CAIR-Michigan Complaint

Case 2:21-cv-12554-LJM-KGA ECF No. 1, PageID.
1 Filed 10/29/21 Page 1 of 33
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
HELANA BOWE,
Plaintiff, CASE NO:
vs. HON:
CITY OF FERNDALE, a Michigan

Municipal Corporation, CHIEF OF
POLICE DENNIS EMMI, OFFICER
STEPHEN WROE, OFFICER ANDREW
WROTH, SERGEANT LAUREN ZYROWSKI,
jointly and severally,
Defendants.
CAIR-MICHIGAN LEGAL FUND

By: Amy V. Doukoure (P80461)
Attorney for Plaintiff
1905 S. Haggerty Rd. Suite 105
Canton, MI 48188
(248) 559-2247 Phone
[email protected]
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
1
Case 2:21-cv-12554-LJM-KGA ECF No. 1, PageID.2 Filed 10/29/21 Page 2 of 33
NOW COMES, Plaintiff, HELANA BOWE (“Plaintiff” or “Ms. Bowe”), by
and through her counsel, CAIR-MI LEGAL FUND, by Amy V. Doukoure (“CAIR-
MI”), and brings this action against CITY OF FERNDALE (“Defendant Ferndale”),
CHIEF OF POLICE DENNIS EMMI, OFFICER JOSHUA LITTLE, OFFICER
STEPHEN WROE, OFFICER ANDREW WROTH, SERGEANT LAUREN
ZYROWSKI , for damages and declaratory and injunctive relief to enjoin all
Defendants from implementing a photograph policy requiring the removal of all
religious wear, and enjoin all Defendants from creating a permanent public record
of images of women without their religious headwear, enjoin Defendants from
disseminating images of women without their religious headwear, and enjoin
Defendants from engaging in unnecessary gross gender searches and for the
substantial burden on religious practice that is directly prohibited by the Religious
Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C.§ 2000cc et seq. (“RLUPIA”)
committed by all Defendants when (1) Ms. Bowe was forcefully required to remove
her religious headwear to take a booking photograph in the presence of male officers,
(2) a permanent public record of Ms. Bowe’s image without her religious headwear
was created (3) Ms. Bowe’s image without her religious headwear was disseminated
via a public information request and (3) Ms. Bowe was subjected to a cross gender
search unnecessarily.
2
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1. The instant action arises under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized
Persons Act (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc et seq., and the First and Fourteenth
Amendments.
2. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1331.
3. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391 as to Defendants because
Defendants conducts business in this judicial district, and this is the district where a
substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred.
THE PARTIES
4. Plaintiff, Ms. Bowe, is an individual, a Muslim woman who wears the Islamic
headscarf known as hijab that is proscribed as a sincerely held religious belief.
Plaintiff resides in this judicial district.
5. Defendant City of Ferndale (“Defendant Ferndale”) is and was at all times
relevant herein a municipal entity created and authorized under the laws of the State
of Michigan.
6. Defendant Chief of Police Dennis Emmi is an individual employed as the
Chief of Police with the Defendant City of Ferndale police Department, and upon
information and belief is a resident of this judicial district.
3
7. Defendant Officer Joshua Little, is an individual employed as a police officer
with the Defendant City of Ferndale Police Department and upon information and
belief is a resident of this judicial District.
8. Defendant Officer Stephen Wroe is an individual employed as a police officer
with the Defendant City of Ferndale Police Department and upon information and
belief is a resident of this judicial District.
9. Defendant Officer Andrew Wroth is an individual employed as a police
officer with the Defendant City of Ferndale Police Department and upon information
and belief is a resident of this judicial District.
10. Defendant Sergeant Lauren Zyrowski is an individual employed as a police
sergeant with the Defendant City of Ferndale Police Department and upon
information and belief is a resident of this judicial District.
JURY DEMAND
11. Plaintiff demands a trial by jury in this action.
GENERAL FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
12. This case is about Defendant City of Ferndale’s policy, pattern and practice
of removing Muslim women’s hijab for booking/mugshot photographs which
violates the First Amendment as well as other federal and state law. Pursuant to this
policy, pattern, and practice Defendant Ferndale, and all individually named
Defendants force arrestees who wear religious head coverings to remove those head
4
coverings for a photograph, even where doing so violates the arrestees’ sincerely-
held religious beliefs. This practice alienates and oppresses faith communities
throughout the City of Ferndale. It lacks justification and must be changed.
13. Furthermore, Defendant Ferndale required Ms. Bowe to remove her religious
outer garment that she wears to prohibit non-family member men from viewing or
witnessing her body, body shape, or seeing her any portion of her skin from her neck
to the tops of her feet in violation of her sincerely held religious beliefs, and in
violation of her legal and constitutional rights.
14. This case is also about Defendant City of Ferndale’s policy, pattern, and
practice of engaging in cross gender searches and the implementation of unnecessary
cross gender searches despite officers of the same gender being present and available
during cross gender searches.
15. Furthermore, the individual Defendant’s knew that their actions in removing
Ms. Bowe’s hijab for a booking photo, and removing her religious outer garment,
especially in the presence of male officers, and their acts in engaging in cross gender
searches while female officers were present and there were no exigent circumstances
were a violation of Ms. Bowe’s clearly established constitutional rights.
The Hijab
16. Ms. Bowe wears a hijab pursuant to her Muslim faith. For the purposes of
discussing the Defendants’ policy, the term “hijab” is used throughout this complaint
5
to refer to a garment worn by many Muslim women in various parts of the world; it
is a headscarf that covers the wearer’s hair, ears, and neck, and frequently part of her
chest, but leaves her entire face exposed. In Arabic, the word “hijab” derives from
the word “hajaba,” sometimes translated as to hide or screen from view or to cover.
Wearing a hijab is also known as “covering.” Ms. Bowe does not wear a niqab, or a
face veil.
17. For many observant Muslim women, the practice of covering entails wearing
one’s hijab at all times, whether at home or in public, when the wearer is in the
presence of men who are not part of her immediate family (“mahram”).
18. Furthermore, many Muslim women consider the wearing of hijab to include
the covering of one’s body in a manner that avoids showing the shape of a woman’s
body, covers all areas of exposed skin from the neck to the top of the feet, including
either the wearing of a religious outer-garment or extremely modest and loose fitting
clothing.
19. While women choose to wear the hijab for an array of reasons, many believe
that the hijab fulfills the commandments of modesty and devotion that stem from,
among other things, the Qu’ran, the primary holy book of the Muslim faith, and the
hadith, the oral traditions carried down from the age of the Prophet Mohammed
6
(S.A.W.).1 Ms. Bowe and other women who cover frequently view wearing the hijab
as a mandatory aspect of Muslim identity and faith.
20. Ms. Bowe wears the hijab because her their faith dictates that no man outside
of a woman’s mahram should see her uncovered hair, head, and neck. Ms. Bowe
presently wears hijab every single day and believes that her religious faith requires
her to do so. Ms. Bowe has covered regularly for years. Ms. Bowe’s hijab is core to
her identity, and it is an essential part of who she is.
21. Being forced to remove one’s hijab in public, particularly in the presence of
men who do not belong to the wearer’s mahram, is a profound defilement of the
wearer’s sincerely-held religious beliefs and a violation of her religious practice.
Requiring a Muslim woman to remove her hijab in public is akin to demanding that
a secular person strip naked in front of strangers.
22. Defendant Zyrowski is aware of the religious requirements of wearing hijab,
and of Ms. Bowe’s clearly established constitutional right to wear her hijab in front
of all men whom she is not closely related to, and expressed this to the male officers
who arrested Ms. Bowe when they originally brought her into the station, prior to
Defendant Zyrowski forcing Ms. Bowe to remove her hijab in the presence of male
officers prior to taking her mugshot/booking photograph.
1
The phrase “S.A.W.” is shorthand for “salla Allahu ‘alayhi wa salam,” a phrase that translates to “God’s blessings
and peace be upon him” and that is frequently used to express love and respect for the Prophet.
7
The Defendants’ Unlawful Photograph Policy

