Ramapo police to probe Hasidic woman's booking

[ONEEYEDMIC 68]

Ramapo Police to probe Hasidic woman's booking

©LoHud.com

By Suzan Clarke • The Journal News • June 24, 2008

RAMAPO - Town police will conduct an investigation into the treatment of a Hasidic suspect after complaints that the officer was insensitive for fingerprinting the woman and asking her to remove her wig.

Ridiculous. If Hasidics have such rules then maybe they shouldn't commit 1st degree welfare fraud.

Edited June 24, 2008 by jack10562
Source Site Copyright Notice- EMTBravo news story posting Policy

[Guest]

even criminals need to have their religious practices respected...that little thing called the 1st Amendment backs them up. however you feel about the Hasidic's, the cops did wrong, big time.

[helicopper 1,050]

even criminals need to have their religious practices respected...that little thing called the 1st Amendment backs them up. however you feel about the Hasidic's, the cops did wrong, big time.

Just out of curiosity, what part of the 1st Amendment has to do with the processing of prisoners?

[x129K 1,393]

even criminals need to have their religious practices respected...that little thing called the 1st Amendment backs them up. however you feel about the Hasidic's, the cops did wrong, big time.

What?!

I HOPE that was sarcastic!

[Guest]

"asking her to remove her wig."

that's where the problem comes into play

[Goose 188]

even criminals need to have their religious practices respected...that little thing called the 1st Amendment backs them up. however you feel about the Hasidic's, the cops did wrong, big time.

You are so far off base, it makes me sick. Do us a favor and do some research into the politics that go on in Ramapo. Also may want to brush up on your constitutional law. When you're done, get back to us. This is not the first time that Ramapo cops have been screwed by elected representatives and it, sadly, won't be the last.

Edited June 24, 2008 by Goose

[helicopper 1,050]

"asking her to remove her wig."

that's where the problem comes into play

Again, where/how does the the 1st Amendment come into play here?

As for removing religious headgear - during a search this may have to be done for safety reasons and to properly photograph a suspect it may also need to be done for a few minutes. The suspect is not paraded around without it nor is he/she prevented from putting it back on after the search/processing. Again, what's the issue?

The biggest complaint in the article seems to be that a male police officer fingerprinted her. To that I say, tough! You don't get to pick your arresting officer. Don't do a felony or fingerprintable misdemeanor and the issue won't arise.

[Guest]

You are so far off base, it makes me sick. Do us a favor and do some research into the politics that go on in Ramapo. Also may want to brush up on your constitutional law. When you're done, get back to us. This is not the first time that Ramapo cops have been screwed by elected representatives and it, sadly, won't be the last.

done, done and back. and she can still say she was violated. thanks for the tips goose, have a pleasant day!

[JBE 328]

She's an accused criminal, she should be treated the same as every other criminal they lock up.

[helicopper 1,050]

done, done and back. and she can still say she was violated. thanks for the tips goose, have a pleasant day!

She can say a lot of things. Lawsuits get filed every day - for you to assert that she has a Constitutional basis for such a lawsuit is simply wrong. Your statement about an infringement of her Constitutional rights, specifically the 1st Amendment, is what I'm questioning. On what do you base that statement? Can you back it up with more than "done, done, and back"?

[INIT915 1,119]

even criminals need to have their religious practices respected...that little thing called the 1st Amendment backs them up. however you feel about the Hasidic's, the cops did wrong, big time.

I like to think I'm very open minded, but there is no argument to be made here. You cannot be processed wearing a wig. What's next? The next perp states they have a religious need to be photographed with sunglasses on!? Or maybe face-painted.

Courts have already decided that Muslim women cannot be processed with a veil, this is no different.

[JohnnyOV 2]

"asking her to remove her wig."

that's where the problem comes into play

it's probably already been touched, but how can you properly photograph a felony suspect for records if he/she is wearing a wig? It doesn't make any sense to me if you're thinking that way. If there was no parading of her around, and she was processed and the wig kept with her personal belongings, how have the police done anything wrong?

