The Washington Post has an excellent, in-depth article today on the growing use of driver’s license photo databases combined with face recognition analytics by police.
There are two ways to think about this. First, it is yet another long stride toward a surveillance society:
- These systems represent yet another technology of control “honed on the battlefields of Afghanistan and Iraq,” as the Post puts it, now being brought back and applied to the American people.
- DMVs are being used to compile what is essentially a national identity system. The CEO of the company that makes most states’ face-rec systems, MorphoTrust USA, tries to claim in a Washington Post video accompanying the story that having one’s photo taken in a DMV is “voluntary” but clearly that’s not true—at this point everyone needs a driver’s license or non-driver’s ID in order to participate fully in our society. That means virtually everybody’s photo is going to reside in their state’s DMV photo database—and the FBI would like to connect all those databases into a single distributed image database.
- Such a database could be put to truly Orwellian uses if it were, say, combined with pervasive video surveillance, a growing network of status and identity checks throughout society, and/or super-high resolution photography at political events such as those created at Obama’s first inauguration and at a Vancouver Canucks fan gathering.
- Such databases can also be put to more prosaic, but still offensive uses. Take the Pinellas County deputy described by the Post (and shown in their video) stopping and photographing “suspicious” people on what appear to be thin pretexts and running their faces against the system. That is just the kind of petty instrument of control that we fear such a database would quickly become.
- There are still sharp limitations to face recognition technology when it comes to using photographs taken “in the wild”—by surveillance cameras for example—as opposed to those in controlled environments where a well-lit subject faces a camera without sunglasses or a smile. But the technology’s inaccuracy doesn’t necessarily protect individuals—in fact if the police put more faith in it than it deserves, that inaccuracy may pose a threat to innocent people mistaken for those wanted by the police.
On the other hand, are we prepared to say that the police, once they identified the images of the Boston Marathon bombing suspects, could not run them against DMV databases to see if they could identify the suspects? (They did, and it was no help, the Post reports, but that’s more a reflection of the technology’s limits than an answer to the policy question.)
We have always focused our criticisms of face recognition technology on proposed mass surveillance uses. We have never criticized the technology’s use, for example, in helping the police match a suspect photo against a book of mug shots of previous convicts. Typically in such cases, the software’s operator will set a desired tolerance level, and the program will collect all the faces that come within that range of similarity, and then a human will inspect them to look for matches. I don’t see any problems with this use of the technology.
When you expand that technique beyond mug shot books to DMV image databases of the entire population, however, it moves us into much more uneasy territory. Not only are such uses violations of the privacy principle that information collected for one purpose should not be repurposed without a subject’s permission, but they also subject each citizen to the possibility that he or she will fall under the microscope of the police due to some misidentification.
Perhaps those objections can be overcome in certain serious situations. But this much is clear: neither the police nor others should have access to DMV image databases without good reason and systematic checks and balances to enforce that policy. If there is a strong criminal predicate, that is one thing, but we mustn’t allow these databases to become fuel for petty status and identity checks—and certainly not used to enable mass suspicionless surveillance and tracking.