23. Defendant city of Ferndale has a policy, pattern and practice of requiring the
removal of religious head wear, including the hijab, to be removed for booking
photographs which are taken subsequent to arrest or pursuant to arraignment.
24. Mugshots/ Booking Photos are subject to release pursuant to Michigan’s
Freedom of Information Act and thus City of Ferndale’s policy, pattern and practice
creates a permanent public record of women without their religious hijab subjecting
them to repeated violations of their sincerely held religious beliefs in a manner that
is extremely offensive to religious women who observe the hijab.
25. In addition, Booking Photographs are integrated into other law enforcement
databases. Due to this practice, the integration increases the likelihood that images
of arrestees without their religious head coverings will be viewed by many people
long after the Booking Photograph is taken.
Federal, State, and Local Governments Across the United States Recognize the
Religious Interest in the Hijab and Permit it to be Worn in Official Photographs
26. The Defendant Ferndale’s Photograph Policy contravenes national norms and
practices. From the federal to the local level, government and law enforcement
entities recognize the significant constitutional and statutory interests at play and
permit those in custody to wear religious head coverings for the purpose of official
photographs.
8
27. The United States Department of State permits those who wear hats or head
coverings for religious reasons to keep those coverings on in official passport
photographs. The Department of State website allows those being photographed to
wear a religious hat or head covering if they “submit a signed statement that verifies
that the hat or head covering in [the person’s] photograph is part of recognized,
traditional religious attire that is customarily or required to be worn continuously in
public.2
28. Similarly, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”)
issued a policy memorandum on July 23, 2012 that permits religious head coverings
to be worn in photographs. The memorandum states that “USCIS will accommodate
an individual who wears headwear as part of their religious practices.” 3 Should a
head covering cast a shadow over the wearer’s face or otherwise obscure part of their
face, USCIS will “ask individual to remove or adjust portions of religious headwear
that covers all or part of individual’s face.” In this situation, USCIS will offer the
wearer a private room or screened area in which to adjust their head covering as well
as a photographer of their gender. The religious head covering in question “is
allowed to cover the ears if USCIS can still identify the individual.”
2
See http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-crime/nypd-ripped-abusing-facial-recognition-tool-article-
1.3847796.
3
Available at https://ru.usembassy.gov/u-s-citizen-services/passports/photos/.
9
29. The Michigan Vehicle Code, Sections 28.292 and 257.310 also permits an
applicant for a driver’s license to keep her hijab on while having her official driver’s
license photograph taken; as long as it does not touch the person’s eyebrows.
30. The Dearborn Heights, Michigan, the Police Department changed its booking
procedures in July 2015 after a woman was forced to remove her hijab in the
presence of men during the booking photograph and while in custody. The Police
Department implemented reform after that woman filed suit alleging violations of
her religious rights. According to the updated policy, Muslim women are not
required to remove religious head coverings like hijabs for any booking photographs.
At least one additional lawsuit has been settled under the new policy, which
recognizes the substantial religious interests of women who wear hijabs.
31. In a lawsuit against the City of Dearborn Heights, the 6th Circuit upheld the
policy because of the clear privacy and religious right of the Muslim women has in
religious practice. The 6th Circuit found that the releasing the booking photograph
of a Muslim woman without her hijab would be a clear unwarranted invasion of the
woman’s privacy. The booking photograph without religious head covering would
not be made available to the public because it would violate the establishment clause
of the First Amendment.
10
32. Michigan Department of Corrections recently updated their own prisoner
photograph policy to allow the wearing of religious headwear, including hijab, for
prisoner identification photographs.4
33. Law enforcement officials across the country have likewise recognized the
right of citizens to wear hijabs or other religious head coverings while being
photographed for official government purposes.
34. In Long Beach, California, the City Council approved a July 2017 settlement
between a woman required to remove her hijab for a post-arrest photograph and the
Long Beach Police Department that amended the Department’s official policy so as
to accommodate persons who wear religious head coverings. The Department is no
longer permitted to forcibly remove the hijabs of female arrestees at any point while
they are in custody.
35. In amending its policy, Long Beach joined two neighboring jurisdictions, San
Bernardino County and Orange County, which adopted policies protecting detainees
who wear religious head coverings following lawsuits that settled in 2008 and 2013
respectively.
36. In Hennepin County, Minnesota — the county that includes Minneapolis —
the Sheriff’s Office implemented a new policy for inmates at the Hennepin County
4
While the MDOC’s photograph policy has been updated, the new policy is scheduled to take effect on November
29, 2021.
11
Jail and those in custody throughout Hennepin County in March 2014. The policy
permits female arrestees to keep their hijabs on while a booking photograph is taken
and provides that the hijab can be pushed back slightly off of the wearer’s face if
necessary. Inmates at the County Jail are permitted to wear hijabs while incarcerated.
37. In Portland, Maine, Cumberland County Sheriff Kevin Joyce publicly
apologized after releasing the booking photographs of two Muslim women who had
been arrested at a Black Lives Matter protest. The photographs showed each woman
without her hijab; Joyce offered his “sincerest apologies…to the Muslim community
for the appearance that we are disrespecting their religious beliefs and practices.” 5
The Cumberland County Jail procedures require a woman to remove her hijab only
in private, without men present, and provide that two booking photographs will be
taken, one with the woman’s hijab and another without.
38. Each of these examples reflects a growing national consensus that there is no
basis to require the removal of religious head coverings for official government
photographs.
39. Even the New York Police Department has recognized the harm its
Photograph Policy may cause Muslim women. Three Muslim women reached a
settlement with the City on February 26, 2018, pursuant to which the City agreed to
5
Available at https://www.pressherald.com/2016/09/14/sheriffs-office-apologizes-for-improperly-releasing-photos-
of-muslim-protesters/.
12
pay $180,000 in damages for the forced removal of the women’s hijabs pursuant to
the Photograph Policy.6 Upon information and belief, however, the Photograph
Policy remains in place despite this settlement. Even if a Muslim woman is able to
have her Booking Photograph taken in private by another woman at One Police
Plaza, the Booking Photograph itself remains in the NYPD’s database indefinitely
— available to all who access the computer system or the woman’s paper file.
The City of Ferndale Police Department’s Unlawful Photograph Policy Forces

