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."

LOS ANGELES - The Western Law Center for Disability Rights, Protection and Advocacy Inc., and the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California announced a major class action lawsuit challenging the Los Angeles County transit system's failure to provide comparable "paratransit" transportation services to people with disabilities.

Nadine Flores, Stefanie Michihara, Maria Vasquez, Johnny Bolagh, Tamara Muhammad, and Mary Ann Jones, on behalf of a class of individuals with disabilities, sued the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) and its provider of paratransit services, Access Services, Inc. (Access) in federal district court in Los Angeles today. The plaintiffs charge MTA and Access with denying them comparable services in violation of the ADA and other federal and state laws.

Because the Los Angeles County transportation system is not usable by many people with disabilities, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires MTA to provide "paratransit" service that is "comparable" to its regular public transportation. This means it must have an adequate capacity to meet demand, it must not make people with disabilities wait longer than the regular public transit system, and it must be available for all kinds of trips, regardless of the purpose of the trip. It must allow people to schedule a ride anytime the day before the trip.

"Public transportation is of crucial importance to people with disabilities, who often cannot afford cars and whose disabilities often prevent them from driving, " said Eve Hill, Executive Director of the Western Law Center for Disability Rights. "Without it, it is nearly impossible for riders with disabilities to successfully hold jobs, attend school, and have full social lives."

"These three non-profit organizations decided to work together on this case because of the importance of the issues and the inexcusable level of violations by MTA and Access," said Guy Leemhuis, an attorney at Protection and Advocacy Inc.

According to the plaintiffs, Access has violated the ADA in several ways:

' Access will only allow riders to schedule rides up to 24 hours before the requested ride time. Thus, if a rider wanted a ride at 9:00PM on Monday and she called access at 6:00 PM on Sunday, she would be turned down and told to call back after 9:00PM. The ADA requires rides to be scheduled any time the day before the ride - meaning you can call any time on Sunday to schedule a ride any time on Monday.

' Access' system is not designed to meet the demand for its services.

' According to Access, its system is designed to be on time 90% of the time, meaning it can meet 90% of the demand for its services on any given day. By contrast, MTA's regular bus service has a 99.51% on-time rate. Thus, even Access' own numbers show that its service is not "comparable" to the regular transportation service.

' These figures mean Access leaves 600 people waiting more than 20 minutes for a scheduled ride every weekday.

' According to Access, its vans are "no-shows" for 1% of scheduled rides. Thus, Access leaves 60 people completely stranded every day.

' Access' figures are inflated. Access' 90% capacity figure is based on same-day reservations. Historically, Access has not tracked next-day reservations, even though those are the reservations that are required by the ADA. The experiences of people with disabilities who use Access demonstrate that Access' real capacity is far less than 90% of the demand.

"Access' failure to meet its legal obligations has risked the health and safety of people with disabilities throughout Los Angeles County," said Dan Tokaji, staff attorney at the ACLU of Southern California, The complaint alleges that the named plaintiffs and other riders with disabilities who rely on Access have continually faced serious problems because of Access' violations of the ADA. These problems include:

' Being stranded in dangerous locations because of no-shows by paratransit vans;

' Being late to school, work, and doctor's appointments because of vans that are late, sometimes by hours;

' Aggravation of serious medical problems, such as multiple sclerosis, because of waiting outside in hazardous conditions when vans are late or fail to show up at all;

' Increased dependence on others because of Access' failure to schedule next-day service.