ACLU of Michigan Legal Director Dan Korobkin Named Michigan’s 2021 Lawyer of the Year

A group of his peers has just confirmed what everyone familiar with legal director Dan Korobkin’s long history of achievement with the ACLU of Michigan already knows: He’s among the very best at what he does.

Last Thursday, at an awards ceremony honoring leaders in the law, Dan was named Michigan Lawyers Weekly’s Lawyer of the Year for 2021.

“You would be hard-pressed to find someone who won’t tell you that Dan is one of the most brilliant legal minds in Michigan and, perhaps, the nation,” the publication pointed out in an article announcing the award.

It is an incredible – and incredibly well-deserved -- honor. Raised in Michigan with a degree from Yale Law School, Dan was described this way by Michigan Lawyers Weekly:

“With his credentials, Korobkin could easily work almost anywhere that he chooses in the legal field. Yet he has consistently chosen a career where he can dedicate his expertise to serving the public. Korobkin’s work with the ACLU, an impact organization that serves underrepresented populations, shows he is someone who cares less about the recognition he receives for his work and more about making a difference.”

As the magazine also noted, Dan’s “advocacy and leadership, particularly in the civil rights arena, span a variety of issues, from LGBT rights to freedom of speech and religion to criminal law reform.”

Included among his many accomplishments is successfully litigating Hill v. Snyder, a 10-year fight challenging the practice of sentencing juveniles to life in prison without the possibility of parole.

Having joined the organization as a staff attorney in 2008, Dan became the ACLU of Michigan’s legal director two years ago. In that position, Dan oversees all the cases handled by the organization’s team of attorneys and outside counsel. Always modest, he deflected praise to the organization overall.

“This is really the time to recognize the work of all of my colleagues who have made this possible, doing civil rights and civil liberties work all over the state to protect people’s constitutional rights,” he said.

A man with impeccable integrity and the highest ethical standards, he also possesses a playful sense of humor, a gentle demeanor, and a long-held love for “Star Trek: The Next Generation.”

We could not be more proud, or grateful, to have Dan as a colleague and one of this organization’s most steadfast leaders. The desire to defend civil rights and achieve justice is part of his fiber.

“I have always been acutely aware of the impediments and injustices faced by so many others, as well as our own obligation, as a society, to help clear away those impediments and see justice done,” he said. “The most noble tradition and calling of the legal profession is to put those ideals into action.”

He’s certainly done that.

Allowing all Michigan residents to obtain driver’s licenses – including immigrants without documentation – benefits the entire state 

By: Resilda Karafili 

As someone who came to the United States at 9 years old as an undocumented immigrant, I know firsthand how much hardship is endured by people prevented from getting a driver’s license because of their immigration status.  

Because of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, and a lawsuit filed by the ACLU of Michigan, I’ve also experienced the life-altering impact being able to drive legally can have. 

All my experiences have taught me this: Michigan will be a safer, more prosperous place if everyone – including all immigrants without documentation – can access driver’s licenses. 

A native of Albania, I was sent by my parents to live with my grandparents in Michigan in 2000. My homeland was just emerging from a bloody civil war and remained a dangerous place. My family wanted me to be safe and have as bright a future as possible. I did all I could to fulfill that promise, working hard in high school and getting accepted to the University of Michigan, where I majored in psychology, sociology, and political science. 

Attending the university wasn’t easy. Because I lacked documentation, I was unable to obtain any financial assistance and had to pay the much higher tuition required of foreign students. Adding to that immense financial burden was the fact that I had to live on campus rather than make the short commute from my home because there was no public transportation available. I couldn’t get a driver’s license, and there was no way I’d get behind the wheel of a car without one. 

As I contemplated my future, I felt hopeless. Despite being near graduation with a triple major and a nearly perfect GPA, I was unsure where I could work without employment authorization, which I couldn’t obtain because of my immigration status. I felt that all my hard work and the financial contribution of my family was for nothing. 

Fortunately, as I prepared to graduate, the trajectory of my life dramatically improved because of two things. First, the implementation of the DACA program in 2012 allowed DREAMers like me to remain in this country and find work without constantly fearing deportation.  

