A Muslim Woman is Suing Michigan Police for Violating Her Religious Freedom During a Routine Arrest

Question

A Muslim woman is suing the Dearborn Heights police department for allegedly violating her First Amendment rights.

Malak Kazan, 27, of Dearborn Heights was pulled over by police and arrested for having a suspended license. While she was being booked, she was forced to remove her hijab. She was told she could not wear the head scarf while being processed and while in custody.

Muslim women must wear their hijab in public and in front of men who are not closely related to her. Because Kazan was forced to remove her head scarf, she feels she was humiliated and violated.

In forcing Kazan to remove her head scarf, she claims that the police department violated her right to religious freedom. ABC 7 reports:

“The main issue here is that my client’s constitutional rights, her religious liberties, can’t be stripped at the jailhouse door. She has an absolute right to maintain her faith,” Kazan’s attorney Amir Makled said. “We hope this cause of action will bring to light a policy that is dated and needs to be amended. … We also hope to get some further diversity training for officers in the city. Hopefully this will be a learning experience for other law enforcement agencies.”

Kazan is taking the lawsuit before a federal judge who will determine if her rights were violated:

“wearing a head scarf is a reminder of her faith, the importance of modesty in her religion … as well as a symbol of her own control over who may see the more intimate parts of her body,” the lawsuit said. “To have her hair and neck uncovered in public … is … deeply humiliating, violating, and defiling experience.”

The Dearborn Heights police department did not have enough female officers on hand to accommodate Kazan and were therefore forced to compel her to remove her hijab according to the department’s safety protocols. ABC 7 reports:

“Articles such as hats, caps, hijabs, can contain concealable items that could pose a threat or chance of injury to the cops or to themselves,” Dearborn Heights Police Chief Lee Garvin said.

“Our procedure is to have them take the hijab off in the presence of a female… We don’t always have enough female officers present in the station. Our Number one concern is security of our officers and the prisoners.” Garvin said.

This lawsuit brings up an interesting concern over what is more important: the rights of the accused or the rights of law enforcement to do their jobs and protect themselves.

Such an incident, reminiscent of the heated controversy in France over its law banning hijabs, sets up legal battles in the United States over laws allegedly violating the religious rights of Muslims.

Answer 1

She was arrested for driving with a suspended license...not expired mind you, but suspended and that tells me one thing...She KNEW she was breaking the law and now she is suing for violating her rights???????
It would be a different matter if her license was expired and she didnt know but she knew exactly what she was doing...I think the whole thing reeks of a set up ...She wanted the cops to pull her over and arrest her cause she knew she would be suing...

Answer 2

That is not sarcasm, but a legitimate effort to bridge the gap between your world and reality.

Answer 3

You're in America honey.....not Tehran. First off, since you now live here...KNOW the law! Break the law, realize the full measure of it. Keep your creepy Sharia to yourself.

Answer 4

The right to religious freedom is not Sharia law, it is American law.

Answer 5

You're in our country, you abide by OUR laws.... if you don't like them, immediately go back to your third-world ****-**** country.

Answer 6

Apparantly she was born here and this is just the latest in a bunch of law suits against the Dearborn police..
The lawsuit is the latest filed in recent months involving Arab-American Muslim residents in Dearborn Heights who say that police and school officials are being biased toward them. Last year, the Crestwood School District in Dearborn Heights reached a settlement with the Department of Justice over concerns it discriminated against Arab Americans.

Answer 7

Removing the hijab means removing a piece of cloth, like a dress, blouse, trousers, skirt ... for example. It would be like asking a non-muslim woman to remove her shirt.

Answer 8

That is nonsense. Other than routine search, what would be the purpose of removing a woman's shirt.

Answer 9

Sarcasm ... in a topic about a muslim woman?

Answer 10

Why?

Answer 11

She can wear her mask in public or private... but once she is arrested and is being booked, she has to remove it for the purposes of being identified. This is true for everyone, not just Moslems

Answer 12

Good question.

