ACLU of Southern California, Public Counsel and Community Rights Campaign say schools and parents, not police and courts, are best way to keep youth in school

Parents, students and civil rights groups will announce revised Los Angeles Police Department procedures aimed to reduce the number of daytime curfew tickets written to students, particularly African American and Latino students. The revised procedures are a result of collaboration and discussions between the Public Counsel, the Community Rights Campaign, and the ACLU of Southern California - groups that work to keep students in school - and the LAPD, the Mayor's office, and administrators from the Partnership for Los Angeles Schools.

According to LAPD and Los Angeles School Police data requested by the groups, police issued more than 47,000 tickets from 2004 to 2009 - 88% of them to African American and Latino students, who make up only 74% of Los Angeles students. Curfew fines can cost more than $240 and require students and their families to miss additional time from school and work to go to court to resolve them.

The revisions to the plan state that LAPD ticket task forces generally will not occur during the first hour of classes, directs police to help students get back to school rather than ticketing them, and makes other changes to reduce unnecessary tickets.

'Students belong in school, not in court. Something is wrong when African American and Latino youth are being singled out in alarming numbers by police. This send students the wrong message, and leads to court fines, lost wages for parents, and missing valuable class time that students and families can't afford,' said Laura Faer, Education Rights Director at Public Counsel.

'It is our goal to make every effort to ensure our students are attending school where they will obtain the education and guidance necessary to become productive citizens within our community,' said LAPD Chief Charlie Beck. 'It is not our intention to target our youths or to place undue burdens on their families. By making sure they attend school, we avoid any potential of our youths becoming either victims or preyed upon and encouraged to become involved in criminal activities.'

'The best place to get help is in school and in the community, not in a courtroom. These new LAPD procedures are an important step to ensure that students can begin feeling welcomed in their own school and not have to worry about facing down police sweeps, tickets or handcuffs, for the mere act of coming late to school; young people in need, need supportive services not suppression,' said Manuel Criollo, Lead Organizer at the Community Rights Campaign.

'We want to thank the LAPD, and especially Chief Beck and Chief Paysinger, for their collaboration with the community to put in place procedures that will lessen the undue hardships on low-income families and also help youth stay in school,' said David Sapp, Staff Attorney at the ACLU of Southern California.

There are dozens of reasons why students are late or truant, ranging from emotional and mental health problems, school environment, academic challenges, special education needs, economic pressures, substance abuse, physical or emotional abuse in the home, lack of adequate transportation, fear of being harmed at school, bullying, and more. Research shows that schools, not courts, are the best way to address the underlying problems that cause truancy.

The revisions to the LAPD procedures were adopted April 1 and, if fully implemented:

• Ticket task forces generally will not be conducted during the first hour of classes.
• It will reduce unnecessary court involvement for students traveling to school.
• It reinforces the requirement that police must ask students if they have a legitimate excuse before writing them a ticket.
• It directs police to help students get back to school rather than ticketing which may result in fines directed by the courts.
• It ends ticketing on school grounds, where school authorities should be responsible for reaching out to students.
• It requires a proactive quarterly monitoring process for the first year to review tickets and the ticketing process and to assess whether the policy is being implemented.
• It makes clear that truancy task forces, also known in the community as truancy sweeps, should not be conducted arbitrarily and without a legitimate and substantiated reason.

Public Counsel, the Community Rights Campaign, and the ACLU-SC announced they would monitor the revised procedures to ensure that students are being protected.

A federal court issued a ruling to ensure greater due process protections for individuals held in detention while they seek judicial review of their deportation orders. The court held that the government could not detain Vijendra Singh, who was held for nearly four years while the courts considered his challenge to his deportation order, without '''clear and convincing evidence' that his detention was necessary. In addition, the court ordered the government to maintain recordings of all detention proceedings in cases such as his, to allow for greater judicial oversight and accountability. The court's decision will likely assist hundreds of individuals who seek judicial review of their deportation orders.
The Ninth Circuit's decision is a victory for all immigrants, because the courts have forced the government to comply with basic due process protections in its treatment of people facing deportation,' said Ahilan Arulanantham, Deputy Legal Director of the ACLU of Southern California.
Vijendra Singh is a native of Fiji, who was admitted to the United States in 1979 on a visitor's visa. He became a lawful permanent resident in 1981 and has been married to Babita Singh, also a U.S. resident since 1985. They have five children, all of whom are U.S. citizens. In April 2007, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) charged that he could be deported because he had previous criminal convictions. Singh was taken into ICE custody on April 10, 2007 and has remained in custody while his deportation case remains pending.
In its decision, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the bond hearing at which Mr. Singh was determined to be a flight risk and a danger failed to meet minimum due process standards. The court held that the government must justify the need to hold Mr. Singh for such an extended period of time by a heightened standard of proof "clear and convincing evidence" due to the significant deprivation of his liberty.
'''The requirement of a "clear and convincing" standard reflects the court's recognition of the significant emotional and financial toll faced by individuals who are forced to spend years separated from their loved ones while in detention,' said Judy Rabinovitz, Deputy Director of the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project.
The court's decision that hearings must be audio taped also establishes an important due process protection. In Mr. Singh's case, an immigration judge found that Mr. Singh was not a flight risk during his bond hearing, but then inexplicably wrote just the opposite several weeks later when issuing a written order refusing to release Mr. Singh on bond. In the words of the court, an audio recording is necessary to protect against 'post-hoc reconstruction[s]' of bond hearings, particularly in the face of impending appeals, and to provide a '''record of sufficient completeness.'
'''No longer can an individual be deprived of his or her liberty for months and years at a time without basic protections like a recording that allow for adequate review and transparency,' said Professor Jayashri Srikantiah, Director of Stanford Law School's Immigrants' Rights Clinic.
Mr. Singh was represented by Professor Holly Cooper and law students Kelly Martin and Scott Grzenczyk of the UC Davis Immigration Law Clinic. The ACLU of Southern California, ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project and the Stanford Law School Immigrants' Rights Clinic submitted a '''friend of the court' brief.