Muslim Women to Violate Their Religion
40. Federal legislation has been enacted to demonstrate our robust national
commitment to the free exercise of religion and to prohibit the government from
placing a substantial burden on religious beliefs. This legislation, which reflects an
increased awareness of and support for religious interest in practices like covering,
“shall be construed in favor of a broad protection of religious exercise, to the
maximum extent permitted by … the Constitution.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-3(g). The
statute even “may require a government to incur expenses in its own operations to
avoid imposing a substantial burden on religious exercise.” Id. § 2000cc-3(c).
41. In contravention of this legislation and the tolerant, inclusive policies it
embodies, the Defendants’ Photograph Policy pattern and practice has had an
extensive and corrosive effect of Muslim-American women in the city of Ferndale—
6
Available at https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/28/nyregion/muslim-hijab-nypd.html.
13
and, upon information and belief, on other City of Ferndale residents who wear
religious head coverings and are arrested by Ferndale Police Department (FPD).
42. Indeed in this case, the City of Ferndale’s unlawful photograph policy affected
Ms. Bowe despite the fact that she had no direct connection to the city of Ferndale
at all, as she was stopped as a result of the individual Defendants dragnetting
exclusively within the city of Ferndale and pulling over individuals who had no
nexus with the city of Ferndale other than to be close to the border with Ferndale.
43. Moreover, the Photograph Policy is a profound manifestation of insensitivity
towards religious practices and interests. In today’s post-9/11 climate, there is
widespread hostility towards and baseless fear of Muslim-Americans. In the context
of this increasingly polarized setting, it is incumbent on this City’s law enforcement
to increase awareness of and sensitivity towards the Muslim-American community
by setting an example in their arrest and booking practices. The Photograph Policy
pattern and practice has precisely the opposite effect.
44. The Defendants’ Photograph Policy pattern and practice substantially impacts
the citizens of Defendant Ferndale. The Photograph Policy custom is to force
Muslim-women to forcibly remove their hijabs for the Booking Photograph while in
custody and that the Photograph Policy pattern and practice had violated their
constitutional and statutory rights.
14
Helana Bowe is Subjected to the Defendant’s Photograph Policy
45. Ms. Bowe was forced to remove her hijab against her will and religion,
pursuant to the Photograph Policy pattern and practice.
Helana Bowe is Forced to Remove Her Hijab at City of Ferndale Police Station
for a Photograph
46. On June 21, 2021, Ms. Bowe was traveling eastbound on Eight Mile Road
inside the city of Ferndale.
47. While stopped at a traffic light, inside the city of Ferndale, Defendant
Ferndale’s police officer, while engaged in his official duties, pulled up next to Ms.
Bowe’s vehicle and then reversed and got behind her vehicle and ran her license
plate through his computer despite Ms. Bowe having engaged in no traffic violations
and despite Ms. Bowe never having crossed into the city of Ferndale.
48. Subsequent to running Ms. Bowe’s license plate, Defendant Wroe engaged
Ms. Bowe in a traffic stop alleging that she had an expired license plate tag despite
her having a valid plate on the car and being able to produce a valid and current
vehicle registration pursuant to the stop.
49. Ms. Bowe notified Defendant Wroe that she had a taser in her purse that she
had obtained as a result of being mugged in the parking lot of the Meijer store located
15
at Eight Mile and Woodward Ave. in Ferndale, the very same location where
Defendant Wroe had pulled Ms. Bowe over for a traffic stop.
50. Subsequent to notifying Defendant Wroe of the taser, Ms. Bowe was arrested
and taken to Defendant Ferndale’s police department.
51. Upon her arrival at the Defendant Ferndale’s police department, Defendant
Zyrowski asked Ms. Bowe about her hijab and confirmed that Ms. Bowe wore it
pursuant to her sincerely held religious beliefs.
52. After confirming with Ms. Bowe that she indeed wore the hijab pursuant to
her religion, Defendant Zyrwoski notified the arresting officers that they were in no
way allowed to remove or disturb Ms. Bowe’s hijab as it was her constitutional right
to wear it.
53. Once Ms. Bowe was taken into custody, pursuant to Defendant Ferndale’s
Policy, Ms. Bowe was forced to remove her religious outer-garment by and in front
of male officers, including named Defendants.
54. Furthermore, despite Defendant Zyrowski’s acknowledgement of Ms. Bowe’s
relgious, constitutional and legal rights to wear her hijab without disturbance,
Defendant Zyrowski forced or otherwise coerced Ms. Bowe into removing her hijab
for a booking photo which was taken in the presence of male officers.
55. At multiple instances, Ms. Bowe made her dissent and protest to the forceful
removal of her hijab extremely clear. Ms. Bowe asserted her right to keep her hijab
16
on for the photograph because it is representative of a sincerely-held religious belief,
as a Muslim-woman.
56. Defendants’ officers refused to accommodate Ms. Bowe’s reasonable request.
57. Additionally, as further evidence that individually named Defendants
especially Defendants Wroe and Zyrowski were aware that their actions violated Ms.
Bowe’s clearly established constitutional rights, Ms. Bowe’s original mugshot
photos were taken with her hijab on, but Defendant Zyrowski told Ms. Bowe that if
she would allow them to take a mugshot photo of her without her hijab on, they
would release her to go home that evening, otherwise, Ms. Bowe was going to be
required to remain in the jail for night.
58. Ms. Bowe protested the taking of her mugshot without her hijab, and
especially in front of the male officer who was still present. However, Defendant
Zyrowski told Ms. Bowe, she would take the photograph and eventually Ms. Bowe
relented so that she could be released and not have to remain in jail overnight.
59. Upon information and belief the male officer remained in the booking room
where he had full view of Ms. Bowe in the booking cell while her hijabless
photograph was taken.
60. It is clear that Ms. Bowe was threatened with a night in jail if she failed to
acquiesce to individually named Defendants’ demands to remove her hijab for a
booking photograph.
17
Helana Bowe is Unnecessarily Subjected to Two Cross Gender Searches

