This may be from another article, but I would like a formal definition of what "in a state of undress" means.
She's Muslim, and did not want unrelated men to see her without her hijab. Perhaps she was also naked, who knows? But she probably wouldn't say that, out of propriety.
(The fact that she's a member of CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, maybe explain why they were hassling her in particular.)
So "state of undress" seems to work quite well... meh, this thread is too deep.
Edit: If you had said "could be wrong", I would agree. But to get to "would be wrong", you would need a clear statement from her. Which, of course, she has no obligation to provide.
Edit: OK, I missed that. She did characterize the problematic images. Sorry.
« Lazoja noted in her affidavit that as a practicing Muslim who wears a hijab, she does not want to be seen "in a state of undress without my hijab" by men who are not members of her family.
The two agents asked if Lazoja had any electronic devices, so she produced her phone.
They then asked her to unlock the phone, but she refused—citing the fact that the phone contained such "undressed" images of herself as well as "legal communications with the Council on American-Islamic Relations." »