Edited June 24, 2008 by EMSJunkie712

[JohnnyOV 2]

i didn't realize i was in competition with that "done, done and Back" commment, but i'll still keep it. for a hasidic woman to remove her wig is a sacred, religous circumstance which was violated by RPD. It’s the equivalent as a muslin man removing his turban or beard, or a muslim women removing her veil or a Rastafarian removing his head piece. Even NYPD has allowed men and women of these backgrounds to be exceptions of the rules of their example of what “clean cut” is. I think a lack of understanding of these religious practices is the problem. People have won better cases then this lady and the wig. The only thing is she was in the process of being arrested. this topic is already bias bc people in our region generally don't like the hasidics because they do what they want and get away with almost everything. Chief Peter Brower doesn't even recall the arrest of a hisidic woman in his 38 years on the force, so this is unknown force for them. The Chief states his officer was "insensitive" and someone stated the mayor thought it was wrong...who knows the validity of that, but either way this will be interesting to follow. with the facts at hand, the cop did what he was supposed and the woman was a violated criminal. thats all i have time to type now, chris.

yes, but when you need to be photographed and your natural hair needs to be shown, wearing a wig is not an option

[Guest]

I like to think I'm very open minded, but there is no argument to be made here. You cannot be processed wearing a wig. What's next? The next perp states they have a religious need to be photographed with sunglasses on!? Or maybe face-painted.

Courts have already decided that Muslim women cannot be processed with a veil, this is no different.

i didn't realize i was in competition with that "done, done and Back" commment, but i'll still keep it. for a hasidic woman to remove her wig is a sacred, religous circumstance which was violated by RPD. It’s the equivalent as a muslin man removing his turban or beard, or a muslim women removing her veil or a Rastafarian removing his head piece. Even NYPD has allowed men and women of these backgrounds to be exceptions of the rules of their example of what “clean cut” is. I think a lack of understanding of these religious practices is the problem. People have won better cases then this lady and the wig. The only thing is she was in the process of being arrested. this topic is already bias bc people in our region generally don't like the hasidics because they do what they want and get away with almost everything. Chief Peter Brower doesn't even recall the arrest of a hisidic woman in his 38 years on the force, so this is unknown force for them. The Chief states his officer was "insensitive" and someone stated the mayor thought it was wrong...who knows the validity of that, but either way this will be interesting to follow. with the facts at hand, the cop did what he was supposed and the woman was a violated criminal. thats all i have time to type now, chris.

my last post was deleted somehow. i didn't know about the muslims and i did a search for the hasidics and this case in Ramapo is the only case found in my 3 searches. maybe this will be a bigger situation than expected. america is sloooooowly taking an understanding to a persons needs, but her being a criminal makes it more interesting.

Edited June 24, 2008 by Chris192
Text from "missing" post restored - it wasn't deleted, I don't know what happened to it.

[jack10562 414]

Where did you come up with that???

"- wearing a wig or scarf to cover their hair is an expression of modesty for married Hasidic Jewish women"

It's really a stretch to call that "sacred" or [sic] "religous".....?

[helicopper 1,050]

i didn't realize i was in competition with that "done, done and Back" commment, but i'll still keep it. for a hasidic woman to remove her wig is a sacred, religous circumstance which was violated by RPD. It’s the equivalent as a muslin man removing his turban or beard, or a muslim women removing her veil or a Rastafarian removing his head piece. Even NYPD has allowed men and women of these backgrounds to be exceptions of the rules of their example of what “clean cut” is. I think a lack of understanding of these religious practices is the problem. People have won better cases then this lady and the wig. The only thing is she was in the process of being arrested. this topic is already bias bc people in our region generally don't like the hasidics because they do what they want and get away with almost everything. Chief Peter Brower doesn't even recall the arrest of a hisidic woman in his 38 years on the force, so this is unknown force for them. The Chief states his officer was "insensitive" and someone stated the mayor thought it was wrong...who knows the validity of that, but either way this will be interesting to follow. with the facts at hand, the cop did what he was supposed and the woman was a violated criminal. thats all i have time to type now, chris.

my last post was deleted somehow. i didn't know about the muslims and i did a search for the hasidics and this case in Ramapo is the only case found in my 3 searches. maybe this will be a bigger situation than expected. america is sloooooowly taking an understanding to a persons needs, but her being a criminal makes it more interesting.

This has absolutely nothing to do with the like or dislike of a group or religion.

