserved to be handcuffed and loaded in the back of the cruiser in the first place after reading the backstory. 

 

The backstory:  According to the Muskegon Heights Police Department, an officer patrolling in the area of Norton Avenue and Peck Street saw a vehicle parked at an abandoned business. The officer approached the vehicle and spoke with the occupants around 3:30 p.m.

Kendra Aney, who was a passenger in the vehicle, was unable to be identified, so another officer with a fingerprint scanner came to the scene and identified her. She was taken into custody on an outstanding parole violation warrant and placed in the back of a patrol vehicle, police said...

Michigan Department of Correction records show that Aney allegedly absconded from parole on Jan. 12, 2026, while serving a sentence for delivering or manufacturing narcotics.

We see that Kendra Aney was a passenger in a parked car that refused to identify herself midafternoon on March 28th when police approached and began asking questions.  Without any type of probable cause mentioned or inferred in the story, the MHPD called for a fingerprint scanner to identify Ms. Aney.  To a reasonable person, this seems to be a violation of her rights as a police officer just can't go up to anyone on the street, or any passenger in a vehicle, and ask for papers (identification).  

But was the use of fingerprint scanners, a relatively new police tool, specifically prohibited to be used by the law or by courts in such cases?  The answer to that question was decided rather recently in the Michigan Supreme Court, AI summarizes it thusly:

The Michigan Supreme Court ruled in July 2022 that police cannot use portable fingerprint scanners to, or "photo and print," individuals on the street without a warrant or probable cause, finding such actions violate Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search. This ruling ended a controversial Grand Rapids policy.  Key details regarding the Michigan Supreme Court's stance include:

Harrison v. VanderKooi Ruling: In a case challenging a long-standing Grand Rapids policy, the state Supreme Court determined that taking fingerprints from individuals on the street without reasonable suspicion of a crime is a "search" under the Fourth Amendment.

• Unconstitutional Practice: The court declared that fingerprinting individuals just because they lack identification is unconstitutional, marking a significant victory against "stop-and-print" policing, as noted by the ACLU of Michigan.
• Impact on Police Practices: This decision effectively stops law enforcement in Michigan from routinely using mobile technology to scan, photograph, and store biometric information of people not charged with a crime.
• Legitimate Use: While warrantless on-the-spot scanning is prohibited, law enforcement can still take fingerprints in accordance with established, legal procedures (such as post-arrest bookings)

Absent any reasonable suspicion of a crime, the fingerprinting of Kendra Aney was a violation of her rights under the Fourth Amendment, and the subsequent arrest after this violation was improper as the officers involved broke higher laws than the alleged parole absconding, which usually is as simple as missing an appointment with a parole officer or not reporting a change in address.

Muskegon Heights police appear to have not gotten the memo that using fingerprint scanners on those who refuse to identify themselves when they are under no compulsion to do so is against the laws they are supposed to uphold.  Would MHPD have done something Mason County deputies wouldn't even attempt in the case we covered yesterday in the Kayla Brown stop:  force a car passenger to scan their fingerprints to identify them, when there isn't any reasonable suspicion to go there?

Escaping from an unlawful detainment or a false imprisonment is not generally considered a crime, and if there was no reasonable suspicion established for forcibly fingerprinting this woman that day, she should be appropriately compensated for this infringement on her rights.  The footage from the body worn cameras worn by MHPD that day should be a clear indicator of whether she was wronged, just as the citizen's cell phone footage was a clear indicator that she had the escape skills of Houdini.