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.

LOS ANGELES - A Sri Lankan Tamil torture victim was released late Monday night after spending more than four and a half years in a federal detention center despite being granted political asylum by an immigration judge and withholding of removal by a federal appeals court.

Saluja Thangaraja, who was released on her twenty-sixth birthday, fled Sri Lanka in October 2001 after being tortured, beaten and held captive there. She was detained on the U.S.-Mexico border later that month on her way to reunite with relatives in Canada and has been held in a federal detention center in Otay Mesa near San Diego since then.

"Although she won withholding two years ago and then asylum, the government kept her locked up for no reason simply because it was appealing her case. She did nothing wrong; she just came to this country seeking asylum from persecution," said Ranjana Natarajan, her attorney at the ACLU of Southern California.

Thangaraja's release comes after the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously ordered the release of Ahilan Nadarajah, a Sri Lankan Tamil torture victim who also escaped persecution and had been imprisoned by the U.S. government for nearly five years despite being granted asylum twice. Thangaraja and Nadarajah fled Sri Lanka in the same group, though they did not know each other previously.

Upon her release from detention, Thangaraja said, "I'm very happy. I'm relieved this day has finally come."

The Ninth Circuit ruled that Nadarajah's detention violated the law because of its extreme length and because there was almost no chance the government would remove him to another country. Judge Sidney R. Thomas writing for the three-judge panel said, "...we conclude that the general immigration detention statutes do not authorize the attorney general to incarcerate detainees for an indefinite period."

The Court went on to say that, consistent with Supreme Court precedent, arriving immigrants like Nadarajah who are in immigration proceedings can be detained only "for a reasonable period and only if there is a significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future." Nadarajah was also represented by the ACLU of Southern California.

"Ms. Thangaraja's case is remarkably similar to the case of Mr. Nadarajah. Both were torture victims, both were detained for almost five years, and both were in detention despite winning their cases," Natarajan said. "In Ms. Thangaraja's case, moreover, she won her case from a federal court two years ago. Like the Nadarajah case, her release shows that the government cannot detain people for years and years without very good reason."

Saluja Thangaraja is a member of the Tamil ethnic minority in Sri Lanka. In the mid-1990s, during years of civil unrest and turmoil, her family was displaced from their home and forced to live in a police camp after conflict broke out in her small town between the Sri Lankan Army and the separatist group, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. After finally returning to their home Thangaraja was twice abducted, beaten, tortured and accused by the army of being an LTTE member, which she is not. Both times she was held for weeks and both times her family had to bribe the army for her release. After her second abduction, Thangaraja went into hiding before her family decided she was not safe in Sri Lanka and she must leave the country to protect her life.

Since fleeing Sri Lanka in October 2001, Thangaraja's case has been in limbo in immigration courts. She was charged with being present in the U.S. without a valid visa and she applied for political asylum under the Geneva Convention Against Torture. Over the last four and a half years her case has worked it's way up to the Ninth Circuit and back down to an immigration judge again where she was granted asylum in June 2005, but has continued to be detained until Monday.

LOS ANGELES - The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously ordered the immediate release of a Sri Lankan Tamil asylum seeker and torture victim who has been imprisoned by the government for nearly five years.

Despite being granted asylum repeatedly by two immigration courts, 25-year-old Ahilan Nadarajah, who was severely persecuted in Sri Lanka before fleeing, has been held in a federal detention center in San Diego since late 2001.

"This case is about a torture victim who fled to this country seeking asylum and who was locked up for years even though he kept winning his asylum case," said Ahilan Arulanantham, staff attorney for the ACLU of Southern California. "The court's ruling strongly confirms that the government cannot lock up people for years indefinitely and without good reason."

The Ninth Circuit ruled that Nadarajah's detention violated the law for three reasons: Because of its extreme length, because there is almost no chance that the government will ever remove him to another country, and because the government's allegation that he poses a danger is completely unfounded. Writing for the three-judge panel Judge Sidney R. Thomas stated, "...we conclude that the general immigration detention statutes do not authorize the attorney general to incarcerate detainees for an indefinite period."

The Court went on to say that, consistent with Supreme Court precedent, arriving immigrants like Nadarajah who are in immigration proceedings can be detained only "for a reasonable period and only if there is a significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future."

"I'm so happy that this day has come and that the government will release me. I knew in my heart all along that this day would come, I just want to get on with the rest of my life," said Ahilan Nadarajah by phone from San Diego.

Nadarajah is a member of the Tamil ethnic minority in Sri Lanka who lived with his family and worked on their farm from childhood until 2001. In the mid-1990s, during years of civil unrest and turmoil, his small town was invaded by the Sri Lankan army, forcing his family to flee from their home. As a teenager, he was repeatedly kidnaped and tortured by the Sri Lankan Army solely because of his minority status. The Army accused him of being a member of the separatist group Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). At one point, the Army strung him up by his ankles and poured gasoline on him. His attackers warned him if they found him again, they would kill him.

In October 2001 Nadarajah fled Sri Lanka in fear for his life and headed to Canada, where he had family members. En route, he crossed the Mexico-U.S. border and was immediately apprehended and detained in San Diego, where he has remained.

"This case is a sharp rebuke to the government's policy of detaining immigrants for years and years while their immigration cases are pending, even when they don't pose any danger or flight risk," said Arulanantham. "The government said he was a national security risk and accused him of being affiliated with the LTTE, but every court that examined the evidence found that there was no basis whatsoever for this accusation."

Over the last four and a half years, his case has wound itself through the immigration courts. An Immigration judge twice rejected the government's allegations that Nadarajah is a national security risk and twice granted him relief under the Geneva Convention Against Torture. The decision was also affirmed by the Board of Immigration Appeals.