The ACLU

ACLU Video Highlights Three Jurors Who Say Racial Justice Act Needed to Prevent Discrimination

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org

FAYETEVILLE, N.C. – North Carolinians who say they were wrongfully struck from juries in capital cases because of their race are speaking out today in a new video produced by the American Civil Liberties Union documenting their experiences.

The video, which features three African Americans who say they were struck from capital juries by prosecutors simply because of the color of their skin, is being released in conjunction with the first hearing under North Carolina's historic Racial Justice Act. Marcus Robinson is asking that his death sentence be commuted to life in prison without the possibility of parole. Potential African American jurors in Robinson’s case were struck from his jury at a rate 3.5 times higher than other potential jurors.

“It made me feel like I was back in 1960, that racism is still very much alive,” Laverne Keys, who was excluded in the 1999 case State v. Jathiyah Al-Bayyinah, says in the video. “It makes you wonder whether all these people are being given a fair trial or given a fair consequence so far as the death penalty.”

The Racial Justice Act allows death-row prisoners like Robinson a hearing in which they can present statistics and other evidence showing that death sentences state- and county-wide were tainted by racism, and that their death sentence should be commuted to life in prison without the possibility of parole.

A recent Michigan State University study shows that state prosecutors are significantly more likely to eliminate potential African-American jurors and that defendants are more than twice as likely to be sentenced to death if the victim is white than if the victim is black.

“The stories presented in this video make clear that the death penalty system in North Carolina and across the nation is plagued by discrimination,” said Denny LeBoeuf, director of the ACLU Capital Punishment Project. “The Racial Justice Act is a crucial means of ensuring that no one is wrongfully executed because of racial bias.”

Cassandra Stubbs, staff attorney with the Capital Punishment Project, is part of the legal team representing Robinson.

One of 34 states to maintain the death penalty, North Carolina has the nation’s sixth-largest death row population, more than half of whom is African-American. Thirty-one people on North Carolina’s death row were sentenced by all-white juries.

The video highlighting the experiences of three African-Americans struck from capital juries in North Carolina is available at:
www.aclu.org/capital-punishment-racial-justice/african-americans-exclude...

A New York Police Department document recommended targeting dozens of Shiite Muslim mosques from Pennsylvania to Connecticut for surveillance in a search for possible Iranian terrorists, though no evidence of such a threat existed.  The recommendation to target groups based solely on their religion, and previous reports of NYPD infiltration and surveillance of mosques with assistance from the CIA, violate NYPD and FBI guidelines, and constitutional rights to freedom of religion. 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/02/nypd-document-gather-inte_n_1250386.html

To See the NYPD document: http://bit.ly/wYrAUX

Join us for the first stop of a national tour to address the issue of prosecutorial oversight in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Connick v. Thompson, which granted prosecutors almost complete immunity for their intentional misconduct. Panelists from all aspects of the criminal justice system will discuss systemic and legal approaches for reducing prosecutorial error and misconduct.

Monday, February 6, 2012
6 to 8:30 PM
Jacob Burns Moot Court Room
Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law

Speakers include:
Maddy deLone, Executive Director of the Innocence Project, who will moderate the panel; 
John Thompson, whose $14 million civil award for the prosecutorial misconduct that caused him to spend 14 years on death row was overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court, Founder and Director of Resurrection After Exoneration and Voices of Innocence;  
Ellen Yaroshefsky, Clinical Professor of Law and Director, Jacob Burns Center for Ethics in the Practice of Law at Cardozo School of Law;
Hon. Richard Buchter, New York Supreme Court Judge and former Queens Assistant District Attorney;  
Hon. Elisa Koenderman, New York Supreme Court Judge and former Bronx Assistant District Attorney; 
Sarah Jo Hamilton, Principal at Scalise & Hamilton, LLP, and a former trial counsel and first deputy chief counsel to the Departmental Disciplinary Committee for New York’s First Judicial Department; and 
Ross E. Firsenbaum and Shauna Friedman,  Senior Associates at Wilmer Hale, who represented Arthur Ashe Courage Award Winner Dewey Bozella, who was wrongly convicted of murder due to police and prosecutorial misconduct and was exonerated after serving 26 years in New York prisons.

Light refreshments will be served following the panel discussion. More info here.

Seating is limited.  Pease RSVP by February 1 to info@prosecutorialoversight.org.

Florida Law Limits Donations by Minors to $100 but Adults And Corporations Can Donate up to $500 per Election

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org

MIAMI – The American Civil Liberties Union of Florida (ACLUFL) today filed a legal challenge on behalf of Julie Towbin, a 17-year-old resident of Boca Raton, challenging Florida’s law limiting political contributions by minors because the law limits the Constitutionally protected right to free speech.