It seems as though you're drawing from a variety of different circumstances and conditions in your post. The NYPD has made modifications to the requirements of uniform and grooming to avoid discriminating against people due to religious requirements but that's for hiring not for arrest processing.

During a search, you can look under head gear or require that someone show their full face for photographs. Anything that alters the appearance can and should be removed (wigs for example) so the picture is an accurate one. You can't shave a beard or cut dreadlocks for this purpose. Someone's religious beliefs don't trump reasonable procedures for processing of prisoners.

Your statements that the cop was wrong may not be accurate either. If the Department has no prohibition against male officers fingerprinting female suspects (or vice versa) and requires accurate photos of a suspect, the Department may be at fault for not considering religious issues but not the officer if he was acting pursuant to existing policies. Also, what is the "injury" in this case? That's the standard for a lawsuit and if she was treated with respect except for the removal of the wig for a photograph and a male officer fingerprinting her, there may be no grounds for a lawsuit. How is this different than a male EMT/medic touching a female Hasidic patient? That's permissible, why isn't this?

As for the 1st Amendment argument started several posts back...

Amendment One

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The search of a prisoner has nothing to do with the protections afforded by the 1st Amendment.

[ONEEYEDMIC 68]

I was wondering if anyone was going to comment on this topic. I think that the cop was right for what he did and I would have done the same thing. There was a case after 9/11 about a muslim women I think at an airport that was asked to show her face for ID purposes. She made a stink but I think it went away given what happened years earlier.

VACGUY, you are totally off base again. Not sure if you mean what you write or if you just do it because you know that you can get a rise out of some people. Again, become a COP and then put yourself in this guys shoes and get back to us. Not as easy as you make it sound on here.

[pd125 0]

yes, but when you need to be photographed and your natural hair needs to be shown, wearing a wig is not an option

This is a game played by people who have been caught! If it comes down to it the wig would be be off if it would help them get away with something. I have done intake at a state correctional facility where a long hair bottle blonde male inmate stood there and said "I am a native american you can't cut my hair"The run to PC may be the death of us. No he wasn't a Native American he wanted to get his female hormones also

Edited June 24, 2008 by pd125

[SRS131EMTFF 471]

Directly quoted from the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment of Constitution of the United States. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

[Guest MVFD334]

"asking her to remove her wig."

that's where the problem comes into play

No the problem comes into play when she broke the law. Im pretty sure that in the Hisidic faith they teach about not taking what isnt yours..

[helicopper 1,050]

Directly quoted from the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment of Constitution of the United States. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

OK, so you can google... What law did Congress make that infringes on the woman's religion in this case? She's not prohibited from the free exercise of her religion either.

She was being processed in accordance with the rules and regulations of the agency that arrested her. She's not prohibited from wearing her wig, it just had to be off for a photograph or two. She also had to be fingerprinted to comply with the NYS Criminal Procedure Law (describes fingerprintable offenses) and Ramapo PD policy.

Where's the Constitutional issue here?

[calhobs 110]

There is no Constitutional issue here, Working for the TSA we can and have removed wigs and other headware, we offer privatre screening or its done right there on the floor. Of course the passenger can refuse but guess what they aint gettin on the flight. So there is no problem I am sure with police having a wig removed, picture taken I am sure is done in private or can be arranged to be done one on one with a witness as we do it. This sounds like as mentioned in a few post the bad guy trying to turn this around.

[SRS131EMTFF 471]

Clearly, I have interpreted the Constitution differently than some people. I interpret the Free Exercise Clause as stating that no one has the ability to infringe on the practice of a religion. And there is presidence to say that denying religious practice is unconstitutional. Such cases as:

Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah

Wisconsin v. Yoder

Reynolds v. United States

And this could be a violation of a presidence set forth in Sherbert v. Verner because the Sherbert Test was violated. According to wikipedia:

The Sherbert Test consists of four criteria that are used to determine if an individual's right to religious free exercise has been violated by the Ramapo police department.

The test is as follows:

For the individual, the court must determine

* whether the person has a claim involving a sincere religious belief, and

* whether the government action is a substantial burden on the person’s ability to act on that belief.

If these two elements are established, then the government must prove

* that it is acting in furtherance of a "compelling state interest," and

* that it has pursued that interest in the manner least restrictive, or least burdensome, to religion.

