News :: ACLU of New Jersey

Judge Orders City of Newark to Produce Log of Records Related to Facebook Donation

January 27, 2012

Judge rejects city’s motion to dismiss parents’ group’s lawsuit

booker_zuckerberg:

NEWARK – A Superior Court judge today ordered a lawsuit to proceed against the City of Newark (151k PDF) over documents related to Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg’s $100 million donation for the city’s schools, and ordered the city to produce a list of the documents in its possession. Judge Rachel N. Davidson denied a motion by the city to dismiss the complaint, filed by the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey (2.1mb PDF) (ACLU-NJ) on behalf of the Secondary Parent Council (SPC), a group of Newark parents and grandparents seeking more transparency about the Zuckerberg donation.

“Newark’s arguments to skirt New Jersey’s public disclosure laws (1.5mb PDF) simply haven’t added up from the start – that’s just one reason why this lawsuit is going forward today,” said Frank Corrado, an attorney with Barry, Corrado, Grassi & Gibson as well as the president of the ACLU-NJ Board of Trustees, who represents SPC on the ACLU-NJ's behalf. “When Mayor Booker accepted this generous offer to help transform Newark’s schools, he emphasized the role the public would play in the process. Instead they have been denied basic requests for public documents.”

The city has argued it does not have any documents, but that even if it did, they would be shielded by mayoral executive privilege, which does not exist in New Jersey. During a hearing on the motion to dismiss the case today, Judge Davidson said she found it hard to believe the city did not possess any records related to the September 2010 donation.

“It’s a little difficult to believe that after Mr. Zuckerberg pledged $100 million to the Newark Schools that the City of Newark would not have a document,” said Judge Davidson.

Michael Witt, the attorney representing the city, acknowledged that the city has some documents, which he believed would comprise roughly 50 pages of emails. The judge ordered the city to provide a log with a description of those emails by Feb. 10, 2011.

The judge’s ruling today brings Newark parents one step closer to a better understanding of the details of the donation, which was intended to transform Newark schools. Despite numerous requests for more detailed records since the announcement of the gift in September 2010, the City of Newark has released only general information about the use and sources of the funding rather than the complete body of information the public is entitled to under law.

“As parents and grandparents, we simply want to fully understand the impact of this gift on our children and get a better grasp on this aspect of their education,” said Laura Baker of the Secondary Parent Council. “Refusing to share details the public deserves to know sends a message that outside funders have more insight into the Newark Public Schools than the community members who have a stake in the process.”

Categories: Open Government

Gov. Christie Earns Mixed Marks on Civil Liberties During His First Two Years

January 24, 2012

ACLU-NJ examines Christie’s record on respecting rights

education

NEWARK – The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey (ACLU-NJ) released a midterm report card for Gov. Chris Christie today (182k PDF), issuing mostly low marks for his administration’s handling of critical civil liberties issues such as reproductive freedom and free speech.

The report card examines Christie’s record on an array of civil liberties issues during his first two years in office. The ACLU-NJ issued a similar report card for Newark Mayor Cory Booker (229k PDF) in 2009 during his first term in office.

“Christie has two years to turn a mediocre civil liberties record into a testament to individual rights,” said ACLU-NJ Executive Director Deborah Jacobs. “The people of New Jersey expect a leader who will stand up for their freedoms, not one who will let them know that despite his unfair policies, his heart is in the right place. It’s time for Gov. Christie’s good intentions to turn into policies that strengthen our rights and improve our lives.”

The ACLU-NJ issued the following grades:

B in Freedom of Religion. Gov. Christie made headlines several times in his first term for defending the religious freedom of Muslims and warning against extremists trying to promote discrimination against Islam.

F in Freedom of Speech. When provided the opportunity to speak up for our nation’s most fundamental value, the Governor stood idly by, letting the Department of Military and Veterans Affairs trample the rights of Occupy Trenton, and going so far as to endorse the termination of a NJ Transit employee fired for exercising his right to free expression.

B- in LGBT Rights. Although the Governor has spoken out against bullying and supported some interests of the LGBT community, he has turned his back on marriage equality for same-sex couples.

D in Open Government. Although the Governor signed a bill that lowers the cost of copies in New Jersey, his administration has put itself on the wrong side of open government disputes numerous times, allowing agencies to hide public documents and forcing citizens to go to court to get them.

C in Police Practices. Improvements made by the Office of Attorney General (OAG) to its statewide police Internal Affairs policies were a step forward, but the OAG has failed to address other important issues, such as developing a statewide policy on the use of confidential informants.

C in Privacy Rights. The governor conditionally vetoed a bill that sought to open adoption records, taking into account the privacy rights of birth parents. At the same time, he signed into a law a bill that allows police to collect DNA of people once they have been arrested in violation of privacy and due process rights.

F in Reproductive Rights. Not only did the governor cut $7.5 million from the budget for family planning centers, but he also withdrew an application for a federal program that would have covered family planning expenses for some of New Jersey’s most vulnerable women and children.

D in Separation of Powers. The Governor refused to reappoint New Jersey Supreme Court Justice John J. Wallace, Jr., calling into question the tradition of evaluating judges based on merits, and personally attacked a Superior Court judge because he disagreed with the outcome of her ruling. Gov. Christie’s actions threaten to undermine the judiciary’s independence and credibility.

Categories: Reproductive Freedom Religious Freedom Privacy Police Practices Open Government Gay & Lesbian Rights Free Speech Additional Issues

Judge Rules in Favor of Same-Sex Couple in Discrimination Case

January 13, 2012

Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association broke state’s discrimination law when it denied use of its pavilion for couple’s civil union ceremony

Luisa Paster & Harriet Bernstein

NEWARK – A state administrative law judge has ruled (50k PDF) that the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association violated the state’s Law Against Discrimination when it denied Ocean Grove residents Harriet Bernstein and Luisa Paster the use of its boardwalk pavilion for their 2007 civil union ceremony. The association had allowed members of the public to rent the pavilion and had never before declined a permit other than for scheduling conflicts until it received Paster and Bernstein’s reservation request. The association rejected the couple’s application to use the space, stating that civil unions violated its Methodist doctrine.

“The Camp Meeting Association could have used the pavilion exclusively for its own purposes,” said Lawrence Lustberg of Gibbons, P.C., who represents the couple as a cooperating attorney for the ACLU-NJ. “The judge found, however, that the association opened the pavilion up to the public and thus was obligated to follow anti-discrimination laws.”

“We are pleased with the judge’s findings,” said Harriet Bernstein. “When we first started planning our civil union, we had no idea that it would come to this. We weren’t asking the association to change their beliefs. We just wanted them to give us the same opportunity to use a beautiful space that we had seen open for public use.”

Paster and Bernstein celebrated their civil union at a fishing pier in Ocean Grove, a quarter mile from the pavilion on June 30, 2007. By then, the community rallied around the couple, showing support by raising flags around town that symbolized LGBT equality.

“Fortunately, out of this painful incident, Ocean Grove residents have a renewed sense of community and have come together to support equality,” said Luisa Paster.

In his written decision, Judge Solomon A. Metzger of the Office of Administrative Law found that in March 2007, when Paster and Bernstein filled out a reservation form, the pavilion was a public accommodation. The judge determined that the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association breached its agreement to make the pavilion available to the public on an equal basis. The association was also required to make the pavilion public in exchange for a state tax exemption it received that requires equal access on a non-discriminatory basis. Metzger also noted that while the association is free to practice its mission without government oversight, it had never attached any religious ministry to the wedding venue until it received Paster and Bernstein’s application.

“(The association) was not, however, free to promise equal access to rent wedding space to heterosexual couples irrespective of their tradition and then except (Bernstein and Paster),” Judge Metzger stated.