Current Florida law (statute 106.08(1)(b)(2)) limits donations made by minors to state and local candidates to $100 per candidate per election while adults and corporations may contribute up to $500 per candidate per election.

“The law goes overboard by restricting my ability to access the political process, effectively support candidates for office and express my views as others do.” Towbin said. “The state is violating a right guaranteed to me by the First Amendment – the right to engage in political speech.”

Towbin is a high school senior who, in addition to earning money from a job as cashier in a restaurant, earned more than $7,000 as a Congressional House Page in 2011. She keeps her funds in a bank account in her name. She is registered to vote and plans to cast her first ballot in the November 2012 elections.

In September, 2011, Towbin was interested in attending a fundraising dinner for the Palm Beach County Democratic Executive Committee, of which she is a member. But she was told that purchasing a regular $150 ticket to the dinner may be a violation of the $100 limit on contributions by minors.

Because of her concerns about violating the law by purchasing a ticket to the fundraiser and making contributions to local candidates in 2012, Towbin wrote the Palm Beach County Supervisor of Elections, the Palm Beach County State Attorney, the State Attorney General and to the Florida Elections Commission which would be responsible for hearing potential violations and issuing penalties such as criminal referrals for prosecution and fines. Receiving no assurances that buying the ticket would not result in legal penalties, Towbin did not attend the fundraiser and has not made any campaign contributions over $100.

“It’s clear that this Florida law limits a citizen’s access to political discourse based solely on age,” said Howard Simon, Executive Director of the ACLU of Florida. “The right to speak politically as well as hear political debate is clearly protected and our laws should encourage everyone – especially young people – to engage with democracy instead of cutting people off from the process.”

The statutory age limit restriction applies only to Florida and local candidates. Under federal election rules, even though she is a minor, Towbin may contribute up to $2,500 – the same amount allowed for adults – to candidates for federal office such as President or Congress.

“The Constitution does not allow the state to treat speech differently based on who is doing the speaking,” said James K. Green, cooperating attorney in the case. “If the state has a need to limit contributions to a set amount – in this case $500 – the amount needs to be the same for everyone without exception.”

The suit was filed today in the Southern District of United States Court in West Palm Beach and asks the Court to declare Florida’s law unconstitutional as a violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The suit also seeks an order blocking the state from enforcing the age limit restriction on supporting candidates.

“Florida law gives more speech and political participation rights to corporations and political action committees than seventeen year olds who will vote this year,” Towbin said. “More than being unconstitutional, the law institutionalizes apathy among young people – it says your voice is worth one-fifth of someone else’s.”

A copy of the complaint filed today is available here: http://www.aclufl.org/pdfs/2012-01-26-TwobinComplaint.pdf
 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org

A former student who endured severe and persistent harassment throughout junior high and high school has gained a major settlement from the Aberdeen School District, the ACLU of Washington announced today. The ACLU has represented Russell Dickerson III in a lawsuit saying that school district officials were aware of the harassment but failed to take steps reasonably calculated to end it. Under terms of the settlement, Dickerson will receive $100,000 from the district. Additionally, the ACLU will receive $35,000 in legal fees.

“Public school officials must be held accountable when they fail to meet their responsibility to act decisively when a student is subjected to harassment by his peers. This settlement sends a message to school districts statewide to take strong action as soon as they learn that a student is being bullied,” said Sarah Dunne, ACLU-WA legal director.

“I learned from my parents that you should never give up. You should fight for your rights – you don’t just walk away,” said Dickerson.

Russell Dickerson III, now 20, is an African-American resident of Aberdeen. For six years, from 2003 when he entered junior high until 2009 when he graduated high school, other students harassed Dickerson on the basis of his race, sex, and perceived sexual orientation.

At Miller Junior High, Dickerson was called names by other students and found notes in his backpack and taped to his back calling him “stupid nigger” and “dog.” Students tripped him in the hallways and threw food at him in the cafeteria. In one incident, three students pushed him to the floor in the hallway and smashed a raw egg on his head; only one of the students was disciplined.

At Aberdeen High School, the harassment escalated, with Dickerson subjected to a continuing barrage of viciously derogatory insults about his race, physical appearance, and suspected sexual orientation. Dickerson suffered physical harassment, with other students pinching and fondling his chest, spitting on his head, and throwing objects at him. Although an assistant principal discouraged Dickerson from reporting misconduct by the student’s peers, the student and his parents repeatedly reported incidents of harassment to district administrators, both verbally and in writing. Yet the district failed to take adequate steps to end the harassment.

