LOS ANGELES - Today, a coalition of civil liberties and advocacy groups including the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California, Iranian American Lawyers Association, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, Muslim Public Affairs Council, Southern Christian Leadership Conference, Asian Pacific Legal Center, the Progressive Jewish Alliance, People For the American Way, and the Japanese American Citizen's League called on the Department of Justice to scrap the flawed and misguided INS Special Call-In Registration program or, at the very least, to extend the deadlines for registration so that the regulations in the program can be corrected.

The coalition's statement comes on the heels of the arrest and detention of hundreds of Arab and Iranian men who voluntarily reported to the INS to be fingerprinted, photographed and interviewed by the December 16 registration deadline for National's of Iran, Iraq, Libya, Sudan, and Syria. Deadlines are approaching for 15 additional countries that were recently added to the INS list.

'An immense number of law-abiding individuals have been unjustly detained and imprisoned in unacceptable and inhumane conditions as a result of this registration process,' said Kayhan Shakib, president of the Iranian American Lawyers Association. 'As other communities confront upcoming registration deadlines, we want them to be aware that the basic principles of fairness and equity are not being upheld.'

'The actions undertaken by the INS only serve to underscore the fact that some people in the Administration still don't understand the values we are all fighting to protect,' said Ramona Ripston, executive director of the ACLU of Southern California. 'This is the United States of America; we have to remember that many of these people came to this country fleeing political and religious persecution. What kind of message are we sending them?'

According to reports from family members and lawyers, some detainees have been held in facilities where there is not enough room to move, walk or sleep, and some have been denied food and necessary medicines. There are also concerns that even people believed to be in compliance with immigration regulations are being detained.

'This INS roundup is confused, ineffective and deceptive,' said Salam Al-Marayati, executive director of the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC). 'It is clear these measures erode our freedom, yield no enhanced security, and serve to damage America's global image.'

'Despite our collective desire for security, and despite our current fears, we must not allow ourselves to repeat the shameful excesses of the past,' said Ken Inouye, vice-president of public affairs for the Japanese American Citizen's League. 'Rounding up immigrants based on nothing but their religion or national origin shows only that we have not learned from ourmistakes and is inconsistent with the core values of our Constitution.'

'This flawed operation seems to be repeating the problems of other mass detentions by the federal government,' said People for the American Way California Deputy Director, Marcos Barron. 'It singles out people for different kinds of treatment based on their ethnicity and national background, and it is carried out with excessive secrecy, which prevents oversight and accountability.'

LOS ANGELES - The American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California and the National Center for Lesbian Rights today filed suit on behalf of Ashly Massey, an eighth grader in Banning, California who was forced to sit in the principal's office during physical education class after the gym teacher heard that she was a lesbian.

The lawsuit states that the school's actions violated Ashly's constitutional right to equal protection, and her rights under the Student Safety and Violence Prevention Act of 2000, a new California law that prohibits discrimination against public school students on the basis of sexual orientation.

'This is a clear case of discrimination,' said Martha Matthews, ACLU/SC Bohnett Attorney. 'Ashly did nothing wrong, but she was denied access to a public school class, and forced to sit in the office day after day.'

Courtney Joslin, staff attorney at the National Center for Lesbian Rights, added that 'even if students are uncomfortable sharing gym class with someone of a different sexual orientation, the school does not have a right to discriminate. Instead, the school should educate students on getting along with others in an increasingly diverse society.'

Soon after the gym teacher heard that Ashly was a lesbian, she called Ashly's mother to inform her that there was a problem with Ashly being in the girl's locker room because of Ashly's sexual orientation. Ashly's mother asked the gym teacher if her daughter had misbehaved. The teacher reported that Ashly had not acted improperly, or made any inappropriate comments to other students. Ashly's mother asked the teacher to call her again if there were any future problems.

Ashly's mother never received another call from the gym teacher. When Ashly showed up for gym class the next day, she was told that she would no longer be allowed in gym class and to go to the principal's office instead. For the next week and a half, Ashly sat in the principal's office during the time she was supposed to be in gym class. During this time, no school official ever met with Ashly or her mother to discuss the situation. Ashly's humiliating ordeal ended only when her class schedule was changed for unrelated reasons.

'It wasn't right for the school to discriminate against me because of my sexual orientation,' said Ashly Massey, plaintiff in the lawsuit and student at the time of the incident. 'I'm hoping this inspires other people to take a stand when they feel they haven't been treated right or when they see someone treated unfairly.'

'It's not right for anybody to have to go through this,' she added.

Ashly's complaint, filed in federal court in Riverside, asks for damages and for an injunction requiring the school to develop policies, teacher training and other measures to ensure that students do not suffer similar discrimination in the future.

LOS ANGELES - The United States Supreme Court will hear oral arguments today in Chavez v. Martinez, a case that raises the crucial question of whether the Miranda decision - perhaps the court's best known criminal justice ruling - truly guarantees the 'right to remain silent.'

'For most Americans, the right to remain silent is one of the most basic tenets of our justice system; it is our hope that the court recognizes it as such,' said Ben Wizner, a staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California and author of a friend-of-the-court brief filed in today's case on behalf of the ACLU and California Attorneys for Criminal Justice.

The case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court after the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit sided with Martinez and held that the questioning violated Martinez's rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

'For four decades, the Supreme Court has made clear that police officers must give Miranda warnings to criminal suspects, and that if suspects invoke their right to silence or to an attorney, all further questioning must cease,' said Ben Wizner, staff attorney with the ACLU/SC. 'Nevertheless, around the country, police officers are being trained to ignore Miranda, and to continue questioning suspects even after they have asked for lawyers or invoked their right to silence.'

On November 28, 1997, Olivero Martinez was riding a bicycle down a vacant lot in Oxnard, California. Oxnard police officers were in the area, investigating narcotics activity. When Martinez approached the lot, the officers asked him to dismount, spread his legs, and place his hands behind his head. Martinez complied. When police officers searched him, they found a knife that Martinez used to cut strawberries for his work as a farm worker. Police officers contend that Martinez pulled away as he was being handcuffed, and he was then tackled to the ground, where a struggle ensued.

The police officers further maintain that Martinez attempted to grab one of the officers' guns; Martinez claims he was trying to prevent the officer from pulling out his gun. Martinez was shot five times by police. One bullet struck him in the face, leaving him blind, and another fractured a vertebra, paralyzing his legs. The other three bullets tore through his leg around the knee joint. Martinez was handcuffed until the paramedics arrived at the scene.

Martinez was then placed in an ambulance, and one officer, Ben Chavez, rode with him to the hospital. As Martinez lay in agony, officer Chavez peppered him with questions regarding the arrest and shooting. Martinez repeatedly complained that he was in excruciating pain, that he was choking, could not move his legs, was dying, and did not wish to speak anymore. Officer Chavez pressed on, and continued to ask questions, while medical personnel treated Martinez for his life-threatening injuries. Only after Martinez was removed from the emergency room did the questioning stop.

To read the ACLU's friend-of-the-court brief go to: http://archive.aclu.org/court/chavez.pdf