Related Issues
Related Content
-
Press ReleaseNov 2026
National Security
Cair And Cair-florida Will Appeal Federal Court Decision Denying Relief From Florida’s Unconstitutional "terrorist" Designation Regime. Explore Press Release.CAIR and CAIR-Florida Will Appeal Federal Court Decision Denying Relief from Florida’s Unconstitutional "Terrorist" Designation Regime
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. — The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and its Florida chapter, CAIR-Florida, will appeal a Wednesday night ruling by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida that denies their request to reverse Florida officials’ “terrorist” designation of the two civil rights organizations. According to Chief Judge Allen C. Winsor, the plaintiffs are unlikely to succeed at this stage on their claims that the designations under HB 1471, a new and unprecedented state law, violate their due process and First Amendment rights. However, the judge issued a narrow form of preliminary relief, holding that Florida prosecutors cannot enforce the law’s penalties against plaintiffs, their employees, or third parties with respect to the provision of legal services to the groups. While Chief Judge Winsor’s ruling does not resolve the case, address all claims in it, or make factual findings about Florida officials’ allegations against the Muslim civil rights groups, which the groups maintain are baseless, the designation takes effect today, November 5. As a result, CAIR and CAIR-Florida are forced to shut down their advocacy and operations in the state. “Florida’s new law has profoundly disturbing parallels to authoritarian states, in which political leaders silence and punish dissent without due process,” said Hiba Rahim, executive director of CAIR-Florida, before the shutdown went into effect. “Governor DeSantis and other officials have unilaterally branded Muslim nonprofits as ‘terrorist’ with devastating consequences for our rights, our supporters, and the communities we serve. CAIR-Florida categorically rejects Florida officials’ baseless designation of us. Nevertheless, we are heartbroken that we have no choice but to close our doors to protect our staff and people of all faiths who support our work. Years ago, when Alabama banned the NAACP from operating in the state, the U.S. Supreme Court ultimately issued a landmark decision protecting every American’s freedom of association. We trust that the courts in our case, too, will ultimately uphold the fundamental rights we are entitled to as Americans and the constitutional freedoms that protect every one of us.” The impact on the Floridian communities CAIR and CAIR-Florida serve will be immense. CAIR-Florida provides a range of pro bono legal services to Florida residents, including those who suffer government and workplace discrimination in violation of their civil rights, as well as those navigating the immigration system. As the ACLU explained in court last month, CAIR and CAIR-Florida’s devastating designation under the new Florida law is unjustified. Neither group has ever been charged, let alone convicted of, any crime. If Florida tried to do so, it would fail. The reason is simple: neither CAIR nor CAIR-Florida is engaged in terrorist activity, and the state would be unable to prove its case to a jury in a court of law. “Today’s ruling is deeply disappointing and we are appealing it. Our clients’ challenge to Governor DeSantis’s grave abuse of authority continues,” said Ashley Gorski, senior counsel with the ACLU’s National Security Project. “Today’s decision upholds state officials’ sweeping power to punish American organizations they brand as ‘terrorist,’ without due process and in violation of the First Amendment. Florida officials have been relentless in seeking to silence our clients’ civil rights work and advocacy, damaging not only them but also their community. We cannot allow this dangerous and sweeping censorship regime to stand.” Under HB 1471, five Florida executive officials have the power to designate and debilitate U.S. groups — including nonprofits engaged in First Amendment-protected advocacy — without filing charges, initiating judicial proceedings, proving their case beyond a reasonable doubt, submitting the case to a jury, or complying with any of the other required constitutional protections of the criminal legal system. Once a designation becomes effective, an organization’s lawful, constitutionally protected speech and association are immediately rendered illegal and impossible. An elaborate set of prohibitions makes it a serious crime for the targeted American organization to do virtually anything in the state, and for others to work for or otherwise actively associate with or support the designated group. The consequences of violating these prohibitions are severe, including up to life imprisonment. According to Chief Judge Winsor, while the groups did not succeed in demonstrating that their freedom of association had been unconstitutionally restricted or that the designation regime was an unlawful “prior restraint” on speech, the state’s attempt to criminalize the provision of legal advice to CAIR and CAIR-Florida was a content-based restriction of speech that likely violated the First Amendment. “The State has no meaningful interest in denying Plaintiffs’ legal counsel,” the court said. Concerning due process, the court recognized that Florida’s new designation regime is “novel—and perhaps unprecedented,” but said