In 2007 students in the district created a website mocking Dickerson and his perceived sexual orientation, and posted threatening racist comments on it. Students discussed the website at school. Grays Harbor Superior Court issued a no contact order between Dickerson and one of his harassers who had threatened on the website to lynch him, yet Dickerson became the target of retaliatory harassment after reporting the website to school authorities.

The school district’s failure to act created a hostile educational environment for the student. His academic progress was hindered, he was isolated at school, he felt discouraged from using his locker, and he avoided extra-curricular activities that put him in contact with his peers. Further, the student suffered extreme emotional distress, including an inability to concentrate on studies, serious depression, despair, and anxiety.

Filed in December 2010 in U.S. District Court in Tacoma, the lawsuit said that the deliberate indifference to ongoing harassment by the school district, which receives federal funds, violated federal law – Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. The district’s negligent inaction also violated the Washington Law Against Discrimination.

ACLU-WA cooperating attorneys Michael Scott, Joseph Sakay, and Alexander Wu of Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson P.S. and ACLU-WA staff attorneys Sarah Dunne and Rose Spidell represented Dickerson.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org

AUGUSTA – The Legal and Veterans Affairs Committee today voted to table LD 199, which would require voters to present a photo ID before voting, and are considering action that would turn the bill into a study of Maine’s electoral system.

“Thousands of Mainers, and especially older Mainers, don’t have access to a photo ID,” said John Hennessy of the AARP of Maine. “These folks have been voting in their communities for decades, but could have been turned away from the voting booth for no good reason. The committee deserves tremendous credit for looking beyond politics to put aside voter ID.”

Secretary of State Charlie Summers also presented a report to the Legislature today that identified potential clerical and procedural errors in the state’s Central Voter Registration System.

“The Secretary of State is entrusted to protect the right of Mainers to vote and already has the authority and the obligation to ensure that elections are administered appropriately,” said Shenna Bellows. “If there are administrative problems, then the Secretary of State should fix them now without any further study.”

The Secretary of State also suggested that some undetermined number of votes may have been cast inappropriately during the last few years.

“Maine elections are well-run and secure, and they have helped our state to become a national leader in voter participation,” said Ann Luther of the League of Women Voters of Maine. “If the Secretary of State has identified isolated problems, then he should investigate them now and make sure that anyone who has violated the law is prosecuted. A study is unnecessary because he already has that responsibility and authority.”

 

Legislation Would Cause Backlog of DNA Tests and Violate Privacy

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org

COLUMBUS- The American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio will testify today before the Ohio Senate Judiciary Committee opposing Senate Bill 268. The legislation will expand the government’s ability to take DNA samples from felony arrestees by allowing the state retroactively to seize genetic information from past arrestees and those charged with a felony but not arrested. In 2009, the Ohio General Assembly passed S. B. 77, which allowed the state to obtain DNA samples from those arrested on felony charges.

“DNA is perhaps the most personal information our bodies contain, and the government must not simply take it without considering the privacy of Ohioans,” said ACLU of Ohio Associate Director Gary Daniels. “Those who have been arrested for a crime have not been found guilty in a court of law, nor have they had any opportunity to defend themselves. This system allows innocent people’s genetic information to become property of the state without any due process.”

“Neither this legislation nor current law provides meaningful opportunity for innocent Ohioans to remove their DNA from state databases if they were wrongfully accused of a crime,” added Daniels. “By expanding the power to collect DNA even further, state legislators will open a Pandora’s box where law enforcement may abuse their ability to arrest to perform an end-run around due process protections.”

S. B. 268 would direct the DNA information to the Bureau of Criminal Investigation to check against past records and keep on file. News reports have indicated that BCI and local law enforcement often have long backlogs on testing DNA evidence such as rape kits. On December 5, 2011, Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine recommended that local law enforcement send rape kits to BCI for testing, and pledged to add staff to accommodate the increase. Recently, the Department of Justice and state officials in Michigan and Illinois have warned legislators against adding additional DNA collection categories in order to avoid creating additional logjams.

“Unnecessarily collecting DNA will clog law enforcement systems, violate Ohioans’ privacy, and increase costs,” concluded Daniels. “State legislators should focus on testing rape kits and other evidence that has sat on shelves rather than adding more DNA to test that may lead to nothing.”

The Senate Judiciary Committee will be at 3:15 p.m. on Tuesday, January 24, 2011 in the North Hearing Room of the Statehouse.