61. Additionally, on the date of her original arrest, Ms. Bowe was subjected to a
cross gender search upon her arrest and while at the Defendant Ferndale’s police
department.
62. Ms. Bowe’s cross gender search was conducted by Defendant Wroe while
Defendant Zyrowski was present and in full view, and while Ms. Bowe was pleading
with both Defendants to have the search conducted by Defendant Zyrowski who was
a female officer capable of conducting a same gender search.
63. Additionally, Ms. Bowe, after learning that she had been indicted on charges
stemming from the taser she was carrying on June 21, 2021 turned herself into the
Defendant Ferndale’s police department on July 8, 2021, where she was once again
subjected to a cross gender search by Defendants Wroth and another unknown
officer despite the fact that female officers were present and capable of conducting
the search.
64. Ms. Bowe’s humiliation caused by the traumatic event did not end after Ms.
Bowe was released from Defendant Ferndale’s custody. Booking Photographs are
discoverable by simply submitting a Freedom of Information Act Request. Ms.
Bowe’s booking photograph was released by Defendant Ferndale when there was a
request for access.
18
65. Like many Muslim women whose religious beliefs dictate that they wear a
hijab, Ms. Bpwe felt exposed and violated without hers. It is as if Ms. Bowe was
naked in a public space.
66. Ms. Bowe endured insurmountable amount of humiliation and trauma as a
direct result of the Defendants’ pattern and practice. This policy is unnecessarily
discriminatory and the existence of Ms. Bowe’s booking photograph and the fact
that it can be viewed again and again by men who are not members of her immediate
family is haunting.
67. Since these incidents, Ms. Bowe suffers from anxiety and depression and has
suffered a loss of enjoyment of her everyday activities and family life.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