that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated that the state-level appeal procedures were constitutionally inadequate. The court also held that the plaintiffs did not show that the designation was a form of criminal punishment, as opposed to a civil remedy. “Today, for the first time in over twenty years, Florida Muslims cannot call their community’s leading civil rights organization for help if they experience a hate crime at their mosque, illegal discrimination in the workplace, violent bullying in school, or any other acts of bigotry,” said Edward Ahmed Mitchell, National Deputy Director at CAIR. “The Constitution’s guarantees of free speech and due process apply to every inch of our nation, including Florida. The unprecedented notion that Governor DeSantis has the power to punish an American civil rights organization for its speech and unilaterally force the closure of its doors without due process is an affront to the Constitution. We look forward to appealing this initial ruling so that we can protect the rights of everyone in the State of Florida. Although this is a tragic day for the people of Florida, our struggle to protect the U.S. Constitution is just beginning and we are confident that the rule of law will ultimately prevail, God willing.” “We are dismayed by this ruling,” said Scott McCoy, deputy legal director, Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). “A law that allows officials unjustly to brand a civil rights nonprofit with such a grievous label and expose it, and anyone who supports it, to life in prison with no hearing and no trial, threatens every Floridian’s constitutional rights. Our commitment to CAIR, CAIR-Florida and the communities they serve has not changed, and we will continue fighting this unconstitutional law throughout this case and on appeal.” “The court’s decision at least recognizes that an organization cannot be prosecuted for participating in its own legal defense, contrary to the state’s dystopian law,” said Daniel Tilley, legal director of the ACLU of Florida. “CAIR-FL has already been forced to shut its doors in Florida, cutting off Floridian Muslims and others who relied on its services. No nonprofit engaged in First Amendment-protected activity should face this kind of harm without due process. We stand with CAIR and CAIR-FL and will appeal this decision. Our commitment to challenging this dangerous and arbitrary designation has not wavered.” On Wednesday night, the defendants also stipulated that they would not prosecute (a) employees, board members, and third parties for their good-faith and reasonable involvement in the groups’ two legal challenges to Florida officials’ designations, or (b) good-faith and reasonable actions undertaken to comply with state and federal legal obligations. As a result, these legal and compliance activities may continue as the litigation moves forward. CAIR and CAIR-Florida are represented by the ACLU, ACLU of Florida, the SPLC, and Bondurant Mixson & Elmore LLP. The injunction order can be viewed here.Court Case: CAIR-Foundation, Inc and CAIR Florida, Inc. v. DeSantis et al.Affiliate: Florida -
Press ReleaseOct 2026
National Security
Free Speech
Cair And Cair-florida Urge Court To Temporarily Block Unconstitutional Terrorism Designation Before More Harm Is Done. Explore Press Release.CAIR and CAIR-Florida Urge Court to Temporarily Block Unconstitutional Terrorism Designation Before More Harm is Done
TALLAHASSEE — The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida heard arguments today in a lawsuit challenging Florida officials’ baseless and unconstitutional designation of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and its Florida chapter as “domestic terrorist organizations.” Unless the court intervenes to prevent it, the largest Muslim civil rights organization in the country will have to shut their doors in Florida on Nov. 5. “CAIR and CAIR-Florida are critical resources that people and institutions across Florida rely on to protect civil rights and liberties, and all we want to do is get back to that important work,” said Hiba Rahim, executive director of CAIR-FL. “Florida’s new law silences free speech, criminalizes association, and eradicates due process, and we are hopeful that the court will act to safeguard our constitutional rights. History reminds us that our country has endured dark chapters, but also that people who refused to accept injustice moved us closer to our founding ideals.” At today’s hearing, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) urged the court to grant emergency relief for the organizations, explaining the instant and debilitating harm CAIR and CAIR-FL will face if the court does not rescind the designation and stop it from going into effect. In the alternative, they are asking the court to prevent Florida state prosecutors from enforcing the law’s harsh criminal penalties against the nonprofits and third parties who associate with and support them. As the ACLU argued in court, CAIR and CAIR-Florida have done nothing to deserve this devastating designation. The state has never indicted, much less convicted, either CAIR or CAIR-Florida under any criminal law — and certainly not a criminal law involving the serious charge of terrorism. If the state tried to do so, it would fail. The reason is simple: Neither CAIR nor CAIR-Florida is engaged in terrorist activity, and the state would be unable to prove its case to a jury in a court of law. “Florida’s new law is an unprecedented abuse of state