The other was a 2012 lawsuit filed by a coalition of civil rights organizations that included the ACLU of Michigan. I was one of the plaintiffs in that lawsuit, which challenged the state’s policy of denying driver’s licenses to immigrant youth covered by DACA. Within months of that suit being filed, the Michigan Secretary of State reversed course and allowed DREAMers to obtain driver’s licenses. 

In a flash, a new world opened up to me. 

People who have always been able to drive have no idea how difficult life is without a license. I felt caged. Finally getting a license was like being handed a key to get out of that cage. I reveled in the new-found sense of freedom being able to drive provided. 

I ultimately found work at a firm specializing in immigration law, first as a legal assistant then moving up to become a senior paralegal and office manager. It is a place I love working at, but I would have never landed here if I didn’t have a license that allowed me to make the commute. 

I was also able to help care for my ill mother, who had immigrated to this country and become a citizen, and my U.S. citizen stepfather when he was diagnosed with the cancer that eventually took his life. Without the ability to drive, they would have had no way to get to and from their many doctor and hospital appointments. If I didn’t have my license, I don’t know what they would have done. 

Today, I still work at the law firm and now also attend law school at the University of Michigan. Life is moving in a good direction. I no longer feel hopeless. Instead, I’m looking forward to becoming a lawyer, something I had dreamt about for decades. 

I can say with certainty I wouldn’t be where I am today without a driver’s license, and am profoundly grateful to everyone who helped make that possible, including the ACLU of Michigan. I feel like the sun is shining down on me, and have the ACLU to thank for that.  

But there’s a large, dark cloud that continues to hang over all of Michigan. Although I can legally drive, there are tens of thousands of people without documentation in this state who are barred from being able to do something so essential.  

It wasn’t always that way. Until 2008, all Michiganders had the ability to obtain a driver’s license after passing a driver’s test and meeting other requirements. Then the Michigan Legislature changed the law, and life immediately became infinitely harder in immigrant communities throughout the state. 

This change made us all less safe and less prosperous. 

In “Taking Our Foot Off the Brakes” – a 2019 report produced by the nonprofit Michigan League of Public Policy – the benefits of allowing driver’s licenses for all residents are spelled out. A big one is this:  

“Over the course of three years, 55,000 Michiganders would apply for a driver’s license, leading to 20,000 new vehicle purchases. These new licenses and vehicles would boost state revenue by $13.5 million and contribute $12 million in recurring revenue, $9 million of which would be from sales and gas taxes related to vehicle ownership. Over the course of 10 years, this policy would generate nearly $100 million for the state of Michigan.” 

In addition to generating revenue, changing the law would also increase safety. 

“To register a passenger vehicle in Michigan, one must have auto insurance,” the report notes.  “Roads are safer for everyone and accidents are resolved more smoothly when more drivers have passed a standardized driving test and are insured.” 

It is hard to fathom why, given all these benefits, our lawmakers still haven’t embraced a change where everybody doesn’t just win, but we all win big. Whatever the motivation, failing to expand access to driver’s licenses hurts Michiganders.

To address the problem, two pieces of legislation designated the “Drive SAFE” bills (HB 4835 and HB 4836) were introduced in the Michigan House earlier this year. Sadly, those bills have yet to be heard in committee. We can ill afford to miss this opportunity to do what 17 other states have already done and make driver’s licenses accessible to every resident. 

Although I found a way to survive without a license as a student, many people are compelled to drive – whether they have a license or not – because they have families to provide for and need a car to get to work in a state that is sorely lacking in public transit. 

Thanks to the work of many, I woke up one morning to a world opened wide because of the newfound ability to obtain something as basic as a driver’s license. Every Michigander should be able to share in the same freedom and opportunity to thrive. 

Michigan Supreme Court hears argument in ACLU appeal challenging unconstitutional police fingerprinting on the street

Two cases being heard Tuesday, Nov. 9 by the Michigan Supreme Court deserve close attention because of the widespread impact their outcomes could have on policing, the right to privacy, and the ever-expanding technological capability of law enforcement to collect, store and use our personal data.