(Forcible Removal of Plaintiff’s Hijab)
The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons-

(42 U.S.C. § 2000cc)
(As To All Entity Defendants and Individual Defendants in Their Official
and Individual Capacity)
68. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the above paragraphs as if the same were fully
set forth at length herein.
69. The RLUIPA provides, in relevant part, the following: “No government shall
impose a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person residing in or
confined to an institution, as defined in section 1997 of this title, even if the burden
results from a rule of general applicability, unless the government demonstrates that
19
the imposition of the burden that person- (1) is in furtherance of a compelling
governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that
compelling governmental interest.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1(a)(1)-(2).
70. Plaintiff is a “person” as defined under the RLUIPA. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-
1(a) and 42 U.S.C. § 1997(3).
71. Plaintiff’s decision to wear hijabs constitute a sincerely-held religious belief.
72. At all relevant times, Defendants met the definition of “government” under
RLUIPA. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-5(4)(A)(i)-(iii).
73. At all relevant times, the locations where the city of Ferndale take Booking
Photographs, including, but not limited to, the city of Ferndale Police Department,
where the event alleged in this complaint transpired, are federally-funded
“institutions” as defined under the RLUIPA and the Civil Rights of Institutionalized
Persons Act of 1980 (“CRIPA”), 42 U.S.C. § 1997(1)(B)(ii)-(iii).
74. At all relevant times, Plaintiff was “residing in or confined to institutions” as
defined under the RLUIPA when the events alleged above transpired.
75. The Defendants’ acts or omissions, policies, and customs substantially
burdened Plaintiff’s religious exercise by requiring them to remove her hijab to be
photographed while she was residing in or confined in Defendant DDC.
76. The Defendants’ acts or omissions, policies and customs substantially
burdened Plaintiffs’ religious exercise by creating a permanent public record her
20
image without her hijab which has been and can continue to be released to the public
without intervention of the Court.
77. Defendants’ acts, omissions, policies and customs substantially burden
Plaintiff’s religious exercise by requiring Ms. Bowe to wear the offending picture
on her wrist and presenting that picture to male staff and guards and the act of male
guards observing her hijabless photo while she was residing in or confined in DDC.
78. The wearing of the hijab is so common place and universally understood as a
religious practice of Muslim women that individually named Defendants had actual
knowledge that their actions, and the booking photo policy requiring the hijab to be
removed were in violation of Ms. Bowe’s sincerely held religious beliefs in
violation of the U.S. Constitution and RLUIPA.
79. Clearly in this instant case, Defendant Zyrowski had actual knowledge that
her actions were in violation of Ms. Bowe’s clearly established constitutional right.
80. Defendants’ acts or omissions, policies, and customs do not further a
compelling government interest.
81. Defendant Emmi, in his official roles are substantially and primarily
responsible for the adoption, enactment, and enforcement of the illegal and
unconstitutional booking photo policies and practices in violation of Ms. Bowe’s
sincerely held religious beliefs.
21
82. Defendants acts or omissions, polices, and customs are not the least-restrictive
means of furthering a compelling government interest.
83. As a direct proximate result of Defendant Ferndale and individually named
Defendant’s wrongful acts and omissions, Plaintiff has sustained damages, and has
suffered and continues to suffer mental anguish, physical and emotional distress,
humiliation, and embarrassment.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

