Detroit - Muslim Woman Sues Because She Had to Remove Her Head Scarf During Booking

While driving under a suspended license this woman was arrested, and during the booking process she was told to remove her Hijab so they could get a clear mugshot.

Now she is suing because it violates her faith.

Maybe now every faith can sue, also people that have yamak on, or other religious items?

And maybe, just maybe if she hadn't broke the law she wouldn't have to have removed it. Yep blame and profit from the system. smh

COPY of the Federal Lawsuit


www.usatoday.com... todaycomnation-topstories

DETROIT — A Muslim woman has filed a lawsuit accusing police of violating her constitutional rights by making her remove her headscarf after they arrested her for driving on a suspended license.

The lawsuit, filed Thursday in federal court here, asks for the Dearborn Heights, Mich., Police Department to modify its present policy so a Muslim woman can wear her hijab during booking procedures.

In July, police pulled over Malak Kazan, now 27, of Dearborn Heights on a traffic violation. She then was taken into custody on a traffic misdemeanor because of her suspended license, according to the lawsuit.

The male police officer asked Kazan to remove her headscarf to take her booking photo, which usually requires no head coverings or hats. Kazan objected, saying her faith requires her to cover her hair and neck in the presence of men who are not part of her immediate family, the lawsuit said.

A cross on a chain is not in the Bible...


The tenet to cover the hair is in the Quran...



Having said that, she shouldn't have got herself arrested because any religious right goes out the window with the exception of prayer & halal food.



This will get thrown out.



Edit: She may have a case if it is unconstitutional...
& I'm starting to wonder if it was necessary...
It's not like it was a burkha.

a reply to: Realtruth

I can't type here exactly what I would say to her here but it begins with an F and ends in Off. Get over yourself.

I am sick of these morons not being able to adjust to the culture of our country. If they don't want to be here then they are welcome to leave. Don't let the door hit you in the butt on the way out.

a reply to: Metallicus

The culture of the States is based on Religious freedom...


& your signature...
You might as well delete that because you certainly don't abide by it.

a reply to: Metallicus

Come on buddy...our country was founded on freedom of religion. Nobody likes the present atmosphere, but that type of talk just shows a real lack of maturity, or understanding of your own countries laws.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

She may actually have a chance at winning this case, due to the first and forth amendments, if this case is won in federal court it will be a landmark case.

a reply to: Realtruth

Yeah thinking about it further and looking closely at the 1st Amendment this will most likely go in favour of the woman.




"The culture of our country" lmao...

1st Amendment mutha lovaz

a reply to: Metallicus

I agree with you, If these people can't abide by the laws of this country then get the F out.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: Realtruth

Yeah thinking about it further and looking closely at the 1st Amendment this will most likely go in favour of the woman.




"The culture of our country" lmao...

1st Amendment mutha lovaz

I had to edit my post due to looking at the compliant filed by the plantiff, she filed in federal court, so if she wins it will absolutely be a landmark case.

If her face isn't covered, why should she have to remove her headscarf? Unless it's a full strip search.

I am adament on covered faces. I will never support that, religion or otherwise.

But, it doesn't say her face was covered. Does it?

originally posted by: Realtruth

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: Realtruth

Yeah thinking about it further and looking closely at the 1st Amendment this will most likely go in favour of the woman.




"The culture of our country" lmao...

1st Amendment mutha lovaz

I had to edit my post due to looking at the compliant filed by the plantiff, she filed in federal court, so if she wins it will absolutely be a landmark case.

i wonder if she will manage in the process to get her charges thrown out......what a stupid system

a reply to: catt3

Are you talking about the Police who don't understand the 1st Amendment?


I agree they should get out.

a reply to: Annee

I live in the Dearborn Area and understand the Muslim culture fairly well.

Many women choose to wear a head scarf that is purely ornamental and many times does not cover the face, however there are very strict and devote Muslims that wear not only complete face veils, and their entire body. Only hands, eyes, and feet can show for what I know

Many Lebanese women wear absolutely beautiful head dresses that are ornamental in color and extremely sexy imo, but then there are the Palestinians, and some of the Yemenis women that were the full hijab. The full ones are typically all black.

en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: Metallicus
I am sick of these morons not being able to adjust to the culture of our country.

OUR country? What exactly does OUR country mean?

You mean America? Land of Freedom of Religion?

Who's calling who a moron?

She can sue all she wants, it's the outcome of the lawsuit that is important. Hell I can sue the cops for having the wrong color uniforms, doesn't mean that it won't get thrown out of court.

a reply to: Realtruth

I have no issue.

"People are their Heart" --- the rest doesn't matter. (except in government separation of church and state).

However, fully covered face is a different matter IMO. When it comes to any legal matter, even getting a bank account --- I will never support the hidden face.

In this case I support the woman. I see no logical reason she needed to remove her scarf.

This is a legal matter however being that a mugshot is a legal process, but where the issue lies is how the veil was removed.

She didn't have an issue with removing it, but how, and who was present when she did it.

www.usatoday.com...

The male police officer asked Kazan to remove her headscarf to take her booking photo, which usually requires no head coverings or hats. Kazan objected, saying her faith requires her to cover her hair and neck in the presence of men who are not part of her immediate family, the lawsuit said.

originally posted by: Annee
However, fully covered face is a different matter IMO. When it comes to any legal matter, even getting a bank account --- I will never support the hidden face.

In this case I support the woman. I see no logical reason she needed to remove her scarf.

Muslim bashing is the new national sport of the US and European Union. Absolutely shameful and scary how fascism is creeping in yet again, riding the coattails of populist diarrhea.

originally posted by: Realtruth
This is a legal matter however being that a mugshot is a legal process, but where the issue lies is how the veil was removed.

She didn't have an issue with removing it, but how, and who was present when she did it

Got it, if true she requested a female officer. But, was one available?

Often hard to know in these cases what exactly transpired.

#1 she did break the law.

You are 100% correct she did break the law

Going on purely constitutional rights did the police department violate her rights and break the highest law of the land?

This is the ultimate question here.

Our area has the largest middle-eastern population in the USA, they are going to hang their legal hats, on the fact that the police department should already know all of this.

Basically it's going to be a legal mess for a long time.

originally posted by: Annee

Got it, if true she requested a female officer. But, was one available?

Often hard to know in these cases what exactly transpired.

#1 she did break the law.