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

The ACLU of Southern California won a quick First Amendment victory over the California Department of Food and Agriculture, which attempted to deny the Ku Klux Klan the use of a public forum under its jurisdiction in Riverside. A federal judge today issued a restraining order allowing the Klan's 'Hallowcaust 2002" to proceed at Harrison Hall in Riverside County, a site owned by the public and made available to the public for various expressive activities. The event, which will include a variety of First Amendment-protected expressive activities, was scheduled for this weekend. When state officials learned that the event was connected to the Ku Klux Klan, they attempted to cancel the contract they had signed almost a month ago authorizing the hall's use. The temporary restraining order (TRO) allows the event to proceed.
'This is a classic First Amendment case,' said Peter Eliasberg, the staff attorney at the ACLU of Southern California who pressed the case. 'When government gets into the business of choosing what kind of speech it will allow, the outcome is the suppression of everybody's freedom.'
'The ACLU, contrary to many conservative commentators' perceptions, does not protect only the speech of progressive groups,' said Ramona Ripston, ACLU/SC Executive Director. 'We defend the free speech rights of individuals and groups no matter where they fall on the political spectrum, from left to right and no matter how repugnant we find their message.'
The ACLU/SC will donate any court-ordered attorneys fees in the case to the Los Angeles Coalition to End Hunger and Homelessness, which fights for the basic survival of those most in need, just as the ACLU/SC fights to protect basic freedoms.

LOS ANGELES - A federal district judge today sided with the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), and other civil rights groups in granting a preliminary injunction that would allow qualified, noncitizen airport screeners to remain on the job or be considered for jobs they lost as a result of a federal law that would require all airport screeners to be United States citizens. No such requirement exists for airline pilots, flight attendants, airline mechanics, or even members of the U.S. armed forces or National Guard.

'This is a victory for our national security,' said Mark Rosenbaum, legal director for the ACLU/SC. 'Some of these workers have served in our nation's armed forces and many have longtime experience as screeners. There is simply no rational reason why qualified, hard-working screeners should be excluded from consideration for these positions based solely on their national origin.'

As part of the Aviation and Security Transportation Act, noncitizens were barred from working as screeners even though no such requirement was put in place for airline pilots, flight attendants, mechanics of members of U.S. military. In January of 2002, the ACLU/SC filed suit on behalf of nine legal resident, noncitizen screeners employed at LAX and SFO airports. The government later filed a motion to dismiss the case and that motion was denied on Wednesday. Today, judge Robert M. Takasugi issued a preliminary injunction, preventing the government from enforcing the citizenship requirement of the Aviation and Security Transportation Act.

'This has never been about guaranteeing people jobs,' said Ben Wizner, staff attorney with the ACLU/SC. 'All we're asking is that these people be given a chance to apply for these posts and have their applications considered on the basis of their qualifications, not their national origin.'