(Forceable Removal of Plaintiff’s Hijab)
Free Exercise Clause

(42 U.S.C. § 1983)
(As To Entity Defendants and Individual Defendants in Their Official and
Individual Capacity)
84. Plaintiff repeats and alleges the above paragraphs as if the same were fully set
forth at length herein.
85. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 prohibits any person acting under color of state law, custom,
or usage to deprive a citizen of rights secured by the Constitution.
86. At all relevant times, all named Defendants acted under color of state law.
87. Under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of
America, Plaintiff has the right to freely exercise their religion.
88. By forcing Plaintiff to remove her hijab for the Booking Photograph,
Defendants deprived Plaintiff of her right to freely exercise her religion in
contravention of the Free Exercise Clause.
22
89. Defendant Emmi, in his official roles are substantially and primarily
unconstitutional booking photo and wristband policies in violation of Ms. Bowe’s
sincerely held religious beliefs.
religious practice of Muslim women that Defendants Washington and DeAngelo had
actual knowledge that their actions, and the booking photo policy requiring the hijab
to be removed were in violation of Ms. Bowe’s sincerely held religious beliefs.
91. Defendants acts or omissions, policies, and customs do not further a
92. As a direct and proximate result of all named Defendants unlawful
discriminatory conduct, Plaintiff has sustained damages, and has suffered and
continue to suffer mental anguish, physical and emotional distress, humiliation, and
embarrassment.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

(Forceable Removal of Plaintiff’s Hijab)
Michigan State Constitution

(Article 1, Section 4)
(As To Entity Defendant and Individual Defendants in Their Official and
Individual Capacity)
93. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the above paragraphs as if the same were fully
set forth at length herein.
23
94. Article 1, Section 4 of the Constitution of the State of Michigan provides that:
“Every person shall be at liberty to worship God according to the dictates of his own
conscience.”
95. Defendant Ferndale and Defendant DDC and Defendant MDOC’s policy
requiring that arrestees who wear religious head coverings remove those head
coverings to be photographed violates Article 1, Section 4 by disallowing the free
exercise of religion.
96. Defendants Ferndale, DDC and MDOC’s policy requiring that arrestees who
wear religious head coverings wear their booking photo without the religious head
covering on a wristband to be presented to and viewed by male staff and officers
violates Article 1, Section 4 by disallowing the free exercise of religion.
97. Defendants Washington and DeAngelo, in their official roles are substantially
and primarily responsible for the adoption, enactment, and enforcement of the illegal
and unconstitutional booking photo and wristband policies in violation of Ms.
Bowe’s sincerely held religious beliefs.
religious practice of Muslim women that Defendants Washington and DeAngelo had
actual knowledge that their actions, and the booking photo and wristband policies
were in violation of Ms. Bowe’s sincerely held religious beliefs in violation of the
Michigan Constitution.
24
99. Defendants acts or omissions, policies, and customs do not further a
100. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct,
Plaintiff has sustained damages and continues to suffer mental anguish, physical and
emotional distress, humiliation, and embarrassment.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Forcible Removal of Plaintiff’s Hijab)
Declaratory Judgment
(Fed. R. Civ. P. 57 and 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-02)
(As to Entity Defendants and Individual Defendants in Their Official
Capacity)
101. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the above paragraphs as if the same were
fully set forth at length herein.
102. Defendants’ conduct was intentional and made with reckless
indifference to Plaintiffs’ religious rights.
103. Plaintiffs’ rights to the free exercise of religion were infringed upon and
substantially burdened by Defendants’ conduct.
104. Defendants’ policy and custom of forcing the removal of religious head
coverings for post-arrest photographs, including the hijab worn by Ms. Bowe, is an
unlawful and unconstitutional practice that infringes upon the rights of Plaintiff and
other Muslim women and religious adherents to freely exercise their religion without
the interference of substantially burdensome government conduct.
25
105. Defendants’ policy and custom of forcing women who wear religious
head coverings to wear photographs of themselves without their head covering to be
presented to and viewed by male officers and staff, including the hijab worn by Ms.
Bowe, is an unlawful and unconstitutional practice that infringes upon the rights of
Plaintiff and other Muslim women and religious adherents to freely exercise their
religion without the interference of substantially burdensome government conduct.
106. Defendants policy, practice, and custom caused and continue to cause
Plaintiff and other Muslim Women and religious adherents harm.
107. Defendant Emmi, in his official role is substantially and primarily
unconstitutional booking photo policy in violation of Ms. Bowe’s sincerely held
religious beliefs.
108. The wearing of the hijab is so common place and universally
understood as a religious practice of Muslim women that Defendants had actual
knowledge that their actions, and the booking photo policy requiring the hijab to be
removed, were in violation of Ms. Bowe’s sincerely held religious beliefs in
violation of the U.S. Constitution and RLUIPA.
109. Defendants’ acts or omissions, policies, and customs do not further a
26
110. Plaintiff is entitled to a declaratory judgment that Defendants infringed
upon and substantially burdened Plaintiffs religious free exercise and continue to
substantially burden the religious free exercise of other, similarly-situated Muslim
women and religious adherents in violation of federal and state law and the United
States Constitution.
111. Plaintiff has a strong likelihood of succeeding on the merits of their
claims.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(As to the Cross Gender Search and Removal of Plaintiff’s Religious
Outer-Garment)
Violation of the Fourth Amendment

