Florida has gone to great lengths to accommodate women of the Muslim faith, including allowing them to be photographed in a private room by a female photographer.

Unveiled by Mugshots, Not the DMV

By Christopher J. Armstrong

The case of a Muslim woman in Florida who sued the state to keep her face shrouded with a veil in her driver�s license photo took an interesting turn last week. �Sultaana Freeman already had posed for full facial photographs � albeit in jail � when mugshots were taken following two arrests in her former home state of Illinois.� Of course, the other event in the case was that the state judge hearing this latest crusade taken up by the ACLU ruled that Florida could require Freeman to remove her niqab � a Muslim veil which covers everything but her eyes � for her driver�s license photo in order to protect public safety and security interests.

Before making her ruling, Judge Janet C. Thorpe conducted a three-day bench trial on the issue of whether the state�s requirement of an unveiled identification photo in order to receive a driver�s license violated Freeman�s right to religious freedom.� But during the trial, Assistant Attorney General Jason Vail noted that pictures of Freeman�s uncovered face had already been taken by government authorities in another state, Illinois, after she had run-ins with the law there.

Specifically, Freeman faced domestic battery charges in 1998 after she and her husband hesitated when medical staff at a hospital asked to examine twin 3-year-old girls in their foster care.� The twins were dressed in what police described as �Muslim attire,� and Freeman and her husband apparently objected to any examination of the girls on the grounds that such immodesty would violate the religious tenets of the Koran.� One of the girls had a broken arm, and both had numerous bruises and marks on their bodies.� The arrest not only resulted in Freeman�s mugshot being taken sans veil, but also in her conviction for aggravated battery and a sentence of 18 months probation.

Then, in 1999, Freeman once again posed for a police mugshot in connection with her husband�s arrest for �patriotically� firing a gun from the roof of the family home on July 4.� Freeman was not charged in the incident, although her husband was later convicted of reckless discharge of a handgun and sentenced to probation.

Putting aside the issues of child abuse and Mr. Freeman�s apparent predisposition for firing weapons from rooftops, the Freeman controversy serves as a reminder of the integral role identification plays in American society, particularly in this age of identity theft and homeland security.

Without going so far as Larry Ellison�s Orwellian national identification �Smart Card,� a common sense approach to reconciling personal identification with individual rights can go a long way in our digital post-9/11 America.� Whether such government identification comes in the form of police mugshots or driver�s license photos, a consistent and reliable system of positive ID is essential to both public safety and national security.� Sultaana Freeman�s experiences before the government cameras demonstrate just this fact.

Freeman�s whole head was photographed � uncensored by either niqab or yarmulke � by law enforcement authorities in Illinois to secure the public need to document every person arrested, regardless of whether that arrest comes in connection with beating up a 3-year old girl or shooting at the man in the moon. �Such documentation not only helps to protect the public and law enforcement from current and future wrongdoing, it also protects the arrested from police mistreatment and misidentification.

Today, Florida requires that Freeman�s unmasked face be photographed again if she wants to exercise the privilege of driving on the public roads.� Yes, the process may truly be offensive to Freeman, but standing in line at the Department of Motor Vehicles is at least a little offensive to us all.

Florida has gone to great lengths to accommodate women of the Muslim faith, including allowing them to be photographed in a private room by a female photographer.� Even outspoken advocates of the civil rights of Muslims have agreed that the state�s identification interests are obvious.� In reference to Freeman�s challenge, Mazen Sukkar, a Lebanese-born immigration attorney, told the Fort Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel: "This is not Muhammad Ali refusing to kill during a war.� This is one individual who wants to practice her religion and undermine the whole idea of identification."� Not to mention the fact that women are required to unveil for photo identification by the governments of such Muslim countries as Iran, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, Oman, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, and Jordan.

The court properly recognized the importance of these public concerns by ruling that �[t]he state�s need to be able to immediately identify subjects of investigative traffic stops and criminal and intelligence investigations outweigh anyone�s need to pose for a driver�s license photo wearing any garb that cloaks all facial features except the eyes.�� Freeman�s loss was the unveiling of constitutional common sense, not a blow to religious freedom, because, according to Judge Thorpe herself, �[t]his court would rule the same way for anyone � Christian, Jew, Buddhist, atheist � who wished to have his or her driver�s license identification photo taken while wearing anything � ski mask, costume mask, religious veil, hood.�

Return to Current Events Index