authority,” said Ashley Gorski, senior counsel with the ACLU’s National Security Project. “It gives state officials sweeping power to punish American organizations they brand as ‘terrorists,’ without due process and in violation of the First Amendment. We’re asking the court to block this unconstitutional law and ensure that our clients’ crucially important civil rights work serving Floridians is not silenced.” Once a designation becomes effective, an organization’s lawful, constitutionally protected speech and association are immediately rendered illegal and impossible. Under HB 1471, five Florida executive officials have the power to designate and debilitate U.S. groups — including nonprofits engaged in First Amendment-protected advocacy — without filing charges, initiating judicial proceedings, proving their case beyond a reasonable doubt, submitting the case to a jury, or complying with any of the other required constitutional protections of the criminal legal system. An elaborate set of prohibitions makes it a serious crime for the targeted American organization to do virtually anything in the state, and for others to work for or otherwise actively associate with or support the designated group. The consequences of violating these prohibitions are severe, including up to life imprisonment. “Florida’s designation of CAIR and CAIR-Florida flies in the face of fundamental rights guaranteed to all Americans by the Constitution,” said Scott McCoy, deputy legal director at SPLC. “All Floridians should be concerned that this law allows Florida officials to do an end run around the Constitution, shut down disfavored speech and advocacy, and impose draconian criminal penalties. If they are permitted to do it to these civil rights nonprofits, what’s to stop them from doing it to any Floridian with whom they disagree?” The impact on the Floridian communities CAIR and CAIR-Florida serve would also be immense. CAIR-Florida provides a range of pro bono legal services to Florida residents, including those who suffer government and workplace discrimination in violation of their civil rights, as well as those navigating the immigration system. “The state does not get to decide whose speech is constitutionally protected or whose due process rights deserve respect. The Constitution decided that long ago,” said Daniel Tilley, legal director of the ACLU of Florida. “And Florida must not strip CAIR and CAIR-FL of their ability to advocate and organize for the civil rights of Floridian Muslims. This dangerous designation regime, crafted by the DeSantis administration, seeks to criminalize protected speech, plain and simple — and with no regard for the harm it causes to the thousands of people our clients support and serve. We are proud to stand with our clients against this abuse of state power.” CAIR and CAIR-Florida are represented by the ACLU, ACLU of Florida, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and Bondurant Mixson & Elmore LLP. This press release can be found here: https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/cair-and-cair-florida-urge-court-to-temporarily-block-unconstitutional-terrorism-designation-before-more-harm-is-doneAffiliate: Florida -
Press ReleaseOct 2026
National Security
Human Rights
Families Of Trinidadian Men Killed One Year Ago By Trump Administration Call For Justice. Explore Press Release.Families of Trinidadian Men Killed One Year Ago by Trump Administration Call for Justice
NEW YORK – On the one-year anniversary of the Trump administration’s murder of two Trinidadian men killed in a U.S. missile strike last October, their family members are demanding justice and accountability. At least 239 people have been killed in these strikes since September 2025. On Oct.14, 2025, Chad Joseph and Rishi Samaroo were returning from Venezuela, where they were working on farms and as fishermen, to their homes in Las Cuevas, Trinidad and Tobago, when a missile struck their boat. Four other people also died in the strike. The ACLU, Center for Constitutional Rights, and other partners are representing Lenore Burnley, Mr. Joseph’s mother, and Sallycar Korasingh, Mr. Samaroo’s sister, in their wrongful death suit. The families are suing under a federal statute called the Death on the High Seas Act, a law that allows family members to sue for wrongful deaths occurring in international waters. “The last year has been devastating without Chad in our lives. Chad was the heart of our family. He was loving, generous and caring, and always there for us. We all miss him terribly,” said Mr. Joseph’s mother, Lenore Burnley. “A year later, we are still grieving and seeking justice for his death. We will always mourn losing Chad but hope that this lawsuit will be a step towards justice for him and the family.” Prior to his murder, 26-year-old Mr. Joseph lived with his wife and their three children in Las Cuevas, Trinidad. To support his family, he often traveled the 20 nautical miles from his home to Venezuela for work on a farm, fishing, and other odd jobs. On October 12, he called his wife to let her know that he had found a boat ride home from Venezuela and would see her in a couple of days. On October 14, his wife and mother saw social media reports of a boat strike; fearing that the boat was his, they repeatedly called him but got no reply. His family never heard from him again. Mr. Samaroo was born in El Socorro, Trinidad, where his elderly father, eight younger siblings, and two of his three sons still reside. His elderly mother