Suit Challenges NYPD Policy of Removing Religious Head Covering During Booking
Two female Muslim plaintiffs claim they were forced to remove their hijabs after being arrested, despite their stated religious prohibitions.
March 16, 2018 at 05:13 PM
6 minute read
New York City police car. Photo Credit: flickrM
Two women who are practicing Muslims have sued the New York City Police Department for discrimination, alleging both endured humiliation at the hands of arresting officers who forced them to remove their head coverings, according to a complaint filed Friday in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
The civil rights class action targeted an NYPD booking photograph policy that the plaintiffs, which include an organization that helps victims of domestic violence in the Muslim community, say is a violation of their religious freedom.
Jamilla Clark, a New Jersey resident, was arrested in January 2017. She claims her ex-husband falsely complained that she'd violated an order of protection. At the time of her arrest, she claimed to have informed officers she was not able to remove her hijab. Despite honoring her request at the local precinct, when she was transferred to central booking, she was told that she faced criminal prosecution if she refused to remove her head cover.
She then claims she was transferred to police headquarters where, fearful of criminal charges and in tears, she reluctantly removed her hijab and was photographed. Despite religious prohibitions on men outside her family touching her and seeing her uncovered, Clark says the photograph was shared with approximately five male NYPD officers, and that she was touched repeatedly. She believes the police still maintain at least one photo of her without her hijab.
“The existence of this photograph haunts Ms. Clark, who is distressed by the prospect of the photograph being viewed again and again by men who are not members of her immediate family,” the complaint states.
Brooklyn resident Arwa Aziz says she, too, was arrested thanks to the mendacity of a family member, this time a sister-in-law who obtained a protective order Aziz claims was granted under false pretenses. She says she voluntarily entered police custody after her sister-in-law repeatedly requested her arrest.
Again, while at the local precinct, Aziz says her request to keep her hijab on while photos were taken was honored. However, when she arrived at central booking in Brooklyn, she says she was forced to remove her hijab by a number of officers while standing in a long hallway with more than 30 male inmates present. When she protested, she says she was told by an unnamed officer, “It's the law.”
She was informed that a trip to police headquarters in Manhattan would be required if she wanted a female to take her photo, but that her booking process would have to start all over again. Her pleas to keep the hijab on, or, at least, to have it only pulled slightly back, were to no avail.
Aziz removed the cover from her head, and “wept throughout the entire ordeal” of being photographed while male officers and some inmates looked on, the complaint claims. She believes the police maintain at least three of these photos, which “continues to … distress and humiliat[e]” Aziz.
The complaint takes aim at an interim NYPD order, issued in 2015, that codified what observers say has been a standing practice by the department. The order states that, in order to “accommodate” those refusing to take off religious head covering, the department offers a trip to One Police Plaza similar to what Clark did—a private photograph with “an unobstructed view of the arrestee's head, ears, and face.” This photo represents “an official Department picture.”
Yet observers note that this so-called accommodation could be interpreted as a way of pressuring people into a situation similar to that faced by Aziz: the prospect of an elongated booking process and still be forced to remove religious garb anyway.
Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady partner O. Andrew Wilson, who is part of the plaintiffs' legal team, noted in an interview that numerous other government agencies, including the U.S. Department of State in issuing passports and the New York Department of Motor Vehicles in issuing driver's licenses, allow head covers to be warn in official photos. Other law enforcement agencies in places such as Michigan, Minnesota, and California have followed suit, he added.
“The NYPD's maximalist position requiring stripping New Yorkers of religious head covering is out of step with the rapidly coalescing national standard on arrest photographs,” he said.
Emery Celli is joined by the Council on American-Islamic Relations in representing the plaintiffs.
In a statement, a spokesman for the city said it was reviewing the complaint but that it was “confident that the police department's religious head covering policy passes constitutional muster.”
“It carefully balances the department's respect for the customs of all religions with the legitimate law enforcement need to take arrest photos,” the spokesman said. “Persons who do not wish to remove religious head coverings in front of others have the option of being taken to a separate, more private facility to be photographed.”
Robina Niaz is founder of the nonprofit group Turning Point for Women and Families, which is suing the city alongside Clark and Aziz. In an interview, she said other Muslim women her group has come in contact with have experienced the same traumatic experience at the hands of police as the group's co-plaintiffs have.
Many of the clients come from countries where there's already “a tremendous fear of the police,” Niaz said. Part of the group's mission in assisting domestic violence victims is to convince them that the NYPD “is on their side.” Experiencing this or even hearing about it as a practice will not only “discourage girls and women from going to the police to file a report,” but “it will discourage them to even come to us,” she said.
The suit brings claims under the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, as well as the First Amendment free exercise and New York State constitutional claims.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'Final Countdown': SEC Launches Nearly 800% Litigation Surge in October
3 minute readCravath Elevates 7 to Partnership, Up From Last Year
Trending Stories
- 1Elon Musk Names Microsoft, Calif. AG to Amended OpenAI Suit
- 2Trump’s Plan to Purge Democracy
- 3Baltimore City Govt., After Winning Opioid Jury Trial, Preparing to Demand an Additional $11B for Abatement Costs
- 4X Joins Legal Attack on California's New Deepfakes Law
- 5Monsanto Wins Latest Philadelphia Roundup Trial
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250