Blogs

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Wednesday, Sept. 1, 2010
Contact: Nikos Leverenz, ACLU press office 916/248-0338 or 916/996-9170

ACLU Sacramento Condemns Area Violence Targeting Places of Worship;
Position Consistent with ACLU Support of New York City Islamic Center

SACRAMENTO – The Sacramento County Chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) Wednesday joined the Council on American-Islamic Relations California (CAIR) and other civic groups to condemn the rash of violence targeting places of worship in the larger Sacramento area in recent years.

“We condemn and deplore violent acts of intimidation against houses of worship. They are wholly contrary to the culture of mutual respect and tolerance that we continue to strive for in this city,” said Nikos Leverenz, vice-chair of the Sacramento County ACLU.

Leverenz said the local ACLU position is consistent with the national ACLU's support if the building of a mosque and cultural center in lower Manhattan. That statement underscored the ACLU’s steadfast commitment to religious liberty, noting that it has “defended the right of all religious denominations — from majority faiths to marginalized religions — to establish places of worship, and for Americans to pray, or not, as they choose…. Preventing Muslims or any other group from freely practicing their faith is unconstitutional and goes against the very core of American freedom.”

ACLU Criticizes Sacramento City Council Decision to Muffle Public Comments

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Monday, Aug. 30, 2010
Contact: Jim Updegraff 916/421-5951 or ACLU press office 916/996-9170

Local ACLU urges Sacramento City Council to rescind decision to move public comment to end of meetings to 'best serve' interests of members of the public

SACRAMENTO – The local ACLU today weighed in on the Sacramento City Council's decision to move the public comment period to the end of its meetings, noting it "undoubtedly will preclude members of the public from having the opportunity to voice their grievances, concerns and comments to their elected representatives."

The ACLU asked the council rescind its decision.

"The Sacramento County Chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union strongly opposes moving the public comment period for issues not on the agenda from the start of meetings to the end of meetings. We assume...public servants would be anxious to hear from as many as possible of your constituents.

"(But) people will not be able to stay to the end of the meeting because they rely upon (public transit) for transportation, have family commitments or for health reasons cannot sit for the long hours meetings often run," said Jim Updegraff, chair of the ACLU of Sacramento County board of directors.

In his letter to the council, Updegraff urged the City Council to "change the public comment period back to the start of the meeting. Such action would best serve the people of the City of Sacramento."

Updegraff will attend the City Council meeting Tuesday and be available for comment before its start.

Court allows agents to secretly put GPS trackers on cars

(CNN) -- Law enforcement officers may secretly place a GPS device on a person's car without seeking a warrant from a judge, according to a recent federal appeals court ruling in California.

Drug Enforcement Administration agents in Oregon in 2007 surreptitiously attached a GPS to the silver Jeep owned by Juan Pineda-Moreno, whom they suspected of growing marijuana, according to court papers.

When Pineda-Moreno was arrested and charged, one piece of evidence was the GPS data, including the longitude and latitude of where the Jeep was driven, and how long it stayed. Prosecutors asserted the Jeep had been driven several times to remote rural locations where agents discovered marijuana being grown, court documents show.

Pineda-Moreno eventually pleaded guilty to conspiracy to grow marijuana, and is serving a 51-month sentence, according to his lawyer.

But he appealed on the grounds that sneaking onto a person's driveway and secretly tracking their car violates a person's reasonable expectation of privacy.

"They went onto the property several times in the middle of the night without his knowledge and without his permission," said his lawyer, Harrison Latto.

State court declares Roseville Galleria's speech rules unconstitutional

A state appellate court has declared that rules regulating talk among strangers at the Galleria at Roseville violate California Constitution free speech guarantees.

A Placer County judge earlier had thrown out the case, finding that the owner's rules of conduct pass constitutional muster.

But, in stark contrast, a three-judge panel of the 3rd District Court of Appeal declared this week in a 43-page opinion that "the rules are unconstitutional on their face" under the state constitution.

The panel reversed Placer Superior Court Judge Larry D. Gaddis' ruling in favor of Westfield LLC, and sent the case back to him for further proceedings.

The specific rule at issue prohibits a person in the center's common areas from "approaching patrons with whom he or she was not previously acquainted for the purpose of communicating with them on a topic unrelated to the business interests" of the mall or its tenants.

This one was released last month, but I'm not sure if we posted it and it is very important, so here it is.

Obama Administration In Danger Of Establishing "New Normal" With Worst Bush-Era Policies, Says ACLU

July 29, 2010
Group Releases 18-Month Review Of President's National Security Policies And Civil Liberties

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

NEW YORK – The Obama administration has repudiated some of the Bush administration's most egregious national security policies but is in danger of institutionalizing others permanently into law, thereby creating a troubling "new normal," according to a new report released today by the American Civil Liberties Union.

"Establishing a New Normal: National Security, Civil Liberties, and Human Rights Under the Obama Administration," an 18-month review of the Obama administration's record on national security issues affecting civil liberties, concludes that the current administration's record on issues of national security and civil liberties is decidedly mixed: President Obama has made great strides in some areas, such as his auspicious first steps to categorically prohibit torture, outlaw the CIA's use of secret overseas detention sites and release the Bush administration's torture memos, but he has failed to eliminate some of the worst policies put in place by President Bush, such as military commissions and indefinite detention. He has also expanded the Bush administration's "targeted killing" program.