42 U.S.C. §1983- Illegal Search and Seizure
(As to Entity Defendants and Individual Defendants in their Official and
Individual Capacities)
112. Plaintiff realleges and incorporate by reference each and every
previously pled paragraph as if fully set forth herein.
113. The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution establishes
that Plaintiffs have a right to be free from the deprivation of life, liberty, and bodily
security without due process of law and to be free from unreasonable searches and
seizures and excessive force.
114. 42 U.S.C. §1983 provides a vehicle for a private cause of action against
state actors who engage in activities that violate an individual’s rights guaranteed by
the United States Constitution or an amendment to the Constitution.

27
115. At all material times, Defendants acted under color of law and
unreasonably when the violated Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment Rights when they
engaged unnecessarily in a cross gender search of Plaintiff without exigent
circumstances.
116. At all times pertinent to this Complaint, Defendants were “state actors”
as that phrase is identified under 42 U.S.C. §1983.
117. That while acting under the color of state law, Defendants, acting
individually and in concert with other Ferndale Police officials who they were
directing and controlling, violated Plaintiff’s rights under the United States
Constitution protected by the First, Fourth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to
the United States Constitution including, but not limited to the following:
a. Arresting and/or detaining Plaintiff;
b. Forcibly removing Plaintiff’s hijab for a booking photograph in view
of male officers;
c. Forcibly removing Plaintiff’s religious outer-garment in view of maile
officers;
d. Engaging unnecessarily in cross-gender searches despite female
officers being present and able to engage in a search and in the absences
of exigent circumstances;
28
e. Such other and unconstitutional conduct as may be uncovered by this
litigation.
118. Defendants acted under color of law and are not entitled to
qualified immunity because they violated Plaintiff’s clearly established Fourth
Amendment rights to be free from unreasonable search and seizures.
119. Defendants’ illegal and unconstitutional acts were the direct and
proximate cause of Plaintiff’s deprivation of their constitutional rights.
120. Due to Defendants’ actions, Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment rights were
violated pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Honorable
court to award, exemplary, compensatory, and punitive damages plus costs and
attorney fees as set forth in 42 U.S.C. §1988.
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
City of Ferndale’s Constitutional Violations
121. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each and every
previously pled paragraph as if fully laid forth herein.
122. Defendant City of Ferndale acted recklessly and/or with deliberate
indifference when it practiced and/or permitted customs, policies, and/or
practices that resulted in constitutional violations of Plaintiffs.
123. These customs, policies, and/or practices included but were not limited
to the following:
29
a. Failing to train and/or supervise its officers so as to prevent
violations of citizens’ constitutional rights;
b. Failing to supervise, review, and/or discipline officers;
c. Failing to supervise, review and/or discipline officer whom the
City of Ferndale knew or should have known were violating or
prone to violate citizens’ constitutional rights, thereby permitting
and/or encouraging its police officers to engage in illegal
conduct;
d. Failing to control and/or discipline police officers known to
harass, intimidate or abuse citizens;
e. Failing to control and/or discipline police officers known for
racial and religiously profiling citizens in a manner that is
unconstitutional and violates citizens’ rights;
f. Failing to train and/or supervise police officers regarding legal
execution of searches and/or seizures;
g. Failing to train and/or supervise its police officers regarding the
use of excessive force;
h. Having a custom, policy, and/or practice of falsely arresting
and/or illegally detaining citizens that have no nexus with the city
of Ferndale;
30
i. Failing to train and/or supervise its police officers regarding their
duty to protect the religious and constitutional rights of persons
in their custody.
124. Defendant City of Ferndale’s conduct was so reckless as to
demonstrate a substantial lack of concern for whether an injury resulted.
125. Defendant City of Ferndale’s deliberately indifferent acts and/or
omissions were the direct and proximate cause of Plaintiffs’ injuries and damages.
126. Plaintiffs have a viable claim for compensatory and punitive
damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983, together with costs and attorney fees pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. §1988.
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Gross Negligence
127. Plaintiff reallege and incorporates by reference each and every
previously pled paragraph as though it were laid forth herein.
128. Defendants had a duty to perform their employment activities
so as not to endanger or harm Plaintiffs.
129. However, Defendants breached that duty by acting indifferently
or grossly negligent without regard to Plaintiff’s welfare.
130. Defendants knew or should have known that by breaching these
duties, harm would come to Plaintiff.
31
131. That according to MCL 691.1407(2), the breach of Defendants’
duty to exercise reasonable care was reckless and amounts to gross negligence.
132. That as a direct and proximate result of Defendants’
indifferent/grossly negligent acts and/or omissions, Plaintiffs suffered damages.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully request judgment against
DEFENDANTS as follows:
a) Declaring that Defendants’ discriminatory practices violate the
RLUIPA, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc et seq.; the Free Exercise Clause of
the First Amendment to the United States Constitution; and Article
1, Section 3 of the MI CONST;
b) Enjoining all named Defendants, Defendants agents, employees,
and successors, and all other person in active concert or participation
with Defendant from requiring the removal of any religious head or
hair coverings for the purpose of post-arrest photographs;
c) Requiring Defendants to adopt nondiscriminatory policies and
practices to prevent encroachment on the religious rights of arrestees
and detainees in the future;
d) Permanently enjoin all Defendants from ever again disseminating
Ms. Bowe’s hijabless booking photo to any member of the public or
other governmental agency;