The administrative law judge’s decision is sent to the Director of the Division on Civil Rights who has 45 days to adopt, modify or reject it as part of the Director’s final decision; otherwise, it becomes a final decision. Once a final decision is issued, a party may appeal to the Appellate Division of the Superior Court.

Bernstein, 70, a grandmother and retired school administrator and Paster, 64, a retired academic librarian, met at a retreat in the Poconos in 2000. The couple decided to celebrate their commitment with a civil union in 2007, shortly after New Jersey passed a law allowing for civil unions. The couple, who live in the Ocean Grove section of Neptune, wanted their ceremony to take place at the Ocean Grove Boardwalk Pavilion, an open-air wood-framed seating area facing the Atlantic Ocean.

The pavilion was used for community and charitable events and the owners of the property, Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association, received a tax exemption from the state Green Acres program, which provides exemptions to non-profit organizations who use their property for recreational or conservation purposes. An important condition of the exemption is that the property be “open for public use on an equal basis.”

In March 2007, the couple went to the office of the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association and filled out an application to reserve the pavilion for their civil union. Days later, association officials denied their application and returned their $250 deposit. When Paster and Bernstein sought an explanation, they were told civil unions violated the group’s Methodist principles.

Paster and Bernstein filed a complaint with the state Division on Civil Rights.

In December 2008, the state Division on Civil Rights found probable cause that the association violated the state’s anti-discrimination law. The case proceeded to the state Administrative Law Judge for disposition.

“This decision affirms New Jersey’s strong protections against discrimination,” said Jeanne LoCicero, ACLU-NJ Deputy Legal Director. “When you open your doors to the public, you can’t treat same-sex couples differently.”

The case is captioned Bernstein et al v. Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association, OAL DKT. NO. CRT 6145-09.

Categories: Gay & Lesbian Rights Discrimination

Attorney General takes step backwards on police Internal Affairs tracking

December 21, 2011

ACLU implores Dow to suspend use of faulty new form

NEWARK – The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey condemned the decision of New Jersey Attorney General Paula Dow to implement use of a new form that makes it more difficult for law enforcement officials and the public to track police misconduct investigations.

“We have done everything we can to stop the Attorney General from releasing this poor revision of the New Jersey Internal Affairs statistics form,” said Deborah Jacobs, ACLU-NJ executive director. “After all the negative attention the state and major cities have received for abusive police practices, it’s dismaying that the AG would implement a revised tracking system that is worse than the original.”

At issue is how annual statistics on Internal Affairs complaints and dispositions are submitted to the counties and state, and available to the public through the Open Public Records Act. The ACLU-NJ wants systems to ensure that every citizen complaint is properly investigated, tracked and reported.

For several years the ACLU-NJ has pointed out to the Attorney General (420k PDF) and other high-ranking law enforcement officials that thousands of ongoing Internal Affairs cases were dropped from statistical records because police departments failed to report them in a statistics form provided by the AG’s office. To complete the form properly, officials must note the number of complaints pending at the end of one year, and carry them over as pending into the next year. However, over the last decade a multitude of departments failed to carry the pending cases over, resulting in unknown outcomes for thousands of cases throughout the state over a multi-year period. (650k PDF)

The problem was highlighted in the ACLU-NJ’s 2008 report, “The Crisis Inside Internal Affairs” (1.2mb PDF) and in the ACLU-NJ’s petition to the Department of Justice to investigate the Newark Police, as well as in a Star Ledger article about it.

In 2011, the Attorney General formed a working group to examine this and other issues raised by the ACLU-NJ concerning the Internal Affairs policy. It announced revisions on May 6, 2011, and finally released it with attachments on the Attorney General’s website yesterday. The revisions – many of which the ACLU-NJ supported – included changes to the statistical form. However, instead of insisting that police departments properly carry pending cases over – just as they do with Uniform Crime Reports – the revised policy simply eliminated the pending column, thus making it impossible for chiefs, county prosecutors, the Attorney General or outside advocates to get a full understanding of internal affairs operations in each department.

On September 7, 2011, the ACLU-NJ wrote to Phillip Kwon (1.4mb PDF), First Assistant Attorney General, to explain the problem and ask that the form be changed prior to its release. The ACLU-NJ proposed another option that would allow the AG to streamline the form while maintaining critical information, like the pending columns. The AG’s office did not respond to the letter, nor phone calls and emails to Dermot O’Grady, Deputy Director of the Division of Criminal Justice, who oversaw the revisions.

Yesterday the Attorney General posted its new version of the form online (2.3mb PDF), thus making the new, inferior form official despite the fact that it provides less information to both police and citizens.

“In a climate where police practices in New Jersey are under scrutiny not only by concerned citizens, but also the Department of Justice, it’s unacceptable for the Attorney General’s office to lead us backwards into failed record-keeping.” said Jacobs.

The ACLU-NJ sent another letter to the Attorney General today (144k PDF), objecting to the form and imploring her to suspend its use before she leaves office.

Categories: Police Practices

One Year After Initial Request, Department of Education Agrees to Release Records

November 17, 2011

education

NEWARK - In response to a lawsuit filed by the ACLU-NJ, the New Jersey Department of Education (DOE) has released public records containing the names of outside persons brought in by the DOE to review applications from schools seeking charters from the Commissioner of Education. The documents were released nearly one year after the initial request was filed by the Education Law Center (ELC).

The ACLU-NJ filed suit in March 4, 2011 on behalf of ELC, which has advocated for more transparency and accountability in the charter school review and approval process.

According to the documents that were released (1.4mb PDF), some of the reviewers are advocates for expanding charter schools and private school vouchers in New Jersey. Others are, or have been, affiliated with organizations that promote and support charter schools. ELC is analyzing the list further to determine whether the individuals brought in are qualified to make decisions about charter school applicants on behalf of the state.

"Even a cursory look at the list of charter reviewers raises a red flag about the ability and qualifications of these persons to give DOE objective input on whether an applicant meets the legal and education standards to open a charter in New Jersey," said ELC Executive Director David Sciarra.

ELC filed a public records request for the information on November 24, 2010. In addition to seeking the names, ELC also asked for training materials that were used to train reviewers, including a Power Point presentation. The DOE responded to the request on December 22, 2010 and refused to release the materials. Although it released emails between DOE employees and volunteers, the department redacted the identities and email addresses of the DOE volunteers. The state later agreed to release the requested training materials after the lawsuit was filed.

The lawsuit charged that the state violated the Open Public Records Act (OPRA) by refusing to release the names of outsiders who play a role in determining which schools receive a charter and public funding.

"Charter schools have a mission to serve the public and in turn the public has a right to know who is involved in making these decisions," said ACLU-NJ Open Governance Attorney Bobby Conner. "Releasing the list of outside reviewers sheds more light on how decisions are being made. It's time now for the DOE to take the next step and release the actual reviews, along with the reasons for the Commissioner's final decision to approve or deny a charter application."

ACLU-NJ Wins Temporary Restraining Order in Favor of Occupy Trenton Protesters

November 07, 2011

NEWARK — A Superior Court judge has validated the free speech rights of Occupy Trenton protesters and has ordered the state (240k PDF) to return all of the food, medical supplies, computers and other property that it confiscated on October 14.

“This is a victory in our efforts to secure full free speech rights for Occupy Trenton,” said ACLU-NJ Legal Director Ed Barocas. “The state cannot arbitrarily create restrictive policies just because it does not like how people are using a public space.”

