LOS ANGELES - In response to action taken by the ACLU of Southern California, the state Department of Corrections has concluded that excluding HIV positive inmates from its spousal family visitation program is discriminatory and contrary to federal law.

The decision, which was received by the ACLU this month, comes after a Southern California married couple, who has been together for six years, was excluded from family visits according to the Department's then-existing policy, even though the spouse agreed to sign a document acknowledging that she was aware of her husband's HIV status.

"We are pleased that the DOC recognized its mistake swiftly," said ACLU/SC staff attorney Christine P. Sun. "A blanket rule that discriminates against and isolates those with HIV sends the wrong message and is illegal. Cutting off inmates from their spouses just because they have HIV not only irreparably harms their relationship, but also wrongfully discriminates on the basis of disability."

The ACLU of Southern California was originally contacted by a Southern California woman last fall after she and her husband were denied an overnight family visit by the Department of Corrections because her husband, who has served two years of an 8-year sentence at a men's correctional facility, is HIV positive. Such visits are typically granted to low security inmates and are widely regarded as integral to keeping families intact after incarceration.

After the ACLU sent a demand letter and a public records act request on behalf of the couple, the DOC and its Office of Legal Affairs concluded that "to deny inmates participation in family visiting with their spouse because they have HIV is discriminatory," and violates United States Supreme Court precedent. The Department also agreed that from now on, it will generally permit inmates with HIV to have family visits with their spouses as long as the spouses sign confidential agreements that they are aware of the inmate's health.

"This is an important decision because it recognizes that people with HIV, with the proper medical care, can lead long and productive lives," said Rosemary C. Veniegas, the associate director at an HIV center at the UCLA School of Medicine. " As most public health organizations now recognize, couples where one partner has HIV can be very careful and take precautions to contain the disease."

LOS ANGELES - The ACLU California affiliates provided school districts across the state with information about students' free speech rights and school discipline in the wake of recent walkouts.

In the last few weeks, thousands of students have participated in walkouts throughout the state protesting proposed immigration legislation in Congress. More protests are expected in the upcoming weeks.

"We sent information to more than 1,000 school districts today and have been distributing similar information to public school students in Southern California to help ensure students' rights, under California law, are protected," said Ramona Ripston, Executive Director of the ACLU of Southern California. "We hope this information will help guide school administrators in responding to possible walkouts and free speech activity and students in their decisions in how to best and most appropriately express themselves in the coming weeks."

The information provided to school districts includes the following:

' Students who miss school in order to participate in a political protest may not be punished more harshly than those who miss school for any other unapproved purpose.

' When school administrators lock exits to prevent students from walking out of school it can pose serious safety concerns for students and staff.

' Students are allowed to express their political views while in school. Under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article 1, Section 2 of the California Constitution, student's free speech rights are guaranteed. This includes the right to wear buttons, hand out leaflets, write in "underground" or unofficial newspapers, distribute petitions and leaflets, and put notices on school bulletin boards.

The ACLU of Northern California, the ACLU of Southern California and the ACLU of San Diego and Imperial Counties sent the letter, along with a four-page document explaining students' free speech rights.

LOS ANGELES - A federal judge ruled late Tuesday that Ontario police officers' rights under both federal and state law were violated when a police detective installed a video camera in a men's locker room to spy on the officers.

U.S. District Judge Virginia A. Phillips held that Ontario Police Detective Brad Schneider, who arranged for the camera to be installed, violated the officers' rights under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the state constitution's right to privacy.

"We are very pleased that the Court recognized the serious infringement on the rights of these police officers not to have a hidden camera filming them in the locker room. The violation is all the more outrageous since police officers, more than any other government employee, should know what limits the Constitution imposes on installing a hidden camera," said Peter Eliasberg, Managing Attorney at the ACLU of Southern California.

The judge ruled that a jury must consider the evidence to decide whether then Chief of Police Lloyd Scharf authorized the surveillance. If the jury concludes he did, then both Scharf and the City of Ontario would be liable under the U.S. Constitution. The case will proceed to a jury trial unless it is appealed by the city.

Sgt. Steven Trujillo, said he sees a better future for the police department and was pleased with the decision.

'It's a great feeling to know that the judge agreed with us,' said Trujillo, who has been a member of the department for 21 years. 'We feel vindicated. We knew since the beginning that our Fourth Amendment rights had been violated and now we are ready to proceed to trial to show that the Chief Scharf authorized it.'

In April 2005 Judge Phillips certified a class action lawsuit affecting more than 100 Ontario police officers after they discovered a hidden camera in the police department's men's locker room in 2003. The lawsuit, which was filed in 2004, is known as Trujillo v. Ontario.

Around 1996 a hidden surveillance camera was installed in a locker room and concealed in the ceiling. The camera provided a view of the door and the adjacent lockers and dressing area and was connected to a video tape recorder located in a nearby office. It was discovered when the Police Department began the process of moving to a new headquarters.

Approximately 125 persons have been identified on the one videotape that the plaintiffs have seen. The suit named the City of Ontario, the former Chief of Police, and others as defendants.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California, is representing the plaintiff class along with the law firm of Bahan & Associates.