The ACLU of Southern California today announced the filing of a legal action to prevent the City of Los Angeles, including officers from the Los Angeles Police Department and Recreation and Parks Department, from interfering with the activities of Food Not Bombs, a group dedicated to raising public awareness of homelessness, hunger, and poverty in Los Angeles by providing food to some of the city's most needy residents.

In December, 1999, Los Angeles authorities arrested eight people for exercising their basic rights to expression and association in downtown's Pershing Square Park. On December 26, 1999, six volunteers from Food Not Bombs were arrested as they attempted to provide free food to the homeless in Pershing Square. The six were arrested after they refused to move from the area where they have served food for the past two years to a less visible part of the park. None of the volunteers were blocking access to any park facility. In addition to the six volunteers arrested that evening, another individual - who was not feeding people and is not a member of Food Not Bombs - was arrested simply for videotaping the actions of officers of the Los Angeles Police Department and Park Rangers in Pershing Square. These seven arrests followed the arrests of another Food Not Bombs volunteer the previous Sunday, December 19, 1999, also for feeding homeless people and for speaking out on their behalf. As a result of these eight arrests, Food Not Bombs and its members have already been forced to curtail their speech and feeding activities in Pershing Square.

'The holiday season is traditionally a time for giving to those who are homeless and needy,' said ACLU attorney Daniel Tokaji. 'Unfortunately, this year, the city of Los Angeles has instead taken something vital away from its neediest residents: not only the food they depend upon, but also their voice. Our request for a temporary restraining order is an attempt to ensure that 'Food Not Bombs' can continue to feed homeless people and speak out against poverty and hunger without fear of being arrested.'

Today the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied a petition to rehear arguments in a pivotal case involving the alleged policies of Los Angeles Police Department and Santa Monica Police Department officers to interrogate suspects 'outside Miranda' despite the suspects' invocation of their right to remain silent and their requests for an attorney. The case is California Attorneys for Criminal Justice v. Butts (U.S. District Court for the Central District, Case No. 97- 56499). The American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California, along with Boalt Hall professor Charles Weisselberg, had argued successfully that police officers were not free to ignore a suspect's assertion of Miranda rights whenever they chose.

ACLU Legal Director Mark Rosenbaum praised today's Appeals Court ruling, declaring that, 'the failure of the Los Angeles and Santa Monica Police Departments to secure even a single vote from any Ninth Circuit judge in support of their petition for rehearing is a stinging repudiation of their efforts to subvert the Supreme Court's mandate in Miranda. Apparently, respect for the Constitution was not on the LAPD or SMPD's list of New Year's resolutions and despite the almost daily revelations in the Rampart scandal, neither department has sought reform in any meaningful way. In any case, the Ninth Circuit has decreed that when a suspect invokes the right to remain silent, the LAPD and SMPD must remain silent, too, prohibited from the coercive tactics to extract confessions they had come to rely upon.'

The initial suit was brought on behalf of James McNally and James Bey, each of whom repeatedly asked for a lawyer during interrogation. But police disregarded their requests, continuing to ask questions while falsely assuring the suspects that because they had requested counsel, nothing else they said could be used against them. Filed in December, 1995, the suit sought to redress the deprivation of defendant's rights, privileges and immunities arising under the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. The lawsuit challenged the common police practice of continuing to conduct interrogations of suspects even after they have clearly invoked their right to silence or their right to consult with an attorney.

The ACLU of Southern California, Asian Pacific American Legal Center, Japanese American Citizens League and NAACP Legal Defense Fund are urging the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors and Sheriff Lee Baca to retain crucial information regarding officer misconduct. At issue is how long the County will retain data tracking employee performance on its 'Personnel Performance Index' (PPI). This agenda item is scheduled to be discussed at 11:00 am Tuesday, December 21 before the Board of Supervisors.

The PPI is the Sheriff's Department's master system for keeping track of employee performance. As County Special Counsel Merrick Bobb has explained, the PPI is 'a repository of powerful data' regarding complaints of officer misconduct. It was set up to fulfill the 1992 recommendation in Judge Kolts' 1992 report that the Sheriff's Department set up a computerized tracking system to report data on employees' use of force, citizen complaints, administrative investigations, lawsuits, and disciplinary history.

Tuesday's agenda item was carried over from last week's Board of Supervisors meeting, as the result of a disagreement between Sheriff Baca and Special Counsel Bobb regarding how long information should be kept on the PPI profile. As expressed in a report issued last month, Bobb's office was 'concerned and alarmed ... because the LASD is currently considering backtracking on the PPI and the key Kolts commitments....' Bobb has urged that information regarding founded complaints of a serious nature (including sexual harassment, discrimination, and misuse of force) be kept on the PPI profile indefinitely, and that other founded complaints be kept on the profile for at least 10 years.

The civil rights groups will urge that Bobb's recommendations be followed, so that Sheriff's Department officers may be held accountable. 'The PPI was set up to create a mechanism by which the Sheriff's Department can track the performance of its officers, including those who may present a danger to people in the community,' according to ACLU Staff Attorney Dan Tokaji, who will testify before the board on Tuesday. 'It is essential that this system be kept strong, and that information regarding complaints against deputies be rigorously maintained. The recent scandal at LAPD's Rampart Division demonstrates the disastrous consequences of allowing officer misconduct to fester unchecked. The Sheriff's Department must not be allowed to backtrack on its commitment to keep its eye on officers who may present a danger to the community or to their fellow officers.'