ACLU-NJ Midterm Report Card Examines Christie’s Record on Respecting Rights

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org

NEWARK – The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey (ACLU-NJ) released a midterm report card for Gov. Chris Christie today, issuing mostly low marks for his administration’s handling of critical civil liberties issues such as reproductive freedom and free speech.

The report card examines Christie’s record on an array of civil liberties issues during his first two years in office. The ACLU-NJ issued a similar report card for Newark Mayor Cory Booker in 2009 during his first term in office.

“Christie has two years to turn a mediocre civil liberties record into a testament to individual rights,” said ACLU-NJ Executive Director Deborah Jacobs. “The people of New Jersey expect a leader who will stand up for their freedoms, not one who will let them know that despite his unfair policies, his heart is in the right place. It’s time for Gov. Christie’s good intentions to turn into policies that strengthen our rights and improve our lives.”

The ACLU-NJ issued the following grades:
• B in Freedom of Religion. Gov. Christie made headlines several times in his first term for defending the religious freedom of Muslims and warning against extremists trying to promote discrimination against Islam.
• F in Freedom of Speech. When provided the opportunity to speak up for our nation’s most fundamental value, the Governor stood idly by, letting the Department of Military and Veterans Affairs trample the rights of Occupy Trenton, and going so far as to endorse the termination of a NJ Transit employee fired for exercising his right to free expression.
• B- in LGBT Rights. Although the Governor has spoken out against bullying and supported some interests of the LGBT community, he has turned his back on marriage equality for same-sex couples.
• D in Open Government. Although the Governor signed a bill that lowers the cost of copies in New Jersey, his administration has put itself on the wrong side of open government disputes numerous times, allowing agencies to hide public documents and forcing citizens to go to court to get them.
• C in Police Practices. Improvements made by the Office of Attorney General (OAG) to its statewide police Internal Affairs policies were a step forward, but the OAG has failed to address other important issues, such as developing a statewide policy on the use of confidential informants.
• C in Privacy Rights. The governor conditionally vetoed a bill that sought to open adoption records, taking into account the privacy rights of birth parents. At the same time, he signed into a law a bill that allows police to collect DNA of people once they have been arrested in violation of privacy and due process rights.
• F in Reproductive Rights. Not only did the governor cut $7.5 million from the budget for family planning centers, but he also withdrew an application for a federal program that would have covered family planning expenses for some of New Jersey’s most vulnerable women and children.
• D in Separation of Powers. The Governor refused to reappoint New Jersey Supreme Court Justice John J. Wallace, Jr., calling into question the tradition of evaluating judges based on merits, and personally attacked a Superior Court judge because he disagreed with the outcome of her ruling. Gov. Christie’s actions threaten to undermine the judiciary’s independence and credibility.

To view the report card in its entirety, visit www.aclu-nj.org.
 

Legislation Would Cause Backlog of DNA Tests and Violate Privacy

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org

COLUMBUS- The American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio will testify today before the Ohio Senate Judiciary Committee opposing Senate Bill 268. The legislation will expand the government’s ability to take DNA samples from felony arrestees by allowing the state retroactively to seize genetic information from past arrestees and those charged with a felony but not arrested. In 2009, the Ohio General Assembly passed S. B. 77, which allowed the state to obtain DNA samples from those arrested on felony charges.

“DNA is perhaps the most personal information our bodies contain, and the government must not simply take it without considering the privacy of Ohioans,” said ACLU of Ohio Associate Director Gary Daniels. “Those who have been arrested for a crime have not been found guilty in a court of law, nor have they had any opportunity to defend themselves. This system allows innocent people’s genetic information to become property of the state without any due process.”

“Neither this legislation nor current law provide meaningful opportunity for innocent Ohioans to remove their DNA from state databases if they were wrongfully accused of a crime,” added Daniels. “By expanding the power to collect DNA even further, state legislators will open a Pandora’s box where law enforcement may abuse their ability to arrest to perform an end-run around due process protections.”

S. B. 268 would direct the DNA information to the Bureau of Criminal Investigation to check against past records and keep on file. News reports have indicated that BCI and local law enforcement often have long backlogs on testing DNA evidence such as rape kits. On December 5, 2011, Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine recommended that local law enforcement send rape kits to BCI for testing, and pledged to add staff to accommodate the increase. Recently, the Department of Justice and state officials in Michigan and Illinois have warned legislators against adding additional DNA collection categories in order to avoid creating additional logjams.

