LOS ANGELES, Calif. - The city of Ontario has approved a legal settlement with officers from its own police department who sued over being secretly and illegally videotaped while dressing and undressing in the department's men's locker room. The class-action lawsuit was brought on behalf of about 125 Ontario police officers by the ACLU of Southern California and the law firm of Hadsell, Stormer, Keeny, Richardson and Renick LLP.

The $2.75 million settlement, which includes attorney's fees, was approved by the Ontario City Council on Tuesday night and will be divided among the officers. The settlement brings the long-running case to a close and avoids a trial -- originally scheduled to begin in U.S. District Court in Riverside yesterday - to determine the amount of damages to be awarded, and whether the secret taping was authorized by then-Police Chief Lloyd Scharf and one of his lieutenants.

The ACLU/SC had already won a judgment that the locker-room surveillance violated the Fourth Amendment. That decision was affirmed in 2006 by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.

Peter Eliasberg, managing attorney for the ACLU/SC, said he's glad the city finally stood up and accepted responsibility for the illegal surveillance and attempts by city employees to cover it up after the video recording device was discovered. 'What was particularly outrageous about this case was that police supervisors would install video surveillance in a place that is obviously set aside for privacy, and that they would do it without a search warrant. Most members of the Ontario Police Department know from their academy training that you simply can't do that sort of thing,' Eliasberg said.

Ontario Police Detective Scott Anderson, one of the named plaintiffs in the case, said that he and his fellow officers 'are happy this is behind us, but disappointed that we won't be able to put on our case and show everybody the deception and violation of trust that occurred. It has been very stressful for the city to deny for the last four years what they did.'

The ACLU/SC and its legal partners filed a class-action lawsuit against the department and Scharf in 2004, one year after a hidden camera was found in the police department's men's locker room.

A member of the Ontario Police Department first arranged for the installation of the surveillance camera inside the locker room sometime around 1996, and later stated it was 'authorized' by higher ranking officers. The camera was concealed in the ceiling of the room which provided a view of the door, the adjacent lockers and a dressing area. The camera was attached to a videotape recorder in a nearby office. It remained there until it was discovered during the department's move into new headquarters in 2003.

All the persons identified on the single videotape that was found were represented in the lawsuit.

'This settlement agreement will bring closure to police officers who were put in the unfair and stressful position of confronting their own supervisors and department over something they knew was illegal,' said Anne Richardson, a partner with Hadsell Stormer. 'A locker room is not an appropriate place for secret surveillance, and police officers are entitled to the same privacy rights that we all have in such a location.'

LOS ANGELES, Calif. - The American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California and the Bear Valley Unified School District announced today that they will enter into a settlement that will protect students' right to free speech.

Under the agreement, the district will update its speech and dress code to reflect the constitutionally protected rights of free expression and speech that all students enjoy. In the spirit of promoting these constitutionally protected rights, the district and the ACLU/SC, will jointly organize a forum for teachers and students to provide them with accurate information about students' free-speech rights and California's nondiscrimination policies. At the request of district officials, the ACLU/SC will also provide training for teachers on California law governing nondiscrimination and student speech.

'We applaud the district for swiftly acting to ensure that every student is guaranteed his or her constitutionally protected right to free speech, especially on controversial political matters,' said Peter Bibring, ACLU/SC staff attorney. 'The new policy sends a strong message that the rights of students under California law will be respected, while helping to clarify those rights for students and educators.'

The agreement arose from an incident on Nov. 3, one day before California voters cast their ballots on Proposition 8. That day, Mariah Jimenez wore a T-shirt to school on which she had written, 'Prop. 8 Equals HATE.' The proposition sought to amend the state constitution and prohibit same-sex marriage.

During Jimenez' sixth-period class, a teacher objected to the shirt and sent Jimenez to the principal's office, who insisted Jimenez either take off the shirt or remain in his office. Jimenez took off the shirt and returned to class.

In a two-page letter to Jimenez, district Superintendent Carole Ferraud acknowledged that school officials violated the student's constitutionally protected free-speech rights by forcing her to choose between removing her T-shirt or staying in the principal's office.

