This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Civil Rights
Violation of Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act
Free Exercise Clause

Kirsty Powell v. City of Long Beach, Police Chief Robert G. Luna, Eduardo Saldana, Conrad Penn, and Does 1 to 4 in their individual and official capacities

Published: Sep. 29, 2017 | Result Date: Aug. 10, 2017 | Filing Date: Apr. 29, 2016 |

Case number: 2:16-cv-02966 Settlement –  Equitable Settlement

Court

CD CA


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Yalda Satar
(Council on American-Islamic Relations)

Carey Shenkman
(Law Office of Carey Shenkman)


Defendant

John C. Parkin
(Office of the Long Beach City Attorney)


Facts

Plaintiff and her husband were pulled over by an officer with the Long Beach Police Dept. Plaintiff, who was the passenger, was arrested after the officer learned there was an outstanding warrant for shoplifting in plaintiff’s name. Plaintiff, a Muslim, was arrested and she was required to remove her hijab, or head scarf.

Plaintiff filed a civil rights complaint against Police Chief Robert Luna, the City of Long Beach and Officers Eduardo Saldana and Conrad Penn.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF’S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff contended that a male officer forcibly removed her hijab at the police station and told her she was not allowed to wear it, causing her humiliation and distress and violating her religious freedom.

Plaintiff asserted causes of action for violation of Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, violation of 1st Amendment Free Exercise Clause, violation of the California constitution and violation of the Tom Bane Act.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS: The city did not dispute that a male police officer removed the headscarf after the plaintiff, while in custodial detention, refused. At the time of this incident, removal of the traditional headscarf from detained persons was consistent with the Long Beach Police Dept.’s policy, primarily for the safety of both police officers and inmates.

Result

The city agreed to settle the case by paying $85,000 in attorney fees, but did not pay plaintiff any damages. The Long Beach Police Dept. also agreed to revise its policy regarding the removal of religious headscarves for female arrestees in custody.

Other Information

According to defense, while the 9th Circuit has not yet held that the removal of the headscarf, or hijab, places a substantial burden on one’s sincerely held religious beliefs, as prohibited by RLUIPA, after the lawsuit was filed, the city reviewed its policy and changed it. The city changed the policy to be consistent with the department’s interpretation of PLUIPA, and consistent with best law enforcement practices. The new policy requires female police officers to remove a hijab, while the detainee is out of the view of males. The hijab is then returned after the search.


#128202

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390