“Unnecessarily collecting DNA will clog law enforcement systems, violate Ohioans’ privacy, and increase costs,” concluded Daniels. “State legislators should focus on testing rape kits and other evidence that has sat on shelves rather than adding more DNA to test that may lead to nothing.”

The Senate Judiciary Committee will be at 3:15 p.m. on Tuesday, January 24, 2011 in the North Hearing Room of the Statehouse.
 

San Francisco supervisors have introduced legislation to ensure San Francisco Police Officers working on the FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force comply with local standards governing police intelligence and investigative activities, which are more protective of privacy and civil rights than the FBI’s Guidelines.  The proposal is modeled on a similar ordinance passed in Portland, Oregon last year. 

http://blogs.kqed.org/newsfix/2012/01/24/sf-supes-consider-local-oversight-of-fbi-terrorism-investigations/

For an ACLU-NC graphic on Regulating the SFPD-JTTF Relationship: http://www.aclunc.org/issues/government_surveillance/asset_upload_file983_10599.pdf

For Language of the Proposed Ordinance:  http://www.aclunc.org/issues/government_surveillance/asset_upload_file394_10599.pdf

Court Dismissed Case Seeking to Hold U.S. Officials Accountable for Torturing American Citizen

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
 
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org
 
NEW YORK – The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit today affirmed the dismissal of the American Civil Liberties Union’s lawsuit against current and former government officials for their roles in the unlawful detention and torture of U.S. citizen José Padilla. The U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina ruled in February that an American citizen designated an "enemy combatant" by the executive branch and tortured by government officials could not bring suit to vindicate his constitutional rights.
 
“Today is a sad day for the rule of law and for those who believe that the courts should protect American citizens from torture by their own government,” said ACLU National Security Project Litigation Director Ben Wizner, who argued the appeal in court. “By dismissing this lawsuit, the appeals court handed the government a blank check to commit any abuse in the name of national security, even the brutal torture of a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil. This impunity is not only anathema to a democracy governed by laws, but contrary to history’s lesson that in times of fear our values are a strength, not a hindrance.”
 
More information and case documents are available at:
www.aclu.org/national-security/padilla-v-rumsfeld

Former CIA Officer, John Kiriakou, Charged With Disclosing Classified Information to Journalists

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org

NEW YORK – In a Criminal Complaint filed earlier today by the U.S. Department of Justice (DoJ) in the Northern District of Virginia, former CIA officer John Kiriakou was charged with disclosing classified information to journalists and lying to the CIA’s Publications Review Board. The investigation also examined the discovery in 2009 of photographs of government employees and contractors in Guantánamo Bay cells of detainees. The investigation concludes that no member of the defense team did anything wrong.  This includes defense lawyers and others who were part of the ACLU’s John Adams Project.

“While we are gratified that DoJ has confirmed what we already knew -- that the ACLU is clear of any wrongdoing in our defense of detainees' rights at Guantánamo -- it is astonishing that our conduct was under review in the first place," ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero said. "Throughout our 92-year history, ACLU lawyers have been above reproach, and today's findings by the DoJ underscore that tradition.  Not even J. Edgar Hoover or President George W. Bush investigated the ACLU's activities. However, it remains troubling that the government has failed to indict the CIA agents who participated in torture and who have thus far not been held accountable for these atrocities.”

The John Adams Project was started in April 2008 by the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in response to the military commissions set up by the Bush administration for the men imprisoned at Guantánamo Bay. The project’s goal was to assemble defense teams to be available to assist in the representation of those Guantánamo detainees who had been charged under the Military Commissions Act, subject to the detainees' consent. More than 30 lawyers agreed to work on the project.  Some of those lawyers have since been appointed by the Convening Authority of the military commissions to continue the representation of the detainees, including those charged with the 9/11 attacks and the attack on the USS Cole.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org

Below is a statement from American Civil Liberties Union Legal Director Steven R. Shapiro on today's Supreme Court decision in U.S. v. Jones, in which the ACLU filed a friend-of-the-court brief. The Court ruled that police need a warrant to put a GPS tracking device on a person's car. The ACLU supports bipartisan bills introduced in both the House and Senate (the GPS Act) that would require warrants for GPS and cell phone tracking.

"Today's decision is an important victory for privacy. While this case turned on the fact that the government physically placed a GPS device on the defendant's car, the implications are much broader. A majority of the Court acknowledged that advancing technology, like cell phone tracking, gives the government unprecedented ability to collect, store and analyze an enormous amount of information about our private lives. Today's decision suggests that the court is prepared to address that problem. Congress needs to address the problem as well."