Superior Court Judge Mary C. Jacobson in Trenton granted a temporary restraining order (240k PDF) preventing the state from enforcing some of the “rules” issued in a letter from Raymond L. Zawacki, the Deputy Commissioner for Veterans Affairs in the Department of Military and Veterans Affairs, in response to the Occupy Trenton demonstration that began in Veterans Park on October 6.

Protesters will now be allowed to have their laptops, coolers, signs and other items at the park on State Street. The judge ordered the state to return all confiscated belongings to protesters by November 14. The judge further confirmed that the protesters must be allowed to maintain a continuous 24-hour presence at the park, although the protestors cannot set up tents or other structures.

The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey (ACLU-NJ) filed the lawsuit (2.3mb PDF) on behalf of Occupy Trenton on October 26. The lawsuit claims the state’s imposition of previously-nonexistent restrictions on the protesters, and the seizure of their property pursuant to those restrictions, violated their rights to free speech and due process.

Judge Jacobson acknowledged Occupy Trenton’s likelihood to succeed in the case, noting that the state failed to follow proper procedures when it made up the restrictions governing the use of the park. She explained that the Occupy Trenton demonstrators “are entitled to have restrictions on their constitutionally protected activities imposed by rulemaking and not informal action targeted at their demonstration.”

On October 26, ACLU-NJ cooperating attorney Bennet Zurofsky appeared in court to ask the judge to impose a temporary restraining order to stop the state from enforcing the illegal rules. The ACLU-NJ will appear in court again on December 19 for another hearing on the matter.

Occupy Trenton is also being represented by ACLU-NJ cooperating attorney David Perry Davis and ACLU-NJ Legal Director Edward Barocas.

New Guides Help NJ Citizens Gain Access to Government

November 02, 2011

ACLU-NJ pamphlets answer key questions about NJ’s sunshine and right-to-know laws

NEWARK - Although New Jersey's Sunshine Law and Open Public Meetings Act are powerful tools to gain access to government officials, interpreting the laws can sometimes present a challenge. The ACLU-NJ has two new resources to change that, one demystifying the Sunshine Law (382k PDF) and another shedding light on the Open Public Records Act (369k PDF).

The ACLU-NJ's guide to New Jersey's Sunshine Law (382k PDF) explains the rules all public bodies must follow regarding meetings, including whether they have to keep minutes (they do), whether they can be fined for violating the law (they can), whether it's legal for members of the public to record meetings (it is), and times when members of the public may speak (during mandatory public-comment periods).
Additionally, the guide to New Jersey's Open Public Records Act (369k PDF) teaches the ins and outs of accessing government documents: how to file a request at any level of government in New Jersey, what copies of records will cost (5 cents for letter-size paper, 7 cents for legal) and what to do if a request is denied (there are several options).

"The law supports the rights of New Jersey citizens to get the information they need to engage in community issues and concerns, but you can only fight for your rights if you know what they are," said ACLU-NJ Open Governance Attorney Bobby Conner. "Having an easy-to-use guide to these rights should embolden people to act if government agencies unlawfully hide information or forbid access to meetings."

The pamphlet is available on the ACLU-NJ's website, www.aclu-nj.org/opengov. Members of the public can also request a pamphlet by emailing info@aclu-nj.org.

Citizens can use the Sunshine Law and Open Public Records Act to uncover a wide range of information, from official salaries and crime statistics to school board meeting minutes and topics coming before the city council. The ACLU-NJ's Open Governance Project has used the Sunshine Law and Open Public Records Act to uncover whether New Jersey has tracked cell phones; to find out which school districts violated the state's rules for enrolling immigrant students; to learn whether New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie met with the head of Fox News; and to secure the rights of citizens to access and record public meetings.

"Unless we know what our government officials are doing, there's no way to hold our elected officials accountable," said ACLU-NJ Executive Director Deborah Jacobs. "We hope these pamphlets will serve as a how-to guide for everyone in New Jersey to play a direct part in defending democracy."

The longstanding tension in New Jersey between concerned citizens and powerful local authorities was just one factor that gave rise to the ACLU-NJ's Open Governance Project, founded in 2009 with a generous grant from Rutgers School of Law's Pratt Bequest to help New Jerseyans gain access to their government. The ACLU-NJ saw firsthand the severity of government agencies' problems with transparency. While trying to investigate civil liberties violations, the ACLU-NJ regularly encounters roadblocks to information based on misinterpretations of open records laws, stalling civil liberties work, and weakening checks on governmental power.

The ACLU-NJ is currently working with legislators to modernize the Sunshine Law, which has hardly been touched since its passage in 1974, on the heels of Watergate, and the Open Public Records Act, which was last revised in 2002. Advances in technology have changed the day-to-day processes of government drastically, and the laws require clarification to guarantee open government in an age when officials can use electronic communications to shield records and hold secret meetings.

For more information on the ACLU-NJ's Open Governance Project and its work to promote transparency, visit http://www.aclu-nj.org/theissues/opengovernment/opengovernanceproject/

Categories: Open Government

ACLU-NJ goes to court to defend Occupy Trenton's free speech

October 27, 2011

State illegally confiscated computers, signs and medicine from protesters

TRENTON – The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey (ACLU-NJ) appeared in the Chancery Division of Mercer County Superior Court yesterday afternoon to stop the State from enforcing unconstitutional rules that violate the free speech rights of the Occupy Trenton protesters. The ACLU-NJ argued that the State illegally confiscated the laptops, coolers and other property belonging to the protesters on October 14 as a means to chill their free speech.

“The state cannot arbitrarily create restrictive policies just because it does not like how people are using a public space,” said ACLU-NJ Legal Director Ed Barocas. “Laws must be created pursuant to proper process, not created by executive fiat.”

The rules at issue were developed and enforced only after protesters first descended on Veterans Park on State Street on Oct. 6 with blankets, laptops, a small generator, coolers of food and tarps for rain. In the past, other groups have been permitted to use tables, canopies and other items that the State has prohibited Occupy Trenton from using.

On Oct. 13, Raymond Zawacki, Deputy Commissioner for Veteran’s Affairs in New Jersey’s Department of Military and Veterans Affairs, issued an edict restricting any camping or picnicking items from the park. The next day, the State Police confiscated most of the protesters’ property, including their computers, coolers, the generator and their protest signs.

During the hearing, ACLU-NJ cooperating attorney Bennet Zurofsky argued the state cannot inhibit speech activities simply because it doesn’t like the aesthetics. Zurofsky also pointed out that picnicking - including with items like coolers and chairs - is just the kind of activity for which parks were designed. The Attorney General’s office argued in court that the State can make up whatever rules it wishes regarding its property and that any “unattended” property should be considered “abandoned.” The State has essentially taken the position that property, including protest signs, is “unattended” if it is not within arm’s length of an individual. Indeed, the State seized protestors’ property despite the fact that the protestors are within a few feet of their items.

The ACLU-NJ asked the court to impose a temporary restraining order to prevent the State from infringing upon the protestors’ fundamental rights. The judge is expected to rule in the next few days.

More Obstacles Encountered in Quest for Transparency about Facebook Donation

October 25, 2011

Top officials are using personal email to discuss Facebook and City of Newark refuses to release records

NEWARK - The Secondary Parent Council (SPC) and other organizations seeking information about the $100 million pledge by Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg continue to encounter roadblocks by the City of Newark and other public officials who are using personal email accounts to discuss the donation.

"The bottom line is that folks on the ground in Newark want basic information about the terms of the gift, such as whether it included any preconditions" said Deborah Jacobs, American Civil Liberties of New Jersey (ACLU-NJ) executive director. "But between the use of personal email accounts and unjust denials of open records requests, they've learned practically nothing."