lives nearby in San Juan. In 2024, he was released early from prison after serving a 15-year sentence. After paying his debt to society, Mr. Samaroo worked hard to make an honest living. In August 2025, he began working on a farm in Venezuela, taking care of goats and cows and making cheese. He would call his family almost every day when he was in Venezuela, and in an Oct. 12 call with Ms. Korasingh, he told her he’d be home soon to help her take care of their ailing mother. Just like Mr. Joseph, that was the last time Ms. Korasingh or anyone else in the family heard from him. “Not a day goes by when our family doesn’t think about our brother Rishi,” said Sallycar Korasingh, Mr. Samaroo’s youngest sister. “Rishi was a good person, loved by his family and community. The last year without him in our lives has been heartbreaking. My brother and family deserve justice. We will continue fighting for answers and the accountability we deserve.” The Trump administration has claimed, without proof, that these military strikes are targeting unnamed drug cartels. However, even if these boats did carry drugs, neither domestic nor international law authorizes the use of military force against criminal organizations. The strikes are thus premediated killings of civilians outside of armed conflict, constituting murders under domestic law and extrajudicial killings under international human rights law. “For a year now, our clients have had to live without their loved ones and without justice in the name of President Trump’s lawless killing campaign,” said Jeff Stein, staff attorney with ACLU’s National Security Project. “These illegal strikes at sea have devastated countless families, terrified communities, and made us all less safe. We won’t stop fighting for accountability. We urge leaders in both Congress and the executive branch to finally end this illegal campaign before anyone else is killed.” The ACLU and Center for Constitutional Rights are also suing for a secret Trump administration legal memorandum that reportedly blesses the strikes as lawful and purports to immunize personnel who authorized and carried out the strikes from future criminal prosecution. However, just this month, a federal court rejected several of the Trump administration’s key rationales for withholding this memo and ordered the government to provide additional details about who has seen the memo and how it has been used. The judge also ordered the government to privately give him the memo, so he can determine whether it should be released publicly. The government was given until today, Oct. 14, to comply with his order. While the Trump administration agreed to turn the memo over to the judge for his private review today, it asked the judge to reconsider the other aspects of his order. On Friday, Oct. 16, the ACLU and the Center for Constitutional Rights will file a brief opposing the government’s attempt to avoid compliance with the judge’s order. “Even as one year has gone by, and despite so many intervening Trump administration atrocities, we must not forget the administration’s unprecedented campaign of serial murders of civilians on the seas,” said Baher Azmy, Legal Director of the Center for Constitutional Rights. “This lawless campaign has left so many families broken, and, in their names, accountability under law for individuals responsible for murder will someday come.” The ACLU and Center for Constitutional Rights have also called on international human rights bodies, such as the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, to investigate the strikes and hold the perpetrators accountable.Court Case: Burnley v. U.S.: Demanding Accountability on Caribbean Boat StrikesAffiliate: Massachusetts -
Press ReleaseOct 2026
National Security
Free Speech
Muslim Civil Rights Organizations In Florida Urge Court To Block Unconstitutional Terrorism Designation. Explore Press Release.Muslim Civil Rights Organizations in Florida Urge Court to Block Unconstitutional Terrorism Designation
TALLAHASSEE — On Friday, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and CAIR-Florida told a federal court that their civil rights work in Florida is in imminent danger after Gov. Ron DeSantis and other Cabinet officials baselessly voted to designate them as “domestic terrorist organizations” under an unconstitutional new state law. They asked the court for emergency relief to block the designation from going into effect. The filing comes in a new lawsuit the groups filed after the Florida Cabinet’s vote. “For decades, we and CAIR-Florida have pursued a shared mission, rooted in faith, to help people understand Islam, protect civil rights, promote justice, and empower the millions of American Muslims across the country,” said CAIR. “Gov. DeSantis and other officials in his cabinet have spent months targeting us for our beliefs and civil rights work for months. If this unjustifiable designation is allowed to go into effect, our speech will be silenced, our advocacy will be halted, and our doors will be shut in Florida. This harms not only CAIR and CAIR-Florida, but all Floridians who believe in a vibrant constitutional democracy where people of all religious traditions can thrive.” Under HB 1471, five Florida executive officials have the power to designate and debilitate U.S. groups—including nonprofits engaged in First Amendment-protected advocacy—without filing charges, initiating judicial proceedings, proving their case beyond a reasonable doubt, submitting the case to a jury, or