The ACLU of Southern California applauds the Los Angeles City Council for today's 9 to 1 vote in opposition to the Gang Violence and Juvenile Crime Prevention Initiative (Prop 21) that will appear on the March 2000 ballot. We agree with the council that the measure "would enact an overly punitive approach to juvenile crime. Punishment is significantly emphasized over rehabilitation, thereby having devastating effects on high-risk youth."

Today's vote is an important first step in the ultimate defeat of this initiative. We believe that Californians who understand the devastating effects this measure will have on our young people will echo the resounding "NO" sounded by the Los Angeles City Council. The Gang Violence and Juvenile Crime Prevention Initiative is not about prevention. Instead, it wages a costly war against California's children. Prop 21 pushes more children into adult courts where they would be sentenced to adult prisons. It vastly expands gang penalties, including the death penalty, and promises to cost California taxpayers "hundreds of millions of dollars" each year, according to the California Legislative Analyst Office Report, taking funds away from funds that could be used to improve our schools.

We urge all Californians to join the community, faith and professional organizations that oppose Proposition 21 and stop this mean-spirited, misguided and ill-advised attack on our youth.

Today the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled "unconstitutional" the alleged policies of the Los Angeles and Santa Monica Police Departments authorizing police 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 that police officers were not free to ignore a suspect's assertion of Miranda rights whenever they chose.

The 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.

ACLU Legal Director Mark Rosenbaum praised the Ninth Circuit ruling, declaring that, "The court's decision puts an end to the practices of the Los Angeles and Santa Monica police departments of flaunting at will a suspect's Miranda rights. Now when a suspect invokes the right to remain silent, the police must be silent, too, no longer free to ignore the assertion and strong-arm a confession. Over 30 years after the famous Miranda decision by the United States Supreme Court, Miranda is finally worth the paper it was written on - the Constitution." Initially filed in December, 1995, the suit sought to redress the deprivation by defendants of their 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. As the Ninth Circuit pointed out, officers in the Butts case had sought affirmatively to discourage a suspect's assertion of Miranda rights, refused to cease questioning and prevented a lawyer from being obtained even when requested.

Although statements obtained in violation of Miranda are inadmissible, the prosecution may use such illegally-obtained statements to impeach the defendant if s/he testifies at trial. A number of police departments have realized that they have nothing to lose by continuing to question a suspect who invokes his constitutional rights. If no incriminating statements are obtained, the interrogators have nothing to lose. If they succeed in obtaining incriminating statements, the prosecution can use them to dissuade the defendant from testifying in his own defense or to impeach him if he does.

The case is California Attorneys for Criminal Justice v. Butts (U.S. District Court for the Central District, Case No. 97-56499).

The ACLU of Southern California applauds the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors for adopting the Burke-Yaroslavsky motion calling on the Sheriff and the Office of Public Safety to report back to the board on the cost and feasibility of tracking the race of motorists stopped for traffic infractions. The motion is an important first step in determining if Sheriff's deputies are engaging in racial profiling.

Last October, the ACLU launched a statewide hotline to collect the stories of those who believe they were stopped for no reason other than the color of their skin. To date, we have heard from more than 2,500 motorists. Over 70% of the callers are from Southern California, underscoring the public's perception that racial profiling indeed is taking place in Los Angeles County. It is imperative that we find out - once and for all - if race is a primary factor in traffic stops, and if it is, to put an immediate end to this discriminatory and unconstitutional practice.

The county - and indeed the city - is long overdue in following the lead of police chiefs in the other five largest law enforcement agencies in California. Oakland, San Francisco, San Diego, San Jose, and the CHP all voluntarily collect data on the race of motorists stopped by their officers. The message is clear: law enforcement personnel everywhere are on notice that racially-based traffic stops will not be tolerated.