[Goose 188]

Chris, Cal, Oneyed - nice posts.

Vacguy - You obviously have no clue what your talking about. As i stated before, this is a major issue. The hasidic community is a MASSIVE voting bloc with tremendous power and money. That's why you've got the town supervisor leaving his officers out to dry, because hes afraid of the political backlash. This has been an ongoing issue for some time.

You just can't do this sorta crap. We can't have POs walking around second guessing themselves and being afraid that if the collar the wrong person they are going to have to deal with some sorta backlash. Thats not how we live in 2008. We have laws and one must abide by those laws, if you dont well then your going to get punished. It's Newtons 3rd law of Physics: for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Thats what happened, the lady got caught and now shes belly aching because of it.

Edited June 24, 2008 by Goose

[gamewell45 258]

She's an accused criminal, she should be treated the same as every other criminal they lock up.

I think your description of her being "an accused criminal" is off base. I read the newspaper article in question and unless i missed it somewhere, i didn't read that she's been convicted; merely charged with committing a crime; you could better represent your position by referring to her as "the accused defendent". Unless the laws have changed, in this country you're innocent until proven guilty.

[helicopper 1,050]

I think your description of her being "an accused criminal" is off base. I read the newspaper article in question and unless i missed it somewhere, i didn't read that she's been convicted; merely charged with committing a crime; you could better represent your position by referring to her as "the accused defendent". Unless the laws have changed, in this country you're innocent until proven guilty.

She is accused of a crime... hence accused criminal.

Accused defendant is redundant. She is the accused and she is the defendant. If this is what we're worried about, sheesh!

Yes, you're innocent until proven guilty - unless you're a cop!

[INIT915 1,119]

She is accused of a crime... hence accused criminal.

Accused defendant is redundant. She is the accused and she is the defendant. If this is what we're worried about, sheesh!

Yes, you're innocent until proven guilty - unless you're a cop!

Exactly.

[gamewell45 258]

She is accused of a crime... hence accused criminal.

Accused defendant is redundant. She is the accused and she is the defendant. If this is what we're worried about, sheesh!

Yes, you're innocent until proven guilty - unless you're a cop!

Maybe its redundant; we could debate it all day I guess; perhaps "defendant" in place of "accused criminal"; but the thrust of the post:

(QUOTE(JBE @ Jun 24 2008, 11:39 AM) She's an accused criminal, she should be treated the same as every other criminal (my highlight) they lock up.)

it gives the appearance of her being being convicted which i'm sure most in here agree on, it hasn't happened. The primary basis for my original response was that if we are talking about someone charged with a crime; we might try to be as accurate as possible. You never know, the accused however unlikely as it might be, could read this website.

Edited June 24, 2008 by gamewell45

[ONEEYEDMIC 68]

She was arrested for a crime. She was PHOTOGRAPHED and FINGERPRINTED as are all people that are arrested for a CRIME. It doesn't mean she is guilty, it just means that she was being CHARGED. It happens every day in every town USA. If it so happened that the charge was less then a felony, she might not have had this problem. But since she decided to SCAM the WELFARE OFFICE this is what she gets. SHE MADE her BED and now she has to sleep in it. The question is did this officer do the wrong thing by having her remove her "wig"? The ANSWER IS NO. Did he do wrong by printing her? NO. He had a job to do and he did it. Screw this Mayor who is scared of the backlash. Shame on the Police Chief as well for not backing his officer.

I wish they would post the booking picture.

[DOC22 1]

She was arrested for a crime. She was PHOTOGRAPHED and FINGERPRINTED as are all people that are arrested for a CRIME. It doesn't mean she is guilty, it just means that she was being CHARGED. It happens every day in every town USA. If it so happened that the charge was less then a felony, she might not have had this problem. But since she decided to SCAM the WELFARE OFFICE this is what she gets. SHE MADE her BED and now she has to sleep in it. The question is did this officer do the wrong thing by having her remove her "wig"? The ANSWER IS NO. Did he do wrong by printing her? NO. He had a job to do and he did it. Screw this Mayor who is scared of the backlash. Shame on the Police Chief as well for not backing his officer.

I wish they would post the booking picture.

Excellent post, ONEEYEDMEDIC!!!!!