complying with any of the other constitutional requirements of the criminal legal system. As the lawsuit explains, “The new regime transforms Florida’s Governor, Chief of Domestic Security, and Cabinet into judge, jury, and nonprofit executioner.” Once designated, an elaborate set of prohibitions makes it a serious crime for the targeted American organization to do virtually anything in the state, and for others to work for or otherwise actively associate with it. The consequences of violating these prohibitions are severe, including up to life imprisonment. As a result of designation, an organization’s lawful, constitutionally protected speech and association are immediately rendered illegal and impossible—simply because a handful of state officials say so. “We’re asking for urgent judicial intervention to prevent CAIR and CAIR-Florida from becoming the first casualties of Florida’s unconstitutional and draconian new law,” said Hina Shamsi, director of ACLU’s National Security Project. “The Constitution does not allow officials to punish U.S. organizations and deny them due process because of disagreement with their views, yet Florida’s Governor and Cabinet did so anyway. It’s hard to overstate the stakes here, not only for our clients, but also for other nonprofits and corporations that Florida officials may decide they dislike and want to target in the future.” CAIR and CAIR-Florida initially challenged their designation under the new Florida law in a suit filed on July 1, the day the law went into effect, and Gov. DeSantis said he and other Cabinet officials would move quickly to designate CAIR. On October 1, the court dismissed their initial case, finding that the nonprofits did not have standing in July because their fears of harm were speculative. Hours later, counsel for CAIR and CAIR-Florida filed a new complaint, explaining that Gov. DeSantis and other Cabinet members had followed through on their threats and voted to designate CAIR and CAIR-Florida on September 29, 2026. The complaint makes clear that this designation violates the non-profits’ First Amendment rights, as well as their right to due process and right to counsel. Targeted organizations receive no meaningful notice and have no meaningful opportunity to defend themselves before the designation and harsh penalties take effect. Florida’s law is also preempted by federal law. “Without evidence, fair notice, or any opportunity to respond, Florida officials have arbitrarily and unjustly branded CAIR and CAIR-Florida with the scarlet letter of a ‘DTO’ designation, effectively rendering them pariahs.” said Scott McCoy, deputy legal director, Southern Poverty Law Center. “This designation is a political act that violates the First Amendment and due process rights of two nonprofit organizations that have served Floridians for more than 25 years. If state officials can do this to CAIR and CAIR-Florida with impunity, they can do it to any organization whose message they dislike.” The designation, which effectively criminalizes the existence of any labeled organization, is set to go into effect on November 5. If it does, the impact on CAIR and CAIR-Florida would be immediate and devastating. In their October 2 motion for emergency relief, the nonprofits are asking that the court order Florida officials to rescind their designation of CAIR and CAIR-Florida and prevent it from going into effect. In the alternative, they are asking the court to prevent Florida state prosecutors from enforcing the law’s harsh penalties against the nonprofits and third parties connected with them. The impact on the Floridian communities CAIR and CAIR-Florida serve would also be immense. CAIR-Florida provides a range of pro bono legal services to Florida residents, including those who suffer government and workplace discrimination in violation of their civil rights, as well as those navigating the immigration system. They help register people to vote, dispel and counter false stereotypes, prejudices, and disinformation, of Muslims, and advocate for human rights. For example, CAIR and CAIR-Florida supported the campaign to bring back Mohammed Ibrahim—a 16-year-old U.S. citizen from Florida—who was unjustly detained by Israel in February 2025 for almost ten months. “No state government should hold the power to unilaterally extinguish domestic advocacy organizations because of their First Amendment-protected activity,” said Daniel Tilley, legal director, ACLU of Florida. “Our democracy depends on freedom of speech and association and is fueled by those who advocate for their communities. For decades, CAIR and CAIR-Florida have sought to support a vibrant constitutional democracy where people of all religious traditions can thrive. This baseless designation will substantially harm the thousands of American Muslims who rely on CAIR’s advocacy — and we refuse to let it stand.” CAIR and CAIR-Florida have done nothing to deserve this devastating designation. As the complaint explains, the state has never indicted, much less convicted, either CAIR or CAIR-Florida under any criminal law—and certainly not a criminal law involving the serious charge of terrorism. If the state tried, it would fail. The reason is simple: neither CAIR nor CAIR-Florida is engaged in terrorist activity, and the state would be unable to prove its case in a court of law. CAIR and CAIR-Florida are represented by the ACLU, ACLU of Florida, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and Bondurant Mixson & Elmore LLP.Affiliate: Florida