Answer 13

Bad answer :P

Answer 14

When they move to America they give up their sharia rights.

Answer 15

Women have NO rights under Sharia.

Answer 16

The right to religious freedom is not Sharia law, it is American law.

Answer 17

they combine religious with civil law under Sharia....they want their own enclaves of no-go territory.....there is a separation of both in the United States....supposedly liberals are very emphatic about this in relation to Christianity but lose their minds in allowing Muslims to combine both in Western countries...

Answer 18

I don't care about Sharia law. As I stated, religious freedom is an American right per our laws.

She is only seeking to be allowed to follow our law, by exercising her religious freedom.

Answer 19

send her packing... Sharia law is not recognized in America.

Answer 20

She isn't the only one who ignores traffic laws.

I think someone else here (many others actually) have pointed out that she likely loses some rights due to being arrested.

I can agree with that.

Answer 21

Dearborn heights, of course!

Answer 22

Weapons could also be hidden in a bra. Do we make women take off their bras under the guise of safety? Well.....?

It's a simple yes or no question, with no religious connotations.

Answer 23

how is she going to win the lawsuit? in your dreams! if ANYONE is in trouble with the law, they have to remove their hat, bonnet, sunglasses and so on, why should she get special treatment? "They might as well ask women to take theirs bras off... which they would, if they thought they could get away with it. "Sorry lady, no female officers are available. Now let's get a look at them DD's. It's for my safety and yours.... mmmmmmm. Nice..."<----are you freaking kidding me???

Answer 24

Let's make this interesting. How do you feel about putting a friendly wager on the outcome?

I say she'll either win outright or take a cash settlement to go away. The loser will have to change their ******** picture to whatever the winner chooses. For an entire year, and as often as the winner likes. What do you say? Sound fair to you?

But before you decide, know this: I'm simply interpreting our Constitution in the same way our courts do. Wearing a hijab in the presence of unrelated men is a requirement for Muslim women. This isn't something they made up in order to get special treatment... they've been doing it for thousands & thousands of years.

Also, this argument is over a simple booking photo only being used for identification purposes. A hijab is something Muslim women wear every... single... day.... of their lives. They don't just throw one on, like a pair of sunglasses or a baseball hat. It's part of their religion, part of their identity. If you can see the eyes, nose, mouth, distinguishing features like tattoos or scars... that should be all that really counts.

If people were smarter? We'd be more upset that the cops didn't take an accurate picture of her.

Answer 25

It is a safety matter, not religious.

Answer 26

False and false.

Answer 27

TY for your penetrating ********.

Answer 28

I could say the same about your ********. : ) If you want penetrating? Here...

I'm gonna ****** you mean the safety matter is "the safety of the officer and individual" like the article stated. Which is a total BS excuse.

A hijab is pretty close fitting so it can't really be used to hide a bomb or automatic rifle, as some of the sillier commenters seem to think. (funny stuff, by the way. i seriously lol'd reading them a couple times) A bra could potentially be just as dangerous.. maybe even more so because I know women who hide some very surprising things up in their *******. But do we force women to take off their bras in the name of safety? Nope.

If a Muslim tried to hide something in her hijab it would be pretty noticeable, not just by looking at them but most definitely when they're being patted down. By the time the booking photo was taken she would have been searched at least twice -- once around the time she was placed into custody and another, more thorough, search after arriving at the police station. So where's the safety issue?

I suppose a hijab could literally be used as a weapon, but ... really?

What's she gonna do, strangle a cop with it? While she's in a jail surrounded by even more cops? And under constant audio and visual surveillance? Side note: did you know it ...

I could say the same about your ********. : ) If you want penetrating? Here...

I'm gonna ****** you mean the safety matter is "the safety of the officer and individual" like the article stated. Which is a total BS excuse.

A hijab is pretty close fitting so it can't really be used to hide a bomb or automatic rifle, as some of the sillier commenters seem to think. (funny stuff, by the way. i seriously lol'd reading them a couple times) A bra could potentially be just as dangerous.. maybe even more so because I know women who hide some very surprising things up in their *******. But do we force women to take off their bras in the name of safety? Nope.