More information on government location tracking (including cell phone tracking, other federal court decisions and pending legislation) is available at: www.aclu.org/tracked

Secrecy About the Legal Process Itself Undermines Integrity of the Judicial System

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org

BOSTON -- Today, the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts filed a motion for reconsideration of a judge's order sealing all pleadings and documents involving the motion to quash an administrative subpoena issued by the Suffolk District Attorney's office on December 14 to Twitter. The subpoena sought personally identifying information for an anonymous Twitter user known as "Guido Fawkes," or @p0isAn0n, as well as information on anyone "associated with" Twitter hashtags referencing Occupy Boston: #d0xcak3 and #BostonPD.

"We are asking the Court to unseal portions of the pleadings and transcripts, so that at least the process will no longer be kept hidden from the public," said Carol Rose, executive director of the ACLU of Massachusetts. "It is critically important that we challenge this kind of secrecy about the basics of what is taking place."

At the December 29 hearing challenging the subpoena, at the request of the government and over the objection of ACLU attorneys, Judge Carol Ball heard arguments by attorneys in secret. Several minutes of the proceedings were held with the judge talking only to prosecutors and excluding ACLU attorneys. Thereafter, the judge took the unusual step of ruling that the record of the proceedings and all documents filed were impounded by the court.

Attorneys on the case are Peter Krupp of Lurie & Krupp, LLP; John Reinstein, senior legal counsel, and Laura Rótolo, staff attorney, of the ACLU of Massachusetts; and Aden Fine, staff attorney with the national ACLU Speech, Privacy and Technology Project.

For more information about the case, go to:
http://aclum.org/twitter_subpoena

For more information about the ACLU of Massachusetts, go to:
http://www.aclum.org
 

LD 1095 Receives Unanimous Negative Vote

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org

Augusta – Today, the Legislature’s Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee voted unanimously against LD 1095, a bill designed to facilitate the creation and use of private prisons in Maine. The bill had been carried over from the legislature’s 2011 session. The ACLU of Maine testified against the bill, calling it both unwise and unnecessary. The following can be attributed to Shenna Bellows, Executive Director of the ACLU of Maine:

“The Criminal Justice committee did the right thing. At a time when Maine has more than enough prison space, building private prisons is bad for business and bad for Maine. We do not need to spend precious tax dollars so an out of state company can profit by locking up more Mainers.”

“Private prisons make more money when more people go to jail for longer, no matter what the cost to the rest of us.”

“The Maine Office of Program Evaluation and Government Accountability (OPEGA) has recently documented a pattern of problems of oversight and accountability for prison contractors. Those problems would only be magnified if we were to put more of our corrections system into the hands of private companies.”


 

Appeal Aims to Unseal Secret Orders to Other Internet Companies

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org

RICHMOND, Va. – Fighting to make public government efforts to obtain internet users’ private information without a warrant, today the American Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) plan to file an appeal in the legal battle over the records of several Twitter users in connection with the government’s WikiLeaks investigation.

The ACLU and EFF represent Icelandic parliament member Birgitta Jonsdottir. The appeal, filed jointly with other Twitter users Jacob Appelbaum and Rop Gonggrijp, challenges U.S. District Judge Liam O’Grady’s November decision refusing to unseal or publicly list all orders that may have been sent to companies other than Twitter and any related motions and court orders.

“These people want to try to protect their privacy and their First Amendment rights, and the government should not be able to prevent that by hiding court records. Our courts are public. Secret court orders and secret court dockets should not be permitted, except in extraordinary circumstances,” said Aden Fine, staff attorney with the ACLU Speech, Privacy and Technology Project. “This case is just one example of the unfortunate recent trend to make our court processes less open and transparent.”

Jonsdottir and the other Twitter users involved in the case did not appeal the judge’s decision requiring Twitter to turn over their records.

Attorneys for Jonsdottir are Fine of the ACLU, Rebecca Glenberg of the ACLU of Virginia and Cindy Cohn, Lee Tien and Marcia Hofmann of EFF. The motions were joined by attorneys from the law firm Keker & Van Nest LLP and the Law Office of John D. Cline on behalf of Jacob Appelbaum and Rop Gonggrijp, respectively, as well as local counsel in Virginia.

Case documents and more information are available at:
www.aclu.org/free-speech/twitter-wikileaks-court-order

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org

DETROIT – In a letter today, the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan urged the Plymouth-Canton Community School District to respect the constitutional rights of students and not ban the award-winning novels Beloved and Waterland from the Advanced Placement English curriculum. The books were flagged for removal following complaints from a student’s parents.

