It's the kind of personal touch most visitors to the Department of Motor Vehicles would love to have: Instead of the usual assembly-line photo shoot for a driver's license, Sultaana Freeman could get a private sitting, with a female photographer, and would leave with only a few people seeing her photo.

The one hitch: The Muslim woman would have to remove her veil.

Freeman, 35, sued the Florida highway department in 2002 after her driver's license was revoked when she refused to take an unveiled photograph to replace the veiled picture on her 2001 license.

She claims the suspension violated a state statute protecting the free exercise of religion.

On Wednesday, an expert on Islamic law called by the state said he thought the rigorous code of Sharia allowed exceptions to the rule that Muslim women must cover their faces, including a driver's license photo.

"According to Islamic law, it is not the type of situation in which we worry about fitna — enticement, allurement," said UCLA law professor Khaled Abou El Fadl.  The state's request to remove the veil "is not an ongoing demand ... It is defined for a limited purpose with a certain objective in mind."

Among the exceptions to the veil rule, said El Fadl, are medical necessity, readying for marriage, writing wills and identifying the dead before burial.

According to El Fadl, the accommodations offered by the state — having the photo taken in private by a woman — would "absolutely" satisfy Islamic law.

Beginning their defense Wednesday, lawyers for the State of Florida played up the importance of full-face photographs for law enforcement, attempting to demonstrate for Orange County Circuit Court Judge Janet Thorpe a "compelling interest" for public safety. The state made photo licenses mandatory for most drivers after Sept. 11.

The photos, testified Lieutenant Colonel Billy Dixon, a near-40-year veteran of the Florida Department of Highway Patrol, help officers make "clear, concise and quick decisions" about law enforcement.  "The photo is indespensible to that process," said Dixon.  "A full face view really gives an officer something to work with."

Of the 14 million or so drivers in the Florida system, said Dixon, more than 2 million license photographs are stored electronically and can be accessed via patrol car computers or personal electronic devices. "This is just an absolutely crucial piece of technology to give to law enforcement," he said.

Until Wednesday, Freeman's ACLU-backed lawyer, Howard Marks, claimed that hundreds of thousands of drivers in Florida do drive without "full face" pictures on their licenses, including the more than 4,000 drivers issued permanent, photo-free licenses over the past five years and the more than 800,000 drivers issued temporary permits over the same period.

But this part of Freeman's case was nixed by Judge Thorpe, who is presiding over the non-jury civil proceeding. Saying that Freeman did have "equal protection under the law," Thorpe granted Assistant Attorney General Jason Vail's motion to dismiss the claim.

The judge ruled that Freeman, who was born in the U.S. and was raised Christian, could continue her suit on religious freedom grounds, however.

Throughout testimony in her civil hearing, Freeman has appeared shrouded in her black, traditional garb. Testimony from the religious expert quickened the pace of the notes she often jotted on a legal pad at her attorney's table.

Freeman and her husband both testified Tuesday, the first day of the Orlando trial, along with a local Islamic scholar and employees of the Florida highway department.

During testimony Wednesday, one employee admitted that a number of other states allow photo-free driver's licenses on religious or other grounds, including Kansas, Missouri and South Carolina.