Recent developments include:

The City of Newark has asked the court to dismiss an open records lawsuit filed by the ACLU-NJ on behalf of the SPC, a Newark group of parents and grandparents that requested public records about the Facebook donation. The City claimed in its response (1.7mb PDF) that the records are protected by mayoral executive privilege (something allowed only to the Governor in New Jersey), that Newark Mayor Cory Booker was not acting in official capacity, that the communications were exempt because they were deliberative and that the mayor has a general need for privacy in executing his functions.
The City's response came days after the ACLU-NJ discovered that top officials, including Mayor Booker and Department of Education Commissioner Christopher Cerf have used their personal email accounts to discuss the Facebook pledge. The ACLU-NJ made the discovery after reviewing documents released in response to an open records request made by one of its clients, the Education Law Center (ELC).

In July, the ELC filed an open records request (11k PDF) with the state Department of Education (DOE) seeking any emails, documents or other correspondence between the agency and the Foundation for Newark's Future, a nonprofit established to raise matching funds and administer the money. The DOE turned over documents and email, (1.6mb PDF) which included email exchanges between Cerf and Booker on their personal accounts.

The ACLU-NJ emailed a letter to the DOE (395k PDF) asking that it search the personal email accounts of Cerf and Assistant Commissioner Andrew Smarick for public records. By law, public business conducted on a personal email account is a public record. Public officials should not be allowed to conduct business on private email accounts because it lessens accountability when the email is not on the government agency's computer system.

ELC is one of several organizations that have sought transparency and records about the Facebook money. The NAACP and SPC have also filed open records requests with the City of Newark, the Newark Public Schools and the DOE. Although the DOE recently provided some records, not one of the agencies has produced any written agreement or contract memorializing the terms of the gift.

Laura Baker, a representative of the SPC, said she is dismayed by the City of Newark's lack of response.

"I'm extremely disappointed that the city has once again refused to turn over records," said Baker. "As parents and grandparents, we just wanted to get a better idea about how our leaders are making decisions that affect our children."

ACLU-NJ’s Statement on Union Township School Teacher’s Facebook Post

October 18, 2011

NEWARK — Although we do not agree with the sentiments expressed on Union Township teacher Viki Knox’s personal Facebook page, her beliefs and comments are protected by the First Amendment. But because her postings raise questions about her conduct within school, the school district can and should investigate whether she is performing her job in accordance with school policies and the state's Law Against Discrimination.

The ACLU believes that the response to offensive speech is not the restriction of speech, but more speech, which is why the ACLU has created programs like the "Don’t Filter Me" project, which ensures the public schools aren’t illegally denying students access to positive, affirming information about LGBT issues. The ACLU-NJ has participated in this program and successfully advocated for a school in Vineland to remove a filter blocking sites that were supportive of LGBT issues.

Ms. Knox’s Facebook comments highlight the work that still needs to be done to help people understand why LGBT equality is so important. The ACLU will continue working hard to make sure public schools are safe for all students, including LGBT students, in New Jersey and in communities across the country.

ACLU-NJ Releases Toolkit to Guide Residents in Investigating their Local Police Departments

September 09, 2011

Step-by-step guide will aid New Jerseyans in assessing and documenting the treatment of citizens by police in their towns

police toolkit:

NEWARK — The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey (ACLU-NJ) today released a guide that offers citizens tips on how to investigate their local police departments and hold them accountable to the public. The guide, released exactly one year after the ACLU-NJ submitted a petition asking for the Department of Justice to investigate the Newark Police Department, includes many of the same steps the ACLU-NJ took in compiling its petition.

"The ACLU gets police misconduct complaints from all over the state, but we don't have the resources to help everyone," said ACLU-NJ Executive Director Deborah Jacobs, "This toolkit empowers citizens and give them the tools to hold government accountable."

The 21-page toolkit teaches citizens where to find public records, how to file open records requests and what to look for in documents, such as lawsuits, settlements and contracts. The guide also provides a primer on analyzing and understanding crime statistics at a local and state level.

"It can be difficult to get information about what happens in your own back yard, let alone information that allows citizens to credibly hold government officials accountable," said ACLU-NJ cooperating attorney Flavio Komuves, who authored the toolkit. "Knowing how to gather and interpret this information puts democracy directly in the people's hands."

The ACLU-NJ's use of public information last year helped convince the Department of Justice to begin an investigation into a pattern and practice of civil rights abuses in the Newark Police Department.

The ACLU-NJ actively promotes government transparency through its Open Governance Project, which both advocates for citizens denied access to public records and meetings, and uses open government laws to gather information to assess civil liberties problems. For example, open government work laid the foundation for ACLU-NJ reports on police internal affairs practices and access to education, which resulted in changes to policy and practices to respect individual rights.

Police Toolkit

Both toolkits below are identical except one is in black and white (for easier printing) and the other is in color. The toolkits are in PDF format and are each less than 1.5mb in size.

Categories: Police Practices

Parents' Group Sues for Details of Facebook Donation to Newark Schools

August 23, 2011

Secondary Parent Council turns to court in response to Newark’s denial of request for public records about $100 million Zuckerberg donation

NEWARK, N.J. — The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey's Open Governance Project (ACLU-NJ) and the Newark-based Secondary Parent Council (SPC) filed suit today against the City of Newark for refusing to release records concerning the $100 million gift that Facebook Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg pledged last September to transform the city's public school system.

"As parents, as taxpayers and as citizens, we have a need and right to know how the money pledged to Newark's public schools will ultimately serve Newark's public school students," said Laura Baker, who filed the open records request as a representative of the SPC and has a granddaughter in Newark public schools.

On April 1, SPC, an organization made up of parents and grandparents of Newark public school students, filed a request under the state's Open Public Records Act (OPRA) to review correspondence between Zuckerberg, Newark employees, including Mayor Cory Booker, and the New Jersey state government, among other affiliated foundations and corporations related to the Zuckerberg gift. The community-based organization was interested in learning more details about how the highly-publicized $100 million gift, announced on the Oprah Winfrey Show on Sept. 24, 2010, would be spent. After the money was pledged, Gov. Chris Christie instructed Mayor Booker to develop and implement a comprehensive plan for Newark schools.

"When Mayor Booker accepted this donation, he stressed the importance of getting input from the community members it affected most. If this is truly an investment in our city's future, we need to see the transparency we've been promised," said Baker.

After requesting several extensions in order to locate the responsive documents, Newark denied the request on July 19, 2011. In its rejection, the city claimed, among other things, that the communications between Mayor Booker and Zuckerberg "were not made in the court of the mayor's official duties." The letter also stated, to the extent Mayor Booker was exercising his official duties, the documents were subject to executive and deliberative privileges.

The ACLU-NJ's lawsuit states the city has failed to provide a lawful basis for denying access to the records. Newark also failed to produce a list of the responsive documents that the public was not entitled to see, as required by OPRA.

"By invoking executive privilege, the City of Newark has waded into unchartered territory in an attempt to make sure these records never see the light of day," said Frank Corrado, an attorney with Barry, Corrado, Grassi & Gibson as well as the president of the ACLU-NJ Board of Trustees, who represents SPC on the ACLU-NJ's behalf. "Executive privilege is the province of the Governor; it has never been accepted at the mayoral level in New Jersey."

Executive privilege protects the Governor from disclosing records that contain advice to him on matters related to his executive functions as Governor of New Jersey; it does not apply to other elected officials in New Jersey. The assertion that Booker was not acting in his official capacity as Mayor is obviously inaccurate, considering that the money is dedicated to the Newark Public Schools and its distribution is coordinated through the Governor and other state offices.

The complaint, captioned Secondary Parent Council v. City of Newark was filed in Superior Court in Essex County.