California Marriage Ban Struck Down

ACLU Hails Historic Decision and Urges Efforts in Other States to Ensure Success on Appeal

For Immediate Release: August 4, 2010
Copyright Michael B. Woolsey

SAN FRANCISCO -- In a landmark decision today, a federal judge ruled that Proposition 8, the California ballot initiative that excluded same-sex couples from marriage in the state, violates the United States Constitution. The American Civil Liberties Union, the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR) and Lambda Legal filed two friend-of-the-court briefs in the case supporting the argument that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.

"Today's decision is a huge victory for the LGBT people of America. For the first time, a federal court has conducted a trial and found that there is absolutely no reason to deny same-sex couples the fairness and dignity of marriage," said James Esseks, Director of the ACLU Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Project. "At the same time, we know that this is not the end. In order to give this case the best possible chance of success as it moves through the appeals courts, we need to show that America is ready for same-sex couples to marry by continuing to seek marriage and other relationship protections in states across the country. It's simply not fair, and not legal, to continue to exclude committed same-sex couples from marriage.'

CAIR, ALC and ACLU Documenting FBI Surveillance Practices
Call for Stories & Know Your Rights

FBI Questioning(Sacramento, CA, 07/22/10) - The San Francisco Bay Area and Sacramento offices of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Asian Law Caucus (ALC) and the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California (ACLU) are working together to document surveillance practices of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) with respect to South Asian, Arab, and Muslim communities in Northern California, and the impacts of these practices.

In recent months, there has been a notable increase in complaints by community members of FBI visits. The community members who have reported visits by the FBI have been of diverse backgrounds, both ethnically and geographically, and varying levels of religious practice. We have seen a special emphasis on individuals who have ties to, or have visited Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen. Through this project, the ACLU, ALC, and CAIR seek to identify patterns of overly intrusive conduct and empower community members with information about their rights and the resources available to them. We are also interested in learning about positive interactions with the FBI to be sure our investigation is balanced.

The project plan is two-fold:

Let's Cut the Death Penalty and Save California $126 Million a Year
Ramona Ripston is the Executive Director of the ACLU of Southern California
Posted: July 19, 2010 02:34 PM

The California Supreme Court has just 'sentenced' our state's taxpayers to an additional debt of $180,000 more per year. How? The state's high court upheld the death penalty in two cases.

Imposing the death penalty adds enormously to the cost of prosecution and permanent lifetime housing for an inmate. The death penalty is certainly a polarizing public policy issue, but I wonder how many people realize that it's also a vortex-like drain on their own pocketbooks.

Whether you're for or against the death penalty, you are paying for it. And Californians are paying more for it than any other state. Here are the staggering numbers, from a report by the ACLU of Northern California:
$90,000 a year - taxpayers' extra cost of holding one inmate on death row, over and above the cost of keeping an inmate in the general prison population
$10.9 million - taxpayers' cost of one death penalty trial, based on the records of a sample of trials
$117 million a year - taxpayers' cost of seeking execution, after conviction, for inmates throughout the state

Altogether, Californians spend as much per year in pursuit of executions as the salaries of more than 2,500 experienced teachers, or 2,250 new California Highway Patrol officers.

URGENT PRESS ADVISORY
Sunday, July 11, 2010
For more information contact: Rebecca Sandoval 916 505-8947

Monday Daybook/Assignment Desk

LONG-AWAITED TRIAL TESTING GANG INJUNCTION
SET in YOLO COUNTY; COMMUNITY RALLIES MONDAY,
CALLING INJUNCTION UNNEEDED and RACIALLY BIASED

WOODLAND – Residents here and from surrounding counties will rally here Monday
morning at a 9 a.m. news conference at the entrance to Yolo County Courthouse
against a so-called “gang injunction” that civil libertarians say violates civil
rights and has been criticized by the community it purportedly seeks to protect.

Opening motions will be heard Monday morning, with a trial set for Tuesday in
Dept. 1 on the injunction that was first proposed and allowed to be implemented
several years ago despite protestations by residents of Broderick and Bryte who
claim the injunction is unneeded and racially motivated.

CLS v. Martinez: The Supreme Court Rightly Holds that Public Law Schools Can Deny Affiliation and Funding to Religious Groups that Discriminate Against Gay Students

By MARCI A. HAMILTON

Thursday, July 1, 2010

This Monday, June 28, the Supreme Court decided Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, striking a blow for higher education in the United States.

As I discussed in a prior column, the Christian Legal Society (CLS) argued that Hastings Law School (a public law school that is part of the University of California system) had discriminated against it. In particular, CLS claimed that the law school discriminatorily refused to place its imprimatur on CLS, or to provide CLS with the funding that student groups typically receive.

Why did Hastings withhold affiliation and funding from CLS? Because CLS's policies exclude homosexuals from positions of full membership or leadership in the organization.

Hastings has a non-discrimination policy -- reflecting California law -- that extends to "race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, disability, age, sex or sexual orientation," and it deemed the exclusion to constitute sexual-orientation discrimination.

The Court's decision in favor of Hastings is sound at every level, as I will explain.