“It is alarming that a vocal minority has been successful in denying students these valuable works of literature," said Loren Khogali, ACLU of Michigan Metro Detroit Branch president. “Shutting down ideas in the classroom not only raises constitutional concerns, but goes against the very essence of our educational system. This incident is a stark reminder of the threats still facing educational freedom.”

Last month, teachers in Plymouth-Canton Community Schools were instructed by the district’s interim superintendent to remove Graham Swift’s Waterland from the AP English curriculum. He also submitted Toni Morrison’s Pulitzer-winning Beloved to be reviewed by an independent book review committee. The fate of Waterland will be decided when it is referred for review in the coming weeks. The decisions were made in response to complaints from two parents even though, in at least one case, the offended student was given an alternative book to read.

Since then, other parents and students have overwhelmingly opposed the ban during public meetings. An independent review committee is expected to release recommendations regarding the removal of Beloved tomorrow.

In its letter, the ACLU of Michigan reminded the district that although schools have broad discretion in setting curriculum, the U.S. Supreme Court has held repeatedly that banning books because they offend some runs afoul of the First Amendment. While parents have the right to guide their own child’s education, that right does not extend to restricting other students’ educational opportunities.

“Removing the books would not only deny all AP English students the opportunity to read, debate and learn from these two critically acclaimed literary works,” wrote the ACLU of Michigan. “But it would send the message to students that censorship of ideas is permitted in our democracy. Such a lesson contradicts fundamental constitutional values of our county – values that public schools are designed to teach.”

Waterland, a tale of history and a family's myth, was short-listed for the prestigious Booker prize when it was published, and the New York Times named the Pulitzer Prize-winning Beloved as "the single best work of American fiction published in the last 25 years." Beloved tells the heart wrenching story of an escaped slave haunted by the decision to kill her daughter rather than let her be recaptured.

The parents complained that Beloved’s exploration of sex, ghosts and infanticide was inappropriate for students. They also complained that Waterland contained sexual passages.

Since the American Library Association started the Banned Books Week tradition in 1982, more than 11,000 books have been challenged, 348 being reported to the ALA's Office of Intellectual Freedom in 2010 alone. According to the ALA, books are most frequently banned in schools and school libraries and sex, profanity, and racism are the most frequent reasons cited.

The ACLU began defending banned books with James Joyce's Ulysses in 1933.

The letter was signed by Khogali and Michael Steinberg and Sarah Mehta of the ACLU of Michigan.

To read the ACLU’s letter, go to: http://www.aclumich.org/sites/default/files/PlymouthCantonBannedBook.pdf
 

District Court Rules that “Arriving Aliens” May Not Be Subjected to Prolonged Detention Without a Hearing To Determine Whether Detention Is Justified

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org

SAN DIEGO — A district court today ruled that the Department of Homeland Security may not detain an immigrant for a prolonged period without proving that detention is justified in an individualized hearing. It is the first ruling to find that immigrants classified as “arriving aliens” – a large group encompassing all individuals stopped at the border, including asylum seekers – are entitled to fair hearing protections against arbitrary detention. DHS had argued that it has sole discretion to decide whether to detain or release an “arriving alien” and that the law does not require detention hearings.

The San Diego ACLU brought a habeas petition on behalf of Glorismel Centeno Ortiz in August 2011 after he had languished in immigration detention for three years. The government had held Centeno without a hearing to determine whether his detention was justified by classifying him as an “arriving alien,” a category that can apply even to individuals who have lived in the United States for decades with legal status. The government relies on Cold War-era rulings to justify its position that “arriving aliens” like Mr. Centeno have no due process rights to physical liberty.

Mr. Centeno, an asylum seeker who has lived in the United States since he was 11 years old was released from custody shortly after the ACLU filed the habeas petition. The government then argued that the habeas petition was moot.

Today’s ruling by Chief Judge Irma Gonzalez of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California rejected both the government’s mootness argument and its position that arriving aliens could be detained without so much as an individualized hearing to determine whether their detention is justified.

“Under the court’s ruling, asylum seekers who are fleeing persecution and torture in their home lands should finally receive a fair hearing to determine whether their detention serves any purpose,” said Sean Riordan, staff attorney of the San Diego ACLU. “For too long the government has withheld this kind of minimal due process protection to those who need it most.”

Centeno was brought to Los Angeles by his mother, who was fleeing the violence of the Salvadoran civil war, in which her brother was killed by guerillas. As a teenager, Centeno became entangled with gangs and was convicted of armed robbery and deported to El Salvador, even though his petition for asylum was still pending. Fearing for his life Centeno returned to Los Angeles and obtained counseling from Homies Unidos, an organization that helps young people leave gangs.

