BEACH v. OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY
398 P.3d 1
Okla.2017Background
- Since 2001 Oklahoma DPS has been required to collect and store digital high-resolution facial photographs (biometric photos) and fingerprints conforming to industry interoperability standards; current system (in use since 2003) will not process a license application without these biometrics.
- Kaye Beach renewed licenses multiple times under the system but around 2009–2010 developed sincerely held religious objections, believing biometrics constitute participation in the "number of a man"/mark of the beast and forbid enrollment in a global identification system.
- In 2011 Beach sought a religious accommodation to avoid biometric photo/fingerprint submission for license renewal; the request was denied and she sued under the Oklahoma Religious Freedom Act (ORFA) and state constitutional protections.
- Beach alleged substantial burden on her religious exercise, citing practical harms from lacking a valid driver’s license (tickets, inability to complete transactions, employment barriers) and fears of international sharing and future uses (e.g., RFID/tattoos).
- The district court granted summary judgment for DPS; the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals reversed, finding Beach met her initial burden; the Oklahoma Supreme Court granted certiorari.
- The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Civil Appeals, affirmed the district court, holding Beach failed to produce evidence of a substantial burden and that the case is moot because Beach already had her biometrics in DPS’s system.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff made a prima facie showing that DPS substantially burdened her religious exercise under ORFA | Beach: mandatory biometric photo/fingerprint enrollment substantially burdens her sincere religious practice ("number of a man") and enrollment is ongoing harm | DPS: Beach produced no evidence that DPS inhibited or curtailed her religious practice or shared biometrics internationally; statutory safeguards limit use | Held: Beach failed to show a genuine issue of material fact that DPS substantially burdened her religious exercise; burden did not shift to DPS |
| Whether ORFA’s burden-shifting requires plaintiff to make initial prima facie showing | Beach: implicit that ORFA should follow RFRA/RLUIPA framework used in federal cases | DPS: ORFA text and precedent assign the initial evidentiary burden to plaintiff to demonstrate substantial burden | Held: Court adopts that plaintiff bears initial burden to show substantial burden before government must prove compelling interest/least restrictive means |
| Mootness: whether effective relief is possible when plaintiff already submitted biometrics | Beach: ongoing harms from lack of license could be remedied; controversy remains live | DPS: Beach already enrolled in system (photos/fingerprints on file); court cannot provide effective relief regarding enrollment; no mootness exception applicable | Held: Case is moot because DPS already possesses Beach’s biometrics; no applicable exception to avoid mootness |
| Scope of discovery/evidence regarding data sharing and future uses (international access, RFID) | Beach: fears of international sharing and future technological use implicate substantial burden and risk | DPS: No evidence that MorphoTrust or DPS share biometrics internationally; statutory limits on disclosure; speculative future harms insufficient | Held: Speculative fears without evidentiary support do not establish substantial burden or defeat summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Pickens v. Tulsa Metro. Ministry, 951 P.2d 1079 (Okla. 1997) (summary judgment reviewed de novo; inferences drawn for nonmoving party)
- Horton v. Hamilton, 345 P.3d 357 (Okla. 2015) (summary judgment standards and statutory interpretation)
- Holt v. Hobbs, 135 S. Ct. 853 (U.S. 2015) (RLUIPA: plaintiff bears initial burden to show substantial burden on religious exercise)
- Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2751 (U.S. 2014) (Free exercise framework and burden-shifting principles)
- Steele v. Guilfoyle, 76 P.3d 99 (Okla. Civ. App. 2003) (ORFA burden analysis adopting RLUIPA/RFRA approach requiring plaintiff to make initial prima facie showing)
- In re Guardianship of Doornbos, 151 P.3d 126 (Okla. 2006) (mootness doctrine and public-interest exception)
- Baby F. v. Okla. Cty. Dist. Court, 348 P.3d 1080 (Okla. 2015) (court will not decide moot or hypothetical questions)