LOS ANGELES, Calif. - The ACLU of Southern California and the law firm of Irell & Manella LLP along with Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California, Irvine School of Law, have jointly sued Laguna Beach over the affluent beach city's unconstitutional and inhumane policy of harassing, intimidating, citing and arresting disabled homeless people. The lawsuit - on behalf of certain homeless residents -- was filed today in federal district court in Orange County.

According to its official Web site, Laguna Beach features a "resort environment" that includes "picturesque beaches" and "blufftop walkways." But the city works hard to keep chronically homeless people who suffer from physical and mental disabilities out of these areas. In a long and deliberately coordinated campaign, officers of the Laguna Beach Police department wake and subject the homeless people to harassment, threats and intimidation; conduct unjustified stops of them that result in middle-of-the-night interrogations, demands for identification and warrant checks; and confiscate their property, among other punitive steps. The police have gone so far as to cite, fine and arrest homeless residents for nothing more than sleeping, an involuntary act.

"In Laguna Beach, there are more art galleries than city shelter beds for homeless people," said Mark Rosenbaum, legal director of the ACLU/SC. "Yet city leaders are criminalizing a group of people who struggle on a daily basis to cope with their mental illnesses or other disabilities, whether aware of them or not, and who are seeking no more than the comfort and values of this season within their community. This year, the role of Scrooge goes to these Laguna city leaders."

"When we were first asked to help the homeless with respect to the city's anti-sleeping ordinance, we thought the issue would be resolved quickly because the right answer is obvious," added Andra Barmash Greene, the managing partner of Irell & Manella LLP's Newport Beach office. "In observing the city's task force meetings during 2007 and upon reviewing the task force's recommendations -- which the City Council wholly adopted -- and following an initial discussion with city officials, we thought the city was headed in the right direction."

"Unfortunately, that turned out not to be the case. To date, the city has not rescinded the citations it issued against its homeless residents for sleeping, a basic human necessity, and it has not repealed its unconstitutional ordinance. Our clients were left with no alternative but to seek assistance from the courts," she said.

Erwin Chemerinsky, founding dean of the Donald Bren School of Law at UC Irvine and a co-counsel in the lawsuit, noted that "the conduct of city leaders in their treatment of mentally and physically disabled homeless people violates the clear mandate of the Constitution."

The lawsuit was filed after discussions over the last year between city officials and attorneys representing the homeless failed to yield necessary revisions to Laguna Beach's policy toward homeless persons. Earlier this year, the Laguna Beach City Council adopted recommendations from the city's own homeless task force -- whose members included the current and former city mayors - supporting better mental-health care and transitional housing services for homeless people. Unfortunately, the City Council has not acted on these recommendations, and decided instead to continue the criminalization of the homeless in Laguna Beach.

The city task force's report concluded that there are an estimated 45 to 55 homeless people living in Laguna Beach. More recent estimates put the figure as high as 70, but that is still less than .2 percent of the city's overall population - a relatively small number that the city should easily be able to address with appropriate services. Nearly all the homeless people in Laguna Beach meet the definition of "chronically homeless" who have mental or physical disabilities, the task force noted.

One plaintiff in the lawsuit suffers from epilepsy and often sleeps under a tree in a park. He has been awakened repeatedly by police shining flashlights in his face, and subsequently has been interrogated, checked for warrants and had his possessions searched without his consent. Intimidating wakeup calls such as this, despite the police's familiarity with his and other homeless residents' disabilities and chronic homeless status, have exacerbated his disability and that of other homeless residents of Laguna Beach.

"The policy of city leaders of Laguna Beach toward the homeless stands out in its mean-spiritedness and short-sightedness," said Hector Villagra, director of the Orange County office of the ACLU/SC. "It disregards homeless people's basic needs, and it is costly and ineffective. The city's task force noted studies showing that providing housing with services costs less than having homeless people on the streets."

The lawsuit does not seek to make sleeping in public places legal generally, but to enjoin the city from harassing and intimidating the homeless, particularly for the involuntary and necessary act of sleeping. The long-term solution is for the city to provide more shelter support and services that can help chronically homeless people get off the streets and into supportive environments where their disabilities can be treated. Currently there are no beds regularly available to the city's homeless residents, while the lone nonprofit rehabilitative center south of downtown Laguna Beach has limited sleeping space and strict rules that make it difficult for chronically homeless residents to qualify for one of its beds. In spite of this, the city recently withheld approval of permits for the relocation of a private resource center that tries to assist the homeless, and rejected the notion of a homeless outreach court within the city limits that would have enabled homeless residents to deal practically with infractions issued against them by the Laguna Beach Police Department.