Since his return to the United Sates, Centeno has dedicated his life to helping other young men leave the life of gangs. He has lead camping trips and given talks at schools, all the while working as a dishwasher, car mechanic, air conditioning repairman and raising his son. According to a senior staff member at Homies Unidos, Centeno is “one of our most reliable and committed volunteers.”

In 2007, Centeno went to Tijuana to enjoy a night out with friends. When he returned to the border, he was immediately arrested and charged with criminal illegal reentry after deportation. In July 2008, a judge dismissed criminal charges against Centeno, but he remained in detention several more years, until his release in September.
 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org

WASHINGTON - The Obama administration announced today that it will keep in place a proposed rule from the Department of Health and Human Services that determines which essential services are covered by new health insurance plans. The administration resisted heavy pressure from the United States Conference on Catholic Bishops and other groups to permit a broad range of religiously affiliated organizations to deny contraception coverage to their employees. The administration’s decision will ensure effective birth control will be more affordable for millions of women.

“Virtually all women from all religious backgrounds use contraception at some point in their lives to protect their health and plan their families and their lives,” said Laura W. Murphy, director of the American Civil Liberties Union Washington Legislative Office. ”With today’s action, the administration refused to give religious employers the right to discriminate.”
 

Complaint Alleges High-Level Staff Knew Gangs of Deputies Beat Inmates and Condoned Cover-Ups

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2582 or 2666; media@aclu.org

LOS ANGELES – Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca and his top commanders condoned a long-standing, widespread pattern of violence by deputies against inmates in the county jails, the American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Southern California (ACLU/SC) charge in a federal class-action lawsuit filed today.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of two named plaintiffs, Alex Rosas and Jonathan Goodwin, who were savagely beaten and threatened with violence by deputies of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (L.A.S.D.) while they were pretrial detainees in the jail. As detailed in the complaint, the treatment of Rosas and Goodwin is not isolated – there are dozens of reports of similar brutality in the jails. The lawsuit seeks both injunctive and declaratory relief on behalf of all present and future inmates of the jails.

“Sheriff Lee Baca, Undersheriff Paul Tanaka, and Chief Dennis Burns are responsible for ensuring that their subordinates do not engage in a pattern of unspeakable acts of violence against inmates,” said Peter Eliasberg, legal director of the ACLU/SC. “But in the face of a longstanding pattern of deputy abuse they have deliberately and knowingly failed to put in place the basic pieces of an accountability system – sound policies on the use of force, adequate training, careful investigation of force incidents and a rigorous system of discipline. This suit is directed at them because they have allowed deputies to go unpunished, covered up their behavior and for years made no effort to reform this broken system.”

Los Angeles County has the largest jail system in the nation, with an average population of 15,000 inmates. The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, charges that Baca and his command staff had full knowledge of this pattern of violence and sought to conceal it from the public. The suit alleges violations of the inmates’ rights under the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to be free of cruel and unusual punishment and pretrial detainees’ rights under the Fourteenth Amendment’s prohibition of punishment prior to conviction.

“A sick culture of deputy-on-inmate hyper-violence has been flourishing for decades in the darkness of the L.A. County Jails, and this lawsuit will continue to help expose that culture to the light of day,” said Margaret Winter, associate director of the ACLU National Prison Project. “Because Sheriff Baca has recently taken an important first step -- publicly admitting there’s an enormous problem and expressing his commitment to reform -- we hope the sheriff and the ACLU will be able to reach a court-ordered injunction that will bring about profound and far-reaching changes.”

In September 2011, the ACLU issued a report documenting more than 70 recent cases of extreme deputy violence, and shortly thereafter the public learned the FBI had launched an expansive criminal probe into deputy-on-inmate violence in the county jails. In December 2011, the County Board of Supervisors convened a commission to investigate and make recommendations.

In addition to ACLU lawyers, a team of Paul Hastings attorneys led by Donna Melby and John Durrant will provide pro bono legal assistance to the plaintiffs in this case.

“We are honored to partner with the ACLU in bringing this worthy lawsuit,” said Durrant. “What we are talking about here goes well beyond having a ‘tough’ jail. There is a well-documented, chronic problem of brutality in the jails that must be redressed.”

More information about the case, including today’s complaint and a timeline detailing the ACLU’s fight to improve conditions in the Los Angeles County jail, is available at: www.aclu.org/prisoners-rights/rosas-et-al-v-baca-et-al