LOS ANGELES - In a letter sent today to California Attorney General Bill Lockyer, the American Civil Liberties Union expressed utter dismay over revelations reported in Sunday's Oakland Tribune that the California Anti-Terrorism Information Center (CATIC) since 'day one' has been used to gather and analyze information on activists and protest activity and is being used to compile dossiers on a wide range of organizations. CATIC is a state intelligence agency that was established shortly after September 11 to analyze and disseminate information about terrorist threats

"This is civil liberties 101," said Ramona Ripston, executive director of the ACLU of Southern California. "We cannot allow political dissent to be equated with terrorism, not here in this country and certainly not in California. The state attorney general was given ample notice of the possibility that this would occur and we would like some answers."

In the letter, the ACLU calls upon the Attorney General to:

--Immediately direct CATIC to cease collecting information on individuals and organizations engaging in non-violent protest activity and order CATIC systems to be purged of such information.

--Immediately develop guidelines to ensure that CATIC is used only for disseminating information on true terrorist activity. The CATIC website states that only "reliable information that meets stringent guidelines for intelligence gathering and civil rights protections will be made available only to authorized local, state and federal law enforcement personnel as necessary to protect the health and safety of Californians and others at risk from criminal terrorist activity." As evidenced in news accounts, this clearly is not the case. Guidelines that must be implemented include a definition of terrorism that is narrowly drawn and not so expansive as to include any activity that has an economic impact, as well as clear regulations stating that political and social affiliations or beliefs not be considered in determining who is to be input into the CATIC system.

--Immediately issue guidance to state and local law enforcement agencies (as has been requested on three previous occasions) stating clearly that, pursuant to California's constitutional right to privacy, law enforcement agents may not surveil or monitor individuals or organizations engaged in peaceful protest activity in the absence of reasonable suspicion.

In a series of letters to the Attorney General, the ACLU has been calling upon the state's top law enforcement officer to ensure that Californians' right to privacy is protected. More than thirty years ago, Californians explicitly adopted by referendum a constitutional right to privacy specifically to stop the "proliferation of government snooping and data collecting [that] is threatening to destroy our traditional freedoms." White v. Davis (1975) 13 Cal.3d 757, 774 (quoting the ballot argument in favor of the initiative).

"Now, it appears that right is being sacrificed, not only by the federal government, but at the state level as well. We call on you to ensure that Californians? rights to free speech, assembly, and privacy are protected from state sponsored intrusions," concludes the ACLU in the letter. The letter was signed by the ACLU of Northern California and ACLU of Southern California.

LOS ANGELES - The American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California today filed a lawsuit against an Orange County-based foster family and adoption agency for discriminating against a lesbian couple who sought to become certified as a foster family, with the goal of adopting children in foster care.

Olive Crest is licensed and regulated by the state, receives federal, state and county funds, and has contracts with four California counties, to recruit, train and certify foster and adoptive families, and to place foster children with these families. Because Olive Crest is performing this function on behalf of state and county governments, it is bound by both the constitutional requirement to give all prospective adoptive parents equal treatment under the law. Olive Crest is also bound by California anti-discrimination laws that apply to businesses and nonprofits.

"California law and regulations clearly state that foster care and adoption agencies must treat married, unmarried and same-sex couples equally," said Martha Matthews, Bohnett Attorney with the ACLU of Southern California. "Olive Crest wants to give preference to what it calls 'traditional, nuclear' families. But since Olive Crest contracts with the counties, accepts taxpayer funds, and is part of the state's and the counties' system of care for foster children, it cannot discriminate."

In July of 2002, Shannon Rose, a doctor, and her partner Jane Brooks, a law student, applied to become certified as foster/adoptive parents with the goal of adopting foster children though Olive Crest. Shannon and Jane received repeated assurances that they would be treated fairly by Olive Crest. The couple filled out numerous forms, got fingerprinted, and went through the extensive home study process required for certification. They were told by their Olive Crest social worker that their home study was fine, and they had been 'pre-certified' as foster/adoptive parents.

Then, in September of 2002 they were told that their adoption process had been suspended and were informed of Olive Crest's new Foster Family Recruitment Policy. The new policy stated that Olive Crest "prefers to place children with nuclear families," and that "other applicants will be considered on a case by case basis." The policy also stated that Olive Crest would refer applicants whose qualifications "do not agree with Olive Crest's values, guiding principles or treatment philosophy" to other agencies. Shannon and Jane were told by their former social worker at Olive Crest -- who quit her job over Olive Crest's handling of their case--that this policy was specifically intended to allow for discrimination against gay and lesbian couples.

"We were devastated when we heard Olive Crest planned to stall our certification process," said Shannon Rose. "The ones who suffer the most, though, are the children who are waiting for a place to call home."

In addition to representing Shannon and Jane, the ACLU is also supporting a bill introduced in January by state Assemblymember Judy Chu, the Foster Care Nondiscrimination Act (AB 458), which would explicitly prohibit discrimination against foster children, and foster and adoptive parents, on the basis of sexual orientation as well as other characteristics such as race, sex, religion and national origin.

Attorneys from the San Diego office of the law firm of Heller Ehrman White & McAuliffe are working with the ACLU in connection with the case and are representing the couple pro bono.

The lawsuit seeks injunctive relief and damages to compensate plaintiffs for trauma.

Olive Crest is a non-profit corporation organized under the laws of the State of California. Its principal place of business is in the city of Santa Ana, in Orange County, California, and it also has offices and other facilities in Los Angeles, San Diego, and Riverside counties. Approximately 96 people are employed by Olive Crest and the agency provides services to approximately 3,500 children and families annually.

The American Civil Liberties Union is the nation's foremost advocate of individual rights and equal justice. Since 1920, the mission of the ACLU has been to preserve the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights.

LOS ANGELES - The American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California today sent a letter to Los Angeles Councilmember Jan Perry, an advocate of police sweeps in the downtown area, calling on her to end attempts to shift blame on the pressing issue of homelessness in Los Angeles and instead start to work towards a solution that is both humane and constitutional.

Last month, the ACLU/SC and the National Lawyers Guild filed suit against the LAPD and the City of Los Angeles for engaging in aggressive and unconstitutional police sweeps of the homeless population in the skid row area downtown. A federal judge recently ruled that the police sweeps were in violation of residents' constitutional rights and ordered a preliminary injunction on the controversial homeless sweeps.

"Instead of attempting to shift the responsibility of solving the problem of homelessness to civil rights advocates, Councilwoman Perry should get down to the business of addressing this most pressing issue," said Ramona Ripston, executive director of the ACLU of Southern California. "The ACLU/SC and the National Lawyers Guild filed suit to protect the constitutional rights of the homeless not to be subject to unreasonable searches without suspicion in violation of the Fourth Amendment."

"Sweeping people off the streets, taking people into jail for sitting on the sidewalk, illegally searching people at random, these are not productive approaches to the problem we have in Los Angeles," continued Ripston. "There are only 4,000 emergency shelter beds for the estimated 85,000 homeless persons in the area. People have no choice but to sleep on the streets; it makes no sense to pack the jails with people whose only crime is a lack of adequate shelter."