The ACLU-NJ's Open Governance Project, founded in 2009 through a grant from the Pratt Bequest Fund of Rutgers School of Law-Newark, is dedicated to ensuring that government agencies uphold and enforce OPRA and New Jersey's Sunshine law.

ACLU Seeks Details on Government Phone Tracking in Massive Nationwide Information Request

August 03, 2011

Campaign is One of the Largest Coordinated Information Act Requests in American History

NEW YORK — In a massive coordinated information-seeking campaign, 34 American Civil Liberties Union affiliates across the nation today, including New Jersey are sending requests to 375 local law enforcement agencies large and small demanding to know when, why and how they are using cell phone location data to track Americans. The campaign is one of the largest coordinated information act requests in American history. The requests, being filed under the states' freedom of information laws, are an effort to strip away the secrecy that has surrounded law enforcement use of cell phone tracking capabilities.

"The ability to access cell phone location data is an incredibly powerful tool and its use is shrouded in secrecy. The public has a right to know how and under what circumstances their location information is being accessed by the government," said Catherine Crump, staff attorney for the ACLU Speech, Privacy and Technology Project. "A detailed history of someone's movements is extremely personal and is the kind of information the Constitution protects."

The ACLU-NJ sent open records requests to the 50 largest police departments in the state, including Newark, Jersey City and Camden. The requests asked for policies, procedures and practices followed when obtaining cell phone location records, criteria about when and how cell phone location records are used and any judicial orders or decisions allowing the departments to obtain cell phone location records.

"While New Jersey residents have widely embraced cell phones for the convenience they offer on a daily basis, they have also given the government an unprecedented ability to monitor people's movements by tracking the geographical location of their cell phones," said ACLU-NJ Open Governance Project attorney Bobby Conner. "New Jersey residents have a right to know if their police departments are tracking cell phones and if so, why?"

Law enforcement agencies are being asked for information including:

whether law enforcement agents demonstrate probable cause and obtain a warrant to access cell phone location data;
statistics on how frequently law enforcement agencies obtain cell phone location data;
how much money law enforcement agencies spend tracking cell phones and
other policies and procedures used for acquiring location data.

Law enforcement's use of cell phone location data has been widespread for years, although it has become increasingly controversial recently. Just last week, the general counsel of the National Security Agency suggested to members of Congress that the NSA might have the authority to collect the location information of American citizens inside the U.S. Also, this spring, researchers revealed that iPhones were collecting and storing location information in unknown files on the phone. Police in Michigan sought information about every cell phone near the site of a planned labor protest.

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether police need a warrant to place a GPS tracking device on a person's vehicle. While that case does not involve cell phones, it could influence the rules police have to follow for cell phone tracking.

Congress is considering the Geolocation Privacy and Surveillance Act, a bill supported by the ACLU that would require police to get a warrant to obtain personal location information. The bill would protect both historical and real-time location data, and would also require customers' consent for telecommunications companies to collect location data.

Today's requests are part of the ACLU's Demand Your dotRights Campaign, the organization's campaign to make sure that as technology advances, privacy rights are not left behind.

Requests were filed by the ACLU affiliates in:

Alabama
Arizona
Northern California
Southern California
San Diego and Imperial Counties
Connecticut
Washington D.C.
Delaware
Florida
Hawaii
Illinois

Iowa
Kentucky
Maine
Massachusetts
Michigan
Eastern Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico

North Carolina
Oklahoma
Oregon
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Utah
Virginia
Washington
Wisconsin
Wyoming

More information about the requests is available at: http://www.aclu.org/locationtracking

Categories: Open Government

Gov. Christie releases records after lawsuit

July 25, 2011

ACLU-NJ, Gawker challenged governor’s use of executive privilege

Gov. Chris Christie

Roger Ailes

NEWARK - In response to a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey, Gov. Chris Christie's office today released records that it originally shielded citing executive privilege.

The record, a page from his calendar on September 11, 2010, was originally sought after by John Cook, a reporter with Gawker. Cook filed an open records request for email, calendar entries and phone records of Christie's correspondence with Fox News President Roger Ailes, but was denied. Christie's office rejected the request on June 14, 2011 citing executive privilege. Earlier today, it released a calendar entry confirming a private meeting between Christie and Ailes, and claimed that no further records exist.

While today's response from the Governor's office will likely resolve the lawsuit, it raises new questions.

"We're happy to see the matter resolved quickly but remain concerned that the governor's office initially issued a blanket executive privilege claim in response to Gawker's request for records," said Frank Corrado, of Barry, Corrado, Grassi & Gibson, who represents Cook on behalf of the ACLU-NJ. "Is the governor's office actually reviewing records requests from the public, or is it simply using executive privilege as a carte blanche to deny access to all correspondence with his office?"

After Christie's office released the documents, the ACLU-NJ sent a letter to his office expressing its concern about the governor's use of executive privilege, and asking to meet with his administration to address the concerns.

"Governor Christie often highlights his expressed commitment to government transparency government, so we were especially concerned about his use of the executive privilege exception" said Deborah Jacobs, ACLU-NJ executive director. "We need the assurances of his office that the utmost information is released to the public."

Cook sought the records from Christie's office in order to shed light on conversations reported in New York magazine in which Ailes, a Republican political adviser turned Fox media mogul, urged Governor Christie to run for president. The lawsuit was filed after the governor's office rejected his open records request.

Executive privilege protects the Governor from disclosing records that contain advice to him on matters related to his executive functions as Governor of New Jersey. However, while New Jersey's executive privilege exists to protect "the sensitive decisional and consultative" responsibilities of the governor to fulfill his constitutional obligations, it does not apply to records that do not pertain to his constitutional obligations as the chief executive. Members of the press and the public alike need to know that the Governor only uses executive privilege to protect the integrity of his decisions and not to protect any and all correspondence he simply wishes to shield from scrutiny.

The case is captioned Gawker Entertainment v. Jeffrey S. Chiesa .

ACLU-NJ sues to challenge Gov. Christie's denial to release Ailes emails to Gawker reporter

July 25, 2011

Governor's Office invokes "executive privilege" in rejecting records request

Gov. Chris Christie

Roger Ailes

NEWARK - The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey has sued New Jersey Governor Chris Christie's office on behalf of Gawker Entertainment and its reporter challenging the Governor's refusal - based on claims of executive privilege — to release correspondence between Fox News President Roger Ailes and Governor Christie.

"New Jersey needs a system in place to separate executive privilege from carte blanche," said Frank Corrado of Barry, Corrado, Grassi & Gibson, who is representing Cook for the ACLU-NJ and is the president of the organization's board. "Executive privilege exists to help a governor carry out constitutional obligations, not to diminish the constitutional right to a free press."

Gawker reporter John Cook filed a request for correspondence between the Governor and Ailes under the state Open Public Records Act (OPRA) on May 25, 2011. Cook sought any correspondence, phone records and calendar entries from Christie's office in order to shed light on conversations reported in New York magazine in which Ailes, a Republican political adviser turned Fox media mogul, urged Governor Christie to run for president. The Governor's office responded to the OPRA request on June 14, 2011, refusing to confirm whether the records existed, but said that if they did, they would be exempt from OPRA under executive privilege.

"The public has a right to know whether the head of America's most-watched cable news channel is advising a sitting governor on State matters," said Gawker reporter Cook. "If the emails on the state system between the Governor and Ailes don't relate to Christie's functions as Governor, then they can't be hidden from the public."

The lawsuit, filed today in Superior Court in Mercer County, argues that the state's blanket assertion of executive privilege, without explanation or description of the documents, was insufficient to sustain the executive privilege claim.