LOS ANGELES, Calif. - The Los Angeles Unified School District must continue to run desegregation programs that provide all children access to a quality education, a state court of appeal ruled today in a decision that agreed with the ACLU of Southern California's position that the key programs should stand.

In the ruling, the 2nd District Court of Appeal rejected a legal challenge brought by the American Civil Rights Foundation, a group founded by Ward Connerly, which argued that the LAUSD's transportation and magnet school programs violated Proposition 209. That state ballot measure, passed by California's voters in 1996, prevents public institutions from granting preferences based on race, sex or ethnicity unless they are court-ordered.

Representing students and their parents, the ACLU/SC was one of two community groups that were allowed to intervene in the case.

'We're delighted that the court of appeal agreed that these desegregation programs are court-ordered and therefore are legally protected under Proposition 209,' said Catherine Lhamon, racial justice director for the ACLU/SC. 'Today's decision means that 56,000 students and families belonging to a wide variety of racial and ethnic groups will continue each year to benefit from the educational and career opportunities that the LAUSD's magnet and transportation programs make possible.'

The appellate court determined that the magnet school and transportation programs, intended to desegregate the district, were ordered and subsequently approved in Superior Court, and remained in effect at the time of the passage of Proposition 209. The programs therefore 'fall beyond the reach' of Proposition 209, the appellate court's decision said.

Many of the LAUSD's magnet schools are among its highest achieving, and have been a hopeful sign for district that has long struggled with low graduation rates and racially and economically divided schools.

'Today's decision has statewide implications because it confirms a line of lower-court opinions that have consistently held that Proposition 209 does not categorically bar school-district desegregation efforts - and that, instead, school districts must continue to take steps to desegregate schools in ways that are consistent with Proposition 209,' Lhamon noted.

'The court today rebuffed the misguided agenda of an isolated group that tries to stop desegregation efforts by hiding behind an overreaching misinterpretation of Proposition 209. California families can take comfort in today's court decision protecting all our rights to educational opportunity.'

Connerly's group originally challenged the legality of the district's programs in 2005. In 2007, a Superior Court judge upheld the district's use of race in determining admission to the programs, but Connerly's group appealed, leading to today's decision.

LOS ANGELES, Calif. - The Los Angeles City Council has approved a settlement that bans LAPD officers patrolling Skid Row from conducting unconstitutional searches of homeless individuals, and requires that officers undergo crucial training regarding the constitutional requirements to search and detain people.

The settlement with the ACLU/SC, National Lawyers Guild attorney Carol Sobel and the law firm of Hadsell Stormer Keeny Richardson & Renick LLP resolves a lawsuit against the LAPD for its unconstitutional searches of the homeless, and for probation sweeps that effectively criminalized homeless individuals.

During the first year of the city's so-called 'Safer Cities Initiative' on Skid Row, the LAPD gave out 12,000 citations, about twice the citywide average. Most of those infractions were for pedestrian violations. Residents and service providers complain police stop, detain, cite and arrest Skid Row residents for trivial violations like jaywalking or littering, making it more difficult for people to leave the streets behind.

'This settlement will ensure important checks on the LAPD's aggressive tactics on Skid Row. The constitution protects every Angeleno against unlawful stops and searches, from those living in Hollywood Hills to those sleeping on the streets of downtown,' said Peter Bibring, an ACLU/SC staff attorney. 'But abuses are bound to occur as long as the city tries to address homelessness on Skid Row as a law enforcement problem rather than a social problem. Especially at this time of year when many families are without homes, we hope that this agreement will help the city reframe its priorities and provide badly needed supportive housing and services that have successfully reduced homelessness in other cities.'

Added Sobel: 'This is an important step in protecting the rights of the poorest residents of our city. Now the work begins to see it is put into practice.'

Two years ago, Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa launched the Safer Cities Initiative, billing it as a multi-faceted, enlightened approach to deal with homelessness that would include supportive housing and transitional services. But no new housing or services have materialized.

Instead, according to studies, the city has flooded the area with police officers creating a law enforcement concentration hundreds of times greater than in other parts of the city. Meanwhile, police have stepped up enforcement of minor violations often targeting the most vulnerable.

Under the settlement, officers who are on the front lines of the LAPD's cleanup of downtown's Skid Row will be provided with scenario-based training on lawful stops, searches and detainment. However, the Safer Cities Initiative continues to be the subject of ongoing community opposition and litigation.

The one-hour mandatory training will focus on federal laws that prohibit officers from using minor infractions such as jaywalking or sleeping on the sidewalk as a pretext to search or detain individuals when there is no evidence that a crime has been committed.