LOS ANGELES - Michael Tocher was a peaceful man with a megaphone and a message of protest when Santa Barbara police arrested him on Veteran's Day in 2004. Today the ACLU/SC announced a settlement of its lawsuit against the city over his wrongful arrest.

Tocher was handcuffed and searched on Nov. 11, 2004, as he read the names of U.S. soldiers who died in Iraq. According to court filings, he read 400 of the 1,200 names through a megaphone before police arrived and arrested him without explanation or a warning. He was later cited for disturbing the peace and spent several hours in police custody.

Under the terms of the settlement filed in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles, the City of Santa Barbara will pay $17,000 in damages to Tocher and adopt a new policy and training to protect the free speech rights of its residents.

"The irony is that I was recognizing the sacrifices of American troops in a peaceful and respectful way," said Tocher, a father of two who has continued his Veteran's Day tradition. "I filed this case so my own kids won't have to face the tyranny of having someone else's will imposed on them.'"

"In this country you can't go to jail just because someone doesn't like what you say or how loudly you say it," said ACLU/SC staff attorney Peter Bibring. "This settlement will ensure that Santa Barbara residents aren't arrested when they voice their opinions about their government."

The ACLU/SC filed a claim for damages on Tocher's behalf in May 2005, and the city of Santa Barbara fought it for a year and a half before a judge ruled in November 2006 that his arrest was unlawful and a result of the city's failure to train its officers properly about its disturbing the peace ordinance.

The new police department policy states that "the Constitution guarantees the right to protest in a peaceful manner" and explains that "officers responding to disturbance complaints during demonstrations must be cognizant of demonstrators' rights." The policy creates new procedures to ensure protestors are not arrested without prior warning or legal justification.

SAN FRANCISCO -- In a brief filed today with the California Supreme Court, attorneys representing same-sex couples, Equality California and Our Family Coalition urged the court to strike down as unconstitutional a law that bars same-sex couples from marriage. The couples and organizations are represented by lead counsel the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR), Lambda Legal, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Heller Ehrman LLP, and the Law Office of David C. Codell.

'We are hopeful that the California Supreme Court will recognize that same-sex couples form committed relationships just like straight couples and shouldn't be barred from the dignity and universal recognition that comes with marriage,' said Alex Cleghorn, a staff attorney with the ACLU of Northern California. 'While domestic partnerships provide families with some legal protections, the marriage ban is a painful reminder that same-sex relationships are considered unworthy of marriage.'

The brief filed today charges that state law barring same-sex couples from marriage discriminates based on sexual orientation and sex and violates the fundamental right to marry, which is protected by the California Constitution's guarantees of privacy, intimate association and due process.

"We've seen in our new domestic partnership case in Orange County and from work with lesbians and gay men in domestic partnerships throughout the state that without access to marriage, same-sex couples and their families are still vulnerable under the law," said Lambda Legal Senior Counsel Jennifer C. Pizer. "Lesbian and gay couples in domestic partnerships are constantly having to prove that their relationships are entitled to legal protections and basic respect'but because people don't understand and fully respect domestic partnerships, couples face significant hardships."

The California Supreme Court agreed to hear the case after the California Court of Appeal reversed a decision by San Francisco Superior Court Judge Richard A. Kramer finding that barring same-sex couples from marriage unconstitutionally discriminates on the basis of sex and violates the fundamental right to marry.

'More same-sex couples live in California than in any other state,' said Shannon Minter, Legal Director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, who argued before the Court. 'Barring these committed couples from marriage is harmful and unfair. A person's sexual orientation is irrelevant to their ability to forge enduring human bonds and to create a family. Marriage is a cherished legal protection, and it should be equally available to all.'

In 2005, the California Legislature passed AB 849 (sponsored by Assemblyman Mark Leno), the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act, which would allow same-sex couples to marry in California. A similar bill, AB 43 (also sponsored by Leno) was reintroduced in December of last year and will be heard in committee later this month.

'Validating and protecting the relationships of loving and committed couples through marriage is good for California and furthers the state's interest in promoting family relationships and protecting family members during times of crisis,' said Geoff Kors, executive director of EQCA, the sponsor of AB 43. 'We hope the state will end the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage in the near future so all couples will have the social support and legal protections marriage provides.'

The 15 represented couples have made life-long commitments to each other. Phyllis Lyon and Del Martin have been together more than 50 years. Karen Shane and Judy Sokolower have been together more than 30 years. The couples come from throughout the state and from all walks of life, with some working in business, some in education, and others in health professions. Many of the couples are raising children together and others are retired.

More than 250 religious and civil rights organizations, including the California NAACP, Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, California Council of Churches, Asian Pacific American Legal Center, and National Black Justice Coalition, have filed friend-of-the-court briefs in support of marriage for same-sex couples.

This Supreme Court is considering six marriage cases under the title "In re Marriage Cases." The briefs filed today and other information about the case are available at www.aclu.org/caseprofiles, www.nclrights.org; www.lambdalegal.org; and at www.eqca.org.

LAKE FOREST - Nearly three weeks after the ACLU of Southern California filed a lawsuit to protect the free speech of day laborers in Lake Forest, the City Council voted to repeal the unconstitutional law. The ordinance prohibited people from soliciting employment while standing on sidewalks in the city.

'Laws like these have no place in our country,' said ACLU/SC staff attorney and Equal Justice Works Fellow Nora Preciado. 'The Constitution protects everyone living in our country, and cities can not choose who may speak on their public sidewalks.'

The ACLU/SC filed its suit March 1. Lake Forest agreed to stop enforcement of the ordinance on March 16, and the City Council voted to repeal it on March 20.

The ACLU/SC lawsuit also targeted city enforcement actions that discourage day laborers from seeking work, and the City Council's vote does not end the lawsuit.

'The city's decision to repeal this unconstitutional law is an important step, but it does not resolve our concern that day laborers in Lake Forest are unfairly targeted by police when they try to seek work,' said Preciado. 'We will keep the pressure on to make sure workers' rights are not violated.'

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of the National Day Laborer Organizing Network (NDLON), Colectivo Tonantzin, and the Association of Workers from Lake Forest.

'Now that the law is repealed, it's time to come together as a community and find solutions that work for all residents of Lake Forest,' said Pablo Alvarado, national coordinator of NDLON.