The ACLU-NJ will argue that for executive privilege to be properly invoked the governor must include an index identifying the responsive records (without disclosing compromising details) and explain why executive privilege applies, or the records should be subject to a judge's in camera review.

The case is captioned Gawker Entertainment v. Jeffrey S. Chiesa .

Appeals Court Rules Newark Journalist Who was Wrongfully Arrested by Police is Entitled to Damages

July 19, 2011

Newark Police violated Roberto Lima's First Amendment rights

Roberto Lima & Baher Azmy

NEWARK — The United States Third Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling today holding that Newark journalist Roberto Lima is entitled to the entire amount of a monetary offer made by the City of Newark in a case stemming from his wrongful arrest in 2007, and that his attorneys are also entitled to now seek fees in addition to those monetary damages.

"The actions taken by Newark Police that day were a clear violation of Mr. Lima's First Amendment rights as a journalist," said Seton Hall Law School professor Baher Azmy, who served as a cooperating attorney for the ACLU-NJ. "Police cannot arrest innocent journalists to suppress stories that they may not like or may embarrass them."

Lima, the editor of the Brazilian Voice newspaper, was held by police in September 2007 after a photographer discovered and photographed a decomposed body covered by debris in the Ironbound section of Newark. The photographer notified Lima about the discovery, and Lima thereafter notified the police. After arriving at the scene, officers intimidated Lima, seized his camera and ordered him to turn over all copies of the photographs including originals. The officers at the scene were led by Samuel DeMaio, who was a deputy chief at the time. DeMaio currently serves as acting director of the Newark Police Department.

DeMaio ordered Lima not to publish the photos and told officers to physically seize his camera. While at the scene, DeMaio also demanded that the photographer disclose his immigration status, a demand for which DeMaio was later reprimanded by the state Attorney General's office which has banned any law enforcement official from inquiring about the immigration status of a crime witness or victim.

After Lima voluntarily gave a statement at the police station, he was handcuffed to a bench until he agreed to turn over all originals and copies of the photographs.

Lima expressed relief at the court's ruling. "I hope that the Newark Police has learned its lesson and trained its officers so that no journalist or citizen is ever bullied, intimidated or harassed the way I was," Lima said. "This case was about standing up for my constitutional rights as well as the rights of others - especially journalists."

Before filing suit in January 2008, Lima and his attorneys from the ACLU-NJ and the Seton Hall Center for Social Justice attempted to settle the matter, but the city refused.

In November 2009, the City of Newark made a formal "Offer of Judgment" to pay Lima $55,000 for the plaintiff's claims for relief against the city. But when Lima's attorneys filed an application for attorney's fees, the city balked and said the $55,000 offer included attorney's fees. The Court of Appeals today determined that Lima was entitled to the entire $55,000 as damages, and said a separate petition for attorney's fees can be filed.

"We wish it did not have to come to this," said ACLU-NJ Executive Director Deborah Jacobs. "If the city had acknowledged its officers' unconstitutional conduct and taken expedient steps to retrain officers, we never would have had to go to court. Now we can only hope that the city takes steps to ensure this never happens again."

Lima's case was also one of hundreds of allegations in the ACLU-NJ's 2010 petition to the Department of Justice asking it to investigate the Newark Police for civil rights violations.

Categories: Police Practices Free Speech

ACLU-NJ Welcomes Changes to Attorney General’s Policy on Internal Affairs Complaints

July 06, 2011

Revised policy goes into effect for all law enforcement agencies today

NEWARK — The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey (ACLU-NJ) welcomes the state’s revised internal affairs policy, which requires more accountability for police departments in dealing with complaints against police officers. The changes were announced by Attorney General Paula Dow in May and go into effect today.

The ACLU-NJ has been calling for greater oversight into how departments handle internal affairs complaints for years and worked with the attorney general to reshape the policy. This is the first time the policy has been revised since 2000.

"Policing. more than any other profession, depends on public trust to succeed," said Deborah Jacobs, executive director of the ACLU-NJ. "Accountability and transparency are central to an internal affairs system in which the public has faith. We are pleased that Attorney General Dow has taken steps to improve that relationship with the public."

In 2009, the ACLU-NJ surveyed more than 500 police departments statewide to see if they complied with the state's guidelines on handling complaints against officers. The ACLU-NJ called police departments to ask how a person could file a complaint; analyzed police internal affairs statistics from around the state and reviewed 50 internal affairs files from individuals who filed complaints. The results of its survey, "The Crisis Inside Police Internal Affairs," revealed that most police departments violated state policy on internal affairs by insisting that complaints be filed in person and refusing to accept anonymous complaints. It also revealed that getting a live person on the phone to take the complaint was difficult.

The ACLU-NJ commends the following changes to the state internal affairs policy:

A requirement that agencies evaluate complaints to determine whether patterns, practices or trends of inappropriate behavior or conduct are developing in the agency. Under this new policy, data will not simply be collected — it will also be analyzed, which is important in identifying problematic officers or department policies.
If a complaint against an officer is not sustained, the agency is required to send the complainant a letter with a brief explanation of why it was not sustained.
Every law enforcement agency is required to notify the prosecutor's office when the agency has reason to question an officer's credibility based on a false report a pending court complaint, a court conviction, or a judicial finding.

These changes come on the tail of the Attorney General's decision, in September 2010, to investigate the extent to which police departments’ recordkeeping practices led to hundreds of internal affairs statistics being "dropped" in annual record keeping and reporting. The ACLU-NJ first revealed the record-keeping problems in its 2009 report, "The Crisis Inside Police Internal Affairs."

While these changes will contribute to better internal affairs systems, more is needed in the interest of transparency. For example, the state requires law enforcement agencies to periodically make public a synopsis of all complaints that result in a fine or suspension of 10 days or more, but it fails to require that the synopsis include the identity of the officer or the complainant.

The ACLU-NJ believes the names of all officers should be released and that all information about all records of discipline should be made public.

The ACLU-NJ plans to continue monitoring internal affairs operations in New Jersey and working with towns and counties to improve practices.

ACLU-NJ Files Brief to the U.S. Supreme Court Challenging Blanket Strip Searches At State Jails

June 27, 2011

Amicus brief submitted on behalf of former New Jersey Attorneys General

NEWARK - The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey (ACLU-NJ), joined by the national ACLU, today filed a friend-of-the-court brief to the U.S. Supreme Court opposing blanket strip search policies at the Burlington County Jail and Essex County Correctional Facility. The brief was filed on behalf of five former New Jersey attorneys general.

The jails' policies which are being challenged require strip searches for people charged with but not convicted of minor offenses, even when there is no reasonable suspicion that an arrestee possesses contraband. These policies violate New Jersey law and the case before the U.S. Supreme Court contends it violates the Constitution as well.

"A strip search is a demeaning and humiliating experience for anyone," said Ed Barocas, Legal Director for the ACLU-NJ. "But strip searching every detainee is unconstitutional and results in intrusions without justification. Strip searching a person who is in jail for minor offenses, such as unpaid traffic tickets, does not increase security at a jail. It has been proven in this state and other states that removing blanket strip searches does not compromise jail security."

The amicus brief (189k PDF), filed on behalf of former New Jersey Attorneys General Robert J. Del Tufo, Deborah T. Poritz, John J. Farmer Jr., Peter C. Harvey and Zulima V. Farber, defends the privacy and Fourth Amendment rights of Albert Florence. The brief argues that the blanket strip search policies violate New Jersey law, the Attorney General's Strip Search Requirements policy, Department of Corrections' regulations and standards accepted by the American Bar Association, as well as the Constitution.