'We know that students do not shed their rights to freedom of speech or expression when they enter the school grounds and the fact that you were put in a position to have to make a choice between removing your shirt or remaining in the administration office was, in fact, a violation of your freedom of speech,' Ferraud stated in the letter sent to Jimenez today. 'The district extends apologies to you for taking adverse actions based on your lawful right to free speech.'

Upon hearing about the settlement Jimenez said, 'I'm glad the district apologized and recognized that I was exercising my free-speech rights. As a student, it's very important to me to be able to express myself and my political views about discrimination. With this settlement, I believe I have done something to protect other students' rights.'

The district has agreed to revise its policy to include language that explicitly states the speech protections guaranteed to students under established state and federal law, including the right to exercise freedom of speech and press by using bulletin boards, buttons and other materials not sanctioned by the school, as long as the speech is not obscene, libelous or slanderous, or creates a clear and present danger.

'The school district should be commended for using this opportunity to educate both teachers and students about the importance of free speech and nondiscrimination,' said Lori Rifkin, staff attorney for the ACLU/SC.

The California Supreme Court will hear oral arguments challenging Prop. 8 on Thursday, March 5, 2009. We join a coalition of civil rights groups, religious organizations, labor unions, and legal scholars in arguing that Proposition 8 is invalid because the people of California have established strict safeguards that prohibit the underlying principles of the California Constitution from being changed by a simple majority vote. By taking away a right only from one group, Proposition 8 violates the most basic principle of our government: that all people are entitled to equal treatment under the law.
California Attorney General Jerry Brown is also asking the Court to invalidate Proposition 8 on the ground that certain fundamental rights, including the right to marry, are inalienable and can not be put up for a popular vote.

New Outreach Campaign Launched (2.2.09)

The ACLU of Southern California has partnered with Join the Impact and other national LGBT groups on Tell3, a Web-based public education campaign encouraging LGBT people and their supporters to have three conversations with friends and family to help build support for LGBT equality. Take a look, and spread the word!

Overview of the Prop 8 Challenge (1.9.09)

On November 5, 2008, the day after Proposition 8 was approved by voters, the California ACLU affiliates joined with the National Center for Lesbian Rights, Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc., and the law offices of David C. Codell, Munger, Tolles & Olson, and Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe to file suit in the California Supreme Court to invalidate Proposition 8.
We argue that Proposition 8 is a revision to the California Constitution, rather than an amendment, and therefore cannot be adopted by a simple majority vote on an initiative. Revisions, unlike amendments, must be approved by a two-thirds vote of the legislature before being submitted to the voters or a constitutional convention. Our position is that Proposition 8 is a revision because it subverts the constitutional guarantee of equal protection, allowing a simple majority of voters to deprive a particularly vulnerable minority, such as LGBT people, of fundamental rights, and prevents courts from exercising their unique responsibility to uphold the equal protection rights of minorities.
Our case, Strauss et al. v. Horton et al., was consolidated with cases filed by other plaintiffs, including various individuals and a coalition of cities and counties. The California Supreme Court agreed to decide the case in the first instance, without waiting for lower courts to address the issue. The court placed similar cases, filed by other plaintiffs including various civil rights and religious organizations, on hold pending the outcome in Strauss and its companion cases.
The court allowed proponents of Proposition 8 to intervene in the case to attempt to defend its validity.
In its November 19 order, the court directed the parties to brief the following issues:
(1) Is Proposition 8 invalid because it is a revision rather than an amendment to the California Constitution?
(2) Does Proposition 8 violate the separation of powers doctrine under the California Constitution?
(3) If Proposition 8 is not unconstitutional, what is its effect, if any, on the marriages of same-sex couples performed before its adoption?
On Friday, December 19, 2008, the intervenors filed their brief and the state filed its brief.
Unsurprisingly, the proponents of Proposition 8 claim it is a valid amendment. They also argue that it retroactively invalidates marriages of same-sex couples performed before its adoption.
The state Attorney General argues Proposition 8 is invalid because the initiative process may not deprive persons of certain fundamental rights without a compelling justification, which is not present in this case. The state also argues that even if it is valid, Proposition 8 is not retroactive.