The cases also highlight an issue that has plagued America for as long as there’s been police: Black people being disproportionately stopped and searched by authorities with badges and guns, creating a climate of fear, instilling trauma, and poisoning relationships between law enforcement and the communities they are sworn to protect.

The discrimination is particularly disturbing when the targets are children, which is what Keyon Harrison and Denishio Johnson were when, in separate instances a decade ago, police in Grand Rapids, Michigan, violated their constitutional rights by photographing and fingerprinting them on the side of the road, even though they had done nothing wrong.

Keyon Harrison was 16 years old when stopped by police while walking home from school in 2012. Denishio Johnson was just 15 when police detained him at a bus stop in 2011. But they were far from being the only ones to have their rights violated.

For more than 30 years, police in this western Michigan city engaged in the egregious, unconstitutional practice of fingerprinting and photographing people they stopped for being “suspicious,” even when no crime occurred and no arrest was made. Even when people answered officers’ questions and identified themselves, police routinely fingerprinted them if they happened not to be  carrying an ID. As a result, biometric information wrongfully taken from potentially tens of thousands of people remains stored in a police database.

As argued in the lawsuits, this practice violates the United States Constitution’s Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. An opinion piece recently published in the Detroit News explained why what happened in Grand Rapids is so concerning:

“We should all be alarmed by the privacy implications of policies that allow the police, just by deeming someone suspicious, to deploy advanced technology that will collect and analyze highly sensitive biometric information and store it in a law enforcement database indefinitely.”

The two cases being heard by the Michigan Supreme Court – Harrison vs. VanderKooi and Johnson vs. VanderKooi – are about photographs and fingerprints, but soon we may be confronting iris scanners or even DNA harvesting.

The ACLU has been tracking the development of biometric identification technology – for fingerprints, DNA, retinas, voices, faces, and even gait, among others -- for many years, urging caution in its deployment and stringent safeguards in its use. 

We’ve said it before, but it’s worth reiterating: “These simple measurements add up to an extraordinary threat to privacy when they are collected, analyzed, and stored in readily searchable databases.”

What’s at stake is anonymity as we know it.

Clearly, anyone stopped by the police but innocent of any wrongdoing should never have their biometric information placed in such a database. Which is why one of the goals of the lawsuits in front of the Michigan Supreme Court is to force the destruction of such data wrongly collected by Grand Rapids police. The photographs and fingerprints of Mr. Harrison and Mr. Johnson, and everyone else who had their information similarly taken, should be purged from police records so that privacy can be restored, and justice served.

Unfortunately, this threat to privacy is not borne equally by all of us. What can’t be over-emphasized is the extent to which Black people and other people of color are disproportionately singled out for this sort of abuse.

A review of 439 stops under this policy from 2011 and 2012 found that 75 percent of the people stopped by police were Black, while just 15 percent were white. This is a huge disparity from the city’s overall racial makeup, which is 21 percent Black and 65 percent white.

The unconstitutional fingerprinting program widens the disparities even further for young people of color, who are less likely to be carrying an ID because they aren’t old enough to drive, can’t afford an ID, or rely on public transit and so have no need for one. Subjecting these young people to unconstitutional fingerprinting and storing their identifying data in a police database is stigmatizing, traumatizing, and increases the chances of police interactions in the future.

As we have seen repeatedly, a simple interaction with law enforcement on the street can turn deadly for Black and Brown people. We need to reduce interactions with law enforcement, not enable police to gather even more information about people during often harassing stops on the street.

As we have explained — supported by amicus briefs from diverse array of organizations, including the Cato Institute, the Washtenaw County Prosecutor, and the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund—the Michigan Supreme Court can put a stop to these unconstitutional practices once and for all. If police have probable cause for an arrest, they have long been able to capture fingerprints as part of the post-arrest booking process. But allowing police to compel a person to provide fingerprints while going about their business on the street puts people at the mercy of police whims whenever officers wish to gather this sort of sensitive biometric information, for practically any reason or, in some cases, seemingly no reason at all.

We all have the right to be free from the fear of that happening to any of us.