In March 2005, a State Police officer in Burlington County pulled over Florence's wife for speeding. When the officer ran the vehicle's registration, he learned there was a warrant for his arrest for an unpaid traffic ticket. The warrant, it turned out, had been dismissed in 2003, but Florence was brought to Burlington County Jail anyway and ordered to squat naked and, while standing in front of prison guards, to lift his genitals. Florence spent five days at Burlington County Jail and one day at Essex County Correctional Facility, where he was also strip searched.

Consistent with legal precedent, U.S. District Court Judge Joseph H. Rodriguez ruled in February 2009 that the strip search of Florence violated the Constitution. The judge held that, for persons arrested on non-indictable offenses, reasonable suspicion that contraband will be found on the person is required before a strip search can occur. Officials with Burlington and Essex counties appealed the decision to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, which acknowledged the intrusiveness of the search, but rejected a reasonable suspicion standard and held that blanket strip search policies are not unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment.

The ACLU-NJ's brief to the U.S. Supreme Court argues that using a standard of reasonable suspicion to conduct searches strikes the appropriate balance between maintaining security in the jail and the substantial invasion of privacy caused by strip searches.

"Being forced to strip naked is a humiliating experience, and people charged with minor crimes shouldn't be strip searched unless there's a legitimate reason to think they're hiding something," said David Fathi, director of the ACLU National Prison Project.

Previous federal rulings have banned strip searches of low-level arrestees unless jail officials can prove reasonable suspicion that the inmate may have drugs, guns or other illegal contraband. The standard of reasonable suspicion still allows prison officials to use broad discretion in determining if a strip search is necessary.

Categories: Prisons

Confidential informant study reveals weaknesses in New Jersey police practices

June 27, 2011

Research led three counties to begin undertaking policy changes,
adding to ACLU-NJ's efforts to reform NJ's criminal justice system

NEWARK — The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey and ACLU Criminal Law Reform Project have released a study today that examines the use of confidential informants in the state of New Jersey. The study, authored by John Jay College of Criminal Justice faculty, revealed inconsistent policies governing the use of confidential informants at all levels of government, which have led to violations of informants' rights and compromises in the integrity of criminal investigations.

"Because the practice of using informants in criminal investigations has such a long history with support from state laws and judicial decisions, we were surprised to find that the policy governing informant use in the state is so disorganized," said Professor Delores Jones-Brown, co-author of the report and a former Monmouth County Assistant Prosecutor. "Though our sample size was small, it was disturbing to find that half of the officers surveyed were unclear about the requirements for the proper use of informants."

Police departments across the country have come to rely on informants as a primary way to pursue drug investigations, but their improper use has led to serious problems. After seeing the sometimes-tragic outcomes in other states, including the deaths of innocent people, the ACLU-NJ in 2007 began to look into New Jersey's handling of informants, a group frequently utilized in law enforcement but rarely reported on in larger society. In some of those national cases, confidential informants gave false information under pressure, resulting in police busts of innocent people with guns drawn, sometimes with tragic results such as in the case of Kathryn Johnson, an elderly woman who was shot by an undercover officer in a botched drug raid in Georgia. In other instances, they lead to wrongful arrests, such as the arrest of 38 people in Tulia, Texas, who were rounded up for drug offenses based on information from a confidential informant. In other past cases, police departments have sent confidential informants into dangerous situations they never would have encountered otherwise, such as in the case of Rachel Hoffman, a 23-year-old who was murdered while serving as an informant in Florida.

The report analyzed information and perspectives provided by both law enforcement and citizens, shedding light for the first time on how New Jersey law enforcement agencies use confidential informants. In most cases, people become confidential informants when law enforcement agents offer to reduce their charges or sentences in exchange for assistance with other criminal investigations. However, without proper regulation, the nature of their relationships can lead to an array of problems including ethical violations, botched prosecutions, civil liberties violations and even loss of life.

The researchers discovered that some departments throughout New Jersey failed to put agreements in writing, circumvented search warrant requirements, used juveniles improperly, and insufficiently checked the reliability of information given by confidential informants, who can be motivated by financial incentives or fear of prosecution, among other reasons, to fabricate information. Worse, many departments reported their belief that no policies existed, including the mandatory protocols issued by the Attorney General. Other departments believed they were merely advisory.

In Lower Township, Cape May County, the mishandling of confidential informants resulted in two waves of case dismissals since research for the study began. In a 2010 Sussex County case, an informant fabricated evidence (giving police crushed drywall and claiming it was cocaine he bought from local dealers), with devastating consequences for those falsely accused of selling drugs.

The study's authors, Dr. Jones-Brown and Dr. Jon Shane, who is also a retired Newark Police Department captain, issued recommendations to create uniform policies at all levels and to thoroughly train officers and prosecutors. Under those recommendations, law enforcement agencies should always receive prosecutors' approval before using a confidential informant (who must be registered with the state), have written and signed agreements between law enforcement and the confidential informant, institute processes to approve or deny the use of informants, develop a protocol for establishing an informant's reliability, strictly limit the use of minors, impose strict recordkeeping rules, and, above all, train officers regularly.

In response to the report, at least three New Jersey counties - Morris, Salem and Cumberland - have already begun to reform their policies, starting after their review of an early draft.

"We couldn't be happier to see some of the changes taking place in these counties," said Deborah Jacobs, Executive Director for the ACLU of New Jersey. "We hope to work collaboratively with more counties, and the Attorney General, to see New Jersey adopt the most professional and effective practices for dealing with confidential informants."

The report is the latest ACLU-NJ examination of law enforcement conduct in the state. In May, eight months after the ACLU-NJ petitioned the Department of Justice to investigate allegations of systemic abuse by the Newark Police Department, the federal agency launched a probe into the department. Just days before that announcement, New Jersey Attorney General Paula Dow announced new reforms to the state's internal affairs policy based on the ACLU-NJ's recommendations, which will go into effect in July.

The ACLU-NJ's report on confidential informants can be found online, as well as more information relating to reforms of police in Newark, in Camden and the rest of the state.

Categories: Police Practices

ACLU-NJ Appeals on Behalf of a Promising Student Denied a Grant Because of Parent’s Immigration Status

June 10, 2011

NEWARK — The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey (ACLU-NJ) and the Rutgers Constitutional Litigation Clinic have filed an appeal on behalf of a high school student who was denied state financial aid because of the immigration status of her mother. The student, A.Z., is an American citizen who filed for a Tuition Aid Grant (TAG) through the state's Higher Education Student Assistance Authority (HESAA).

The state rejected her request for aid, explaining that the high school senior was ineligible because her "parents are not legal New Jersey residents." Her mother is an undocumented immigrant.

Students from New Jersey who enroll at a college or university in the state are eligible for state financial aid. In order to qualify for the funds, the state requires students demonstrate financial need and be U.S. citizens. The legislation that created the tuition program does not make any stipulations about the immigration status of the parents of student applicants.

"Our client is a hardworking high school student at the top of her class, a native born U.S. citizen and lifelong New Jersey resident with a promising future ahead of her," said Ronald K. Chen of Rutgers Constitutional Litigation Clinic. "The state cannot deny her access to higher education simply because of her parents' immigration status. The state law that created this program does not mention immigration status of the parent, and even if it did, the federal and state constitutions forbid discrimination against U.S. citizens due to the parent's status."

The appeal, filed directly to the Appellate Division of New Jersey Superior Court, also contends the state has violated the state and federal Constitutions' guarantee of Equal Protection.

"New Jersey's policy is unconstitutional and unconscionable: in the United States, citizens cannot be punished based on their parentage," said ACLU-NJ Policy Counsel Alexander Shalom. "With the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment and the rejection of the Dred Scott decision, our country ensured that all people born here are equal before the law."