If a Muslim tried to hide something in her hijab it would be pretty noticeable, not just by looking at them but most definitely when they're being patted down. By the time the booking photo was taken she would have been searched at least twice -- once around the time she was placed into custody and another, more thorough, search after arriving at the police station. So where's the safety issue?

I suppose a hijab could literally be used as a weapon, but ... really?

What's she gonna do, strangle a cop with it? While she's in a jail surrounded by even more cops? And under constant audio and visual surveillance? Side note: did you know it takes around 4 minutes to strangle someone? (this is according to an old stephen king book, but i haven't verified it personally) Even if it takes less than 60 seconds, that's still a LOT longer than it should take to respond to an officer in distress. So if cops are honestly worried about being murdered by a scarf-wielding Muslim woman... they may want to consider a career studying *********** instead.

And I haven't even mentioned that a cop will have a gun, a baton, pepper spray, and a taser, all while wearing body armor. Against a girl armed with a piece of fabric. So I ask again... where is the safety issue? And is a bra (or even a sock if it's long enough) any less dangerous?

Maybe they're worried she hangs herself with her head scarf? I say so what?!? I'm a big advocate of individual rights and this shouldn't even be an issue. Overpopulation is the biggest threat to our species and our survival. Why is it illegal to decide when and where and how you want to die? That's a different tangent but you get the idea.

I haven't even touched on why your claim "[it's] not religious" is false. You're not Muslim and wearing a hijab isn't part of your religion so you don't really understand. To be fair, it's not part of my religion either (I'm an atheist). But I find religion interesting so I at least know that Muslim women wearing a hijab is comparable to wearing pants for the rest of us.

Shall I go on? Or is that penetrating enough? : )

(more)

Answer 29

Weapons can be hidden under a head covering of any kind .. long/short hairpins, razors, small blades. That is a simple fact, all of your ridicule notwithstanding. That would be ANY head covering, be it golf/ball cap, sports hat, fedora, the hats the Hasidim wear, yarmulkes, birettas, kamilavkas, berets, hijabs, mantillas, Amish bonnets and men's hats, etc. etc. none should be exempt ... yes, not even Muslims.

Can't imagine what you would say if you were to be informed that she could have required a body cavity search as well. SCOTUS 2012.

Answer 30

Yes ... They can be stripped searched (that would include their bra). You have no case, hot dog

Answer 31

Obviously, she doesn't think the traffic laws apply to her, and her right to believe whatever nonsense she likes doesn't permit her to wear a mask while being booked...

Answer 32

Being stripped searched for a reason and forced to remove their bra as a 'safety precaution' would be different things. We're talking about a booking photo.

Answer 33

They are fully within their rights to require removal. She is being booked as a lawbreaker, not attempting to legally acquire a driver's license.

You may disagree, and that is your prerogative, but you are not the one doing the booking, handling, etc. And IMO their safety is far more important than her short-term discomfort. For what it's worth.

Answer 34

Violated? Wonder what she would have thought if they performed a full body cavity search on reason of suspicion of carrying in contraband? ie. C4

Answer 35

Frivolous lawsuit costing unknown amout of *********** taxpayers dollars. Muslims will likely use our system to slowly and systematically destroy the US from within.

Answer 36

Replace Muslim with Christian and that statement is even more true...

**thanks for blocking me, d-bag. I'd respond to your comment below directly if you weren't such a wuss. instead of censoring people you don't agree with, why don't you go to a site where people all feel the same way? if you're so easily offended you shouldn't be on a site for sharing opinions.**

Answer 37

I'm sorry, I forgot to include Atheists with Muslims, mY bad.......

Answer 38

If she doesn't like our laws she needs to move back to where she came from.

Answer 39

One of our laws is the protection of religious freedom, isn't it? So which law do you propose she didn't like?

Answer 40

You refuse to see the difference...and that's the shame, you lost logic...