32
e) Order that the City of Ferndale permanently remove Ms. Bowe’s
hijabless booking photo from the public record and their own
internal records to ensure that the photo will never again be viewed
by men whether members of the public or are agents and employees
of Defendants;
f) Awarding such damages to Plaintiff as will fully compensate her for
the loss of rights and emotional distress suffered due to Defendants’
unlawful conduct;
g) Awarding punitive damages to Plaintiff;
h) Awarding Plaintiff reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses
incurred in prosecuting this action; and
i) Granting Plaintiff such other further relief as may be just and proper.
Dated: October 29, 2021 Respectfully Submitted,
CAIR-MI LEGAL FUND
/s/
By: Amy V. Doukoure (P80641)
Attorney for Plaintiff
1905 S. Haggerty Rd. Suite 105
Canton, MI 48188
(248) 559-2247
[email protected]
33

CAIR-Michigan Complaint

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CAIR-Michigan Complaint

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 2:21-cv-12554-LJM-KGA ECF No. 1, PageID.

1 Filed 10/29/21 Page 1 of 33

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Plaintiff, CASE NO:

CITY OF FERNDALE, a Michigan

CAIR-MICHIGAN LEGAL FUND

COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

NOW COMES, Plaintiff, HELANA BOWE (“Plaintiff” or “Ms. Bowe”), by

CHIEF OF POLICE DENNIS EMMI, OFFICER JOSHUA LITTLE, OFFICER

STEPHEN WROE, OFFICER ANDREW WROTH, SERGEANT LAUREN

Defendants from implementing a photograph policy requiring the removal of all

of images of women without their religious headwear, enjoin Defendants from

disseminating images of women without their religious headwear, and enjoin

substantial burden on religious practice that is directly prohibited by the Religious

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1331.

3. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391 as to Defendants because

headscarf known as hijab that is proscribed as a sincerely held religious belief.

Plaintiff resides in this judicial district.

5. Defendant City of Ferndale (“Defendant Ferndale”) is and was at all times

6. Defendant Chief of Police Dennis Emmi is an individual employed as the

information and belief is a resident of this judicial district.

7. Defendant Officer Joshua Little, is an individual employed as a police officer

belief is a resident of this judicial District.

8. Defendant Officer Stephen Wroe is an individual employed as a police officer

belief is a resident of this judicial District.

9. Defendant Officer Andrew Wroth is an individual employed as a police

and belief is a resident of this judicial District.

10. Defendant Sergeant Lauren Zyrowski is an individual employed as a police

information and belief is a resident of this judicial District.

11. Plaintiff demands a trial by jury in this action.

GENERAL FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

of removing Muslim women’s hijab for booking/mugshot photographs which

throughout the City of Ferndale. It lacks justification and must be changed.

violation of her legal and constitutional rights.

practice of engaging in cross gender searches and the implementation of unnecessary

during cross gender searches.

were a violation of Ms. Bowe’s clearly established constitutional rights.

as a mandatory aspect of Muslim identity and faith.

her identity, and it is an essential part of who she is.

wearer’s sincerely-held religious beliefs and a violation of her religious practice.

a secular person strip naked in front of strangers.

22. Defendant Zyrowski is aware of the religious requirements of wearing hijab,

officers prior to taking her mugshot/booking photograph.

The Defendants’ Unlawful Photograph Policy

photographs which are taken subsequent to arrest or pursuant to arraignment.

24. Mugshots/ Booking Photos are subject to release pursuant to Michigan’s

is extremely offensive to religious women who observe the hijab.

long after the Booking Photograph is taken.

coverings for religious reasons to keep those coverings on in official passport

photographs. The Department of State website allows those being photographed to

traditional religious attire that is customarily or required to be worn continuously in

to be worn in photographs. The memorandum states that “USCIS will accommodate

an individual who wears headwear as part of their religious practices.” 3 Should a

as a photographer of their gender. The religious head covering in question “is

recognizes the substantial religious interests of women who wear hijabs.

of the First Amendment.

32. Michigan Department of Corrections recently updated their own prisoner

prisoner identification photographs.4

photographed for official government purposes.

to accommodate persons who wear religious head coverings. The Department is no

they are in custody.

36. In Hennepin County, Minnesota — the county that includes Minneapolis —