LOS ANGELES - Advocates and social service providers are distributing today to Los Angeles downtown's homeless population copies of the final order issued in federal court yesterday in the case Justin, et al., v. City of Los Angeles. The case deals with LAPD harassment of homeless people in the downtown area frequently referred to as "Skid Row." Twenty-three homeless individuals said that police had engaged in a widespread practice of harassment.

Judge Lourdes G. Baird issued a tentative order on Friday, December 1, and finalized the order on Tuesday, December 5. The order bars the city and the police from engaging in the following activities:

1. Stopping the homeless without reasonable suspicion while they are simply standing or walking on public streets and sidewalks, and not obstructing such streets or sidewalks;

2. Demanding production of identification on threat of arrest, and arresting individuals if no identification is procured;

3. Searching the possessions of those homeless without reasonable suspicion;

4. Ordering the homeless to move along from where they are standing unless they are obstructing or blocking the free passage of pedestrians;

5. Confiscating the personal property of the homeless when it has not been abandoned and destroying it without notice; and

6. Issuing citations to the homeless for loitering.

- Judge Lourdes G. Baird's order

"A legal victory is merely a victory for lawyers if things don't change on the streets," said Diana Gordon, one of the civil rights attorneys who brought the lawsuit at the urging of homeless advocates working downtown. "Through education and through continued advocacy this ruling will become a victory for the humanity and dignity of homeless people."

"This order is resoundingly clear," said Gordon. "It leaves no room for doubt about the illegality of the actions carried out against homeless people by the city and its police department and communicates that in language that both the homeless and the police will have no trouble understanding. The order also enjoins every single type of harassment cited by the individuals in the case."

Alice Callaghan of Las Familias del Pueblo and other advocates and groups are distributing the order. Callaghan and others are also establishing an informal system for gathering complaints should police violate the terms of the order, adding to the reproduction of the order a note urging homeless people to report complaints to Las Familias del Pueblo or to the Hippie Kitchen.

"Homeless people have civil rights," said Callaghan, "and the city and its police cannot abridge those rights simply because they consider the homeless to be bad for business or otherwise publicly troublesome."

LOS ANGELES - A U.S. District Court judge today issued a temporary restraining order to stop the Los Angeles Police Department from continuing its pattern of harassment and intimidation of homeless people in downtown's "Skid Row" area. The campaign of harassment and intimidation included:

' stopping homeless people and demanding to see identification without a reasonable suspicion of a crime being committed;

' threatening to arrest homeless individuals who did not produce identification; ordering homeless individuals to move from pubic sidewalks and streets;

' arresting homeless individuals without probable cause;

' searching, seizing, and destroying the property of homeless individuals, and

' issuing citations for violations such as jaywalking or blocking a sidewalk when no such violation has occurred.

Advocates for the homeless urged civil rights attorneys to look into the matter and to protect the Constitutional rights of homeless people. Civil rights attorneys Carol Sobel, Diane Greene Gordon, Douglas Mirrell, and Dilan Esper and the ACLU of Southern California responded by filing a lawsuit, Justin v. City of Los Angeles, on November 21, 2000. Eighteen homeless individuals submitted testimony in the case about their experiences of harassment and intimidation at the hands of the LAPD.

"You don't have to have a roof over your head to enjoy the protections of the U.S. Constitution," said Carol Sobel, cooperating counsel in the case. "The court clarified that basic principle today for the City of Los Angeles and its police department, who were under the mistaken impression that being poor is a crime, and that not having a home disqualifies a person from being treated as human being and an equal in the eyes of the law. It's a shame that the city has to be forced to recognize the basic rights and humanity of homeless people."

The temporary restraining order, which was issued today in preliminary form, but which will be issued in final written form on Monday, bars the police department from continuing its pattern of harassment.

"The court finds," wrote Judge Lourdes G. Baird in the preliminary ruling, "that Plaintiffs have succeeded in showing that they will suffer irreparable injury and have no other adequate remedy at law if injunctive relief is not granted."

LOS ANGELES - The American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California filed an amended complaint in Porter v. Jones today in federal court. The ACLU/SC initially sought a temporary restraining order against California Secretary of State Bill Jones for threatening criminal prosecution against a web-site similar to Porter's "votexchange2000.com," which helped like-minded voters connect on-line and discuss voting strategies. The court denied the request for a temporary restraining order, and Porter did not re-open his web-site. The ACLU now seeks a permanent injunction against Jones and damages for Porter and other plaintiffs, alleging that their Constitutional rights were violated and will likely be violated again in future elections if Jones's threats are allowed to stand.

The American Civil Liberties Union of San Diego, the National Voting Rights Institute, Jamin Raskin and Alan Dershowitz join as co-counsel in the case.

"Even the world's totalitarian governments are recognizing that they cannot control speech and association on the Internet," said Peter Eliasberg, staff attorney at the ACLU of Southern California, "but California, cradle of the web, apparently still needs to learn the lesson. The concept of matching like-minded voters in cyberspace for the purpose of creating a common voting strategy is both revolutionary and completely in line with the freedoms set forth in our Constitution. Voter-matching is here to stay, and Luddites who think they can stop this exercise of our fundamental freedoms of association and speech will discover that efforts to censor internet speech and disband cyber-communities will not be tolerated and will not succeed."

"The razor's edge margins in this election," said Eliasberg, "make crystal clear that every vote counts. A few hundred votes here or a thousand there could have changed the course of this election. Voter-matching sites give individuals the tools to help ensure that their voices are truly heard and their interests are fully represented. That's what democracy is all about. And that's why the ACLU and American voters will not allow Secretary Jones to squash this constitutionally protected activity."

"Mr. Porter has already registered the domain name 'votexchange2004.com,'" said Eliasberg. "This issue is alive and needs to be settled. The regular nature of elections and of third party candidates means that the threat to Porter's and others' civil rights will likely recur. Porter and voters alike need to hear that their rights to free speech and free association don't end when they get on-line."