LOS ANGELES, Calif. - The Los Angeles Police Department has provided a disappointing and inadequate response to a report that found racially biased policing in its ranks, a coalition of community groups told the Los Angeles Police Commission today.

The report, authored by Yale economist and law professor Ian Ayres, was released last fall by the ACLU of Southern California. The LAPD's long-awaited response - presented to the police commission today -- rejected a number of key recommendations made by Ayres, a renowned statistician who has authored several studies relating to issues of racially disparate treatment in a variety of areas.

'The response from the LAPD is profoundly disappointing,' said Ramona Ripston, executive director of the ACLU/SC. 'Professor Ayres has offered to work with the department to develop and refine efforts to identify racial profiling, and even to further analyze data on officer stops if the department makes that information public. But the department has simply refused to cooperate, and to date has shown no inclination to address the deficiencies identified in Professor Ayres' ground-breaking report.'

The report showed that black and Hispanic residents are stopped, frisked, searched and arrested by LAPD officers far more frequently than white residents. These racial disparities aren't explained by differing crime rates in predominantly black or Latino neighborhoods, or the likelihood that a search of a person of color will yield evidence of a crime, the report concluded.

Today's response by the LAPD focused, among other things, on denying that there is any measurable racial bias among its officers, and was inaccurate and misleading about some of the report's conclusions, Ripston and other coalition leaders charged.

Ayres said that 'the LAPD's response simply ignores the bulk of our analysis, including the most troubling evidence of racial disparity -- the disparities that occur, after the stop has been made, in officers' decisions to frisk, search and arrest.' Although he has posted the data and his analyses on his Web site to enable other academics to review and challenge his findings, he noted that the LAPD's response did not undertake any criticisms of his work at a level consistent with research standards in the field. 'The department emphasizes several recent changes to its training and procedures,' Ayres said. 'But the LAPD remains unwilling to release (or even to internally analyze) more recent data to test whether these changes have mitigated the racial disparities uncovered in the past.'

Rev. Eric Lee, president/CEO of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference of Greater Los Angeles, commented: 'The report released last fall showed irrefutably what many people in this

city have long known to be true - that there is a racial element to the policing of the LAPD. That must end. But we won't see progress toward that goal until the LAPD shows a willingness to work with community leaders and with experts like Professor Ayres who can provide insight into how to end unjustifiable police treatment of people of color throughout this city.'

Added Jorge-Mario Cabrera, director of education for the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles: 'When 1,200 claims of racial profiling are made by the Los Angeles community and not one is sustained by the LAPD, it raises grave concerns that our experience is not being taken into consideration by those charged with serving and protecting us. Our community deserves equal protection all the time, and we require assurances from the LAPD that it will work towards correcting behaviors that can further erode our trust in the men and women in blue.'

Ayres' report, titled A Study of Racially Disparate Outcomes in the Los Angeles Police Department, was released in October, and was based on a fresh analysis of the LAPD's own data. The LAPD had previously said that there was no consistent pattern of racial disparity in the policing across alI its divisions - a conclusion based on a study of the post-stop actions of its officers on 810,000 field data reports completed by LAPD officers nearly every time they stopped a vehicle or pedestrian between July 1, 2003 and June 30, 2004.

The LAPD provided the data to the ACLU/SC, pursuant to a request under the California Public Records Act. At the request of the ACLU/SC, Ayres re-examined the data. The police commission subsequently requested the LAPD to respond to the conclusions and recommendations in Ayres' report.

Among the recommendations that the department rejected were to require officers to take a test of latent racial bias, developed by psychologists, and for the LAPD to analyze officers' stop data on a regular basis to identify problem officers or groups. The latter is the report's single most important recommendation, yet the LAPD has made no meaningful effort to develop a methodology for such an analysis, and has not responded to Ayres' offer to assemble a team of experts to design an approach, said Peter Bibring, staff attorney for the ACLU/SC.

'We will continue to press the LAPD to take these and other reasonable and effective steps to root out racially biased policing,' Bibring said. 'Whether conscious or not, racial bias in policing exists. It's important for the department to acknowledge that and develop procedures that will help to identify and eliminate it.'

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.

San Francisco'The National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR), the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and Lambda Legal filed a reply brief on Jan. 5 in the California Supreme Court, the next step in the lawsuit seeking to overturn Proposition 8, which passed by a mere 52 percent on Nov. 4.

The brief argues that Proposition 8 is invalid because it seeks to eliminate a fundamental right only for a targeted minority, which cannot be done through the initiative process. The brief also agrees with California Attorney General Jerry Brown that certain fundamental rights, including the right to marry, are inalienable and can not be put up for a popular vote. The brief also argues 'again in agreement with the Attorney General'that Proposition 8 cannot be applied to invalidate existing marriages because new laws and amendments are presumed to apply only on a prospective basis.

"If Prop 8 is permitted to stand, it would be the first time an initiative has successfully been used to change the California Constitution to take way an existing right only from a historically targeted minority group," said NCLR Legal Director Shannon Minter. "Such a change would defeat the very purpose of a constitution and fundamentally alter the role of the courts in protecting minority rights."

On Nov. 19, 2008, the California Supreme Court granted review in the legal challenges to Proposition 8, and established an expedited briefing schedule, under which briefing will be completed in Jan. 2009, with amicus curiae or "friend-of-the-court" briefs due on Jan. 15. Oral argument potentially could be held as early as March 2009.

Elizabeth Gill, a staff attorney with the ACLU, added "Prop. 8 is a radical and unprecedented change to the California Constitution that puts all Californians at risk. It actually mandates government discrimination against a minority."

In May of 2008, the California Supreme Court held that laws that treat people differently based on their sexual orientation violate the equal protection clause of the California Constitution and that same-sex couples have the same fundamental right to marry as other Californians. Proposition 8 would completely eliminate this fundamental right only for same-sex couples. No other initiative has ever successfully changed the California Constitution to take away a right only from a targeted minority group.

"Prop. 8 is not valid and never has been," said Jennifer Pizer, Lambda Legal National Marriage Project Director. " California's Equal Protection clause was not written in sand, to be erased by shifting political tides. It's a solid guarantee that we all have the same rights and it's the foundation of our government. Exceptions can't be carved by simple majority vote or the equality guarantee becomes a discrimination guarantee. No initiative can cause such a profound change in our legal system."

NCLR, Lambda Legal, and the ACLU filed this challenge on Nov. 5, representing Equality California, whose members include many same-sex couples who married between June 16 and November 4, 2008, and six same-sex couples who want to marry in California. The California Supreme Court has also agreed to hear two other challenges filed on the same day: one filed by the City and County of San Francisco (joined by Santa Clara County and the City of Los Angeles, and subsequently by Los Angeles County and other local governments); and another filed by a private attorney. These three cases are jointly under review by the California Supreme Court.

Serving as co-counsel on the case with NCLR, Lambda Legal, and the ACLU are the Law Office of David C. Codell, Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP, and Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP.

The National Center for Lesbian Rights is a national legal organization committed to advancing the civil and human rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people and their families through litigation, public policy advocacy, and public education.

Lambda Legal is a national organization committed to achieving full recognition of the civil rights of lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, transgender people and those with HIV through impact litigation, education and public policy work.

The American Civil Liberties Union is America's foremost advocate of individual rights. It fights discrimination and moves public opinion on LGBT rights through the courts, legislatures and public education.

Founded in 1998, Equality California celebrates its 10th anniversary in 2008, commemorating a decade of building a state of equality in California. EQCA is a nonprofit, nonpartisan, grassroots-based, statewide advocacy organization whose mission is to achieve equality and civil rights of all lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) Californians.