Categories: Immigrant Rights

ACLU Welcomes Decision to Investigate Newark Police Department

May 09, 2011

NEWARK — The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey (ACLU-NJ) welcomed the announcement today that the U.S. Department of Justice has opened an investigation into the Newark Police Department’s reported patterns of abuse and misconduct. The Department of Justice’s decision to intervene was done so at the request of the ACLU-NJ, which documented the incidents of abuse in a petition filed in September 2010.

“We hope this investigation marks the beginning of a new chapter for the Newark Police Department,” said ACLU-NJ Executive Director Deborah Jacobs. “The recurrent problems in the Newark Police did not arise from one individual, or even a group of individuals, but from an inherited institutional culture of misconduct. We hope the Justice Department’s intervention promises a fresh start, with individual officers getting the training they need to renew the faith in police that Newark’s citizens need.”

The ACLU-NJ’s petition cited 418 serious, routine civil rights violations reported by citizens in a two-and-a-half year period, including false arrests, inconsistent discipline of officers, discrimination and, most egregiously, acts of violence against citizens, some of which resulted in injury and death.

In the face of these civil rights violations, the department’s deficient Internal Affairs Unit provided citizens with little recourse. Out of the 261 internal affairs complaints filed reporting serious police misconduct between 2008 and 2009, only one – alleging an improper search – was sustained. The ACLU-NJ documented police officer’s retaliation and threats to citizens making an internal affairs complaint, as well as discouragement from making complaints altogether.

After looking into the petition’s claims, the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division determined the situation in the Newark Police Department called for its involvement, based on a 1994 law allowing the Justice Department to intervene if a police department demonstrates a “pattern or practice” of violating the law or citizens’ constitutional rights.

The ACLU-NJ hopes the federal government will provide the initial oversight and guidance for the Newark Police Department to establish real reform, including an overhaul of internal affairs, more training for police officers, and new systems to identify and discipline problematic officers.

“The federal government has brought progress before to police departments struggling to break free of ingrained institutional acceptance of civil rights abuses,” said ACLU-NJ Policy Counsel Alexander Shalom. “We hope the Newark Police Department becomes another success story, built on a foundation of its renewed commitment to justice and equality.”

The ACLU-NJ has offered itself as a resource to the Department of Justice in the next stages of the investigative process, redoubling its own commitment to increasing accountability for the Newark Police and rebuilding the public’s trust in law enforcement.

The ACLU-NJ currently has two active civil rights cases pending against the Newark Police, one defending a newspaper publisher’s freedom of the press and the other defending a high school honor student's right to videotape the police in public.

Categories: Police Practices

ACLU-NJ Welcomes Report of Federal Investigation of Newark Police Department

May 08, 2011

NEWARK — The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey (ACLU-NJ) welcomed a report in the May 8, 2011 edition of The Star-Ledger that the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) will formally investigate the Newark Police Department’s (NPD) patterns of misconduct, which the ACLU-NJ documented in a September 2010 petition seeking federal intervention in the troubled police department.

"The ACLU-NJ first called for federal intervention in the Newark Police Department in 1967,” said Deborah Jacobs, ACLU-NJ executive director. “The announcement that the DOJ will bring its resources and expertise to our city and hold the NPD accountable marks a critical moment in our city's history. The cries of Newarkers have finally been heard.”

After the ACLU-NJ submitted its petition, the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division responded with concern over the number of civil rights violations the ACLU-NJ had found in public records between January 1, 2008 to July 1, 2010.

The ACLU-NJ found 418 serious, routine civil rights violations reported by citizens during that period, including false arrests, inconsistent discipline of problematic officers, discrimination against fellow officers and, most egregiously, acts of violence against citizens that have resulted in injury and death.

The ACLU-NJ hopes the federal government will provide oversight and guidance for the Newark Police Department to establish real reform, including an overhaul of internal affairs, more training for police officers, and new systems to identify and discipline problematic officers.

“The federal government has brought progress to other police departments struggling to break free of ingrained institutional acceptance of civil rights abuses,” Jacobs added. “We hope that Newark city officials will overcome their resistance to federal intervention and work productively with the DOJ so that the Newark Police Department becomes another success story, built on a foundation of its renewed commitment to justice and equality.”

The ACLU-NJ has offered itself as a resource to the DOJ in the next stages of the investigative process, redoubling its own commitment to increasing accountability for the Newark Police and rebuilding the public’s trust in law enforcement.

A 1994 law authorizes the DOJ to intervene if a police department demonstrates a “pattern or practice” of violating the law or citizens’ constitutional rights.

Categories: Police Practices

Voting Rights Organizations Applaud Court’s Mandate Protecting Private School Students’ Voting Rights

April 25, 2011

NEWARK — The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey, Project Vote, and the Fair Elections Legal Network today applauded the New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division’s decision holding that the New Jersey State Board of Education failed to meet an obligation for all eligible students to receive voting materials and instruction by failing to create regulations governing those rights of private and charter school students.

“This is a significant victory for the rights of young voters, and for the voting process generally,” stated ACLU-NJ Legal Director Ed Barocas. “We all benefit when we have an informed and engaged electorate.”

For 25 years the Department of Education failed to fully implement the 1985 Voter Registration Law, which mandates schools distribute voter registration materials and civic instruction to eligible public and non-public high school students, by not adopting rules and regulations as required. The ACLU-NJ, Project Vote and the Fair Elections Legal Network petitioned the State Board of Education in January 2010 to comply with the High School Voter Registration Law (HVRL). When the Board of Education rejected that petition in June 2010, the organizations filed a lawsuit challenging the Board’s lack of regulations covering voter education at private and charter schools. Its regulations only covered public schools, requiring them to check off a large questionnaire every three years attesting that they have complied with the law.

“School-based programs are one of the most effective means of instilling life-long voting habits,” said Niyati Shah, election counsel for Project Vote. “We hope the state board now adopts regulations that will increase voter registration and participation by young adults throughout New Jersey.”

In today's decision (92k PDF), the Appellate Division held that the agency’s “total omission of regulations covering nonpublic schools falls short of what the HVRL requires.” The Board will now be required to adopt regulations covering the rights of non-public school students. The Appellate Division additionally expressed that the agency is free to reconsider creating a comprehensive set of regulations covering both public and non-public school compliance.

“This 1985 law was enacted to fight low voting rates that tend to occur among youth,” said Robert Brandon, president of the Fair Elections Legal Network. “Our lawsuit asked the state to honor the law’s promise to all New Jersey students and provide basic information about registering and voting. We applaud today's decision to require the board to protect the rights of non-public school students as well. All high school students should now be taught the most basic civics lesson: that voting is important to a democracy.”

The voting rights organizations initially filed the petition after the Department of the Public Advocate issued a study in 2007 showing that between 40 and 60 percent of public school districts failed to comply with one of the mandates of the high school voting law: voter education and putting a registration form in students' hands. It also cited a 2004 study by a Rutgers-affiliated civic education group showing similar data.

The case is captioned In the Matter of the State Board of Education’s Denial of Petition to Adopt Regulations Implementing the New Jersey High School Voter Registration Law.

Category: Uncategorized

Voters Demand Same-Day Registration in NJ Elections

April 19, 2011

NEW BRUNSWICK — The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey, along with co-counsels Rutgers School of Law-Newark Constitutional Litigation Clinic and New Jersey Appleseed Public Interest Law Center, filed a lawsuit today arguing for Election Day voter registration to remove obstacles that impede the right to vote. The suit, filed on behalf of Rutgers University students, Middlesex County residents, the Latino Leadership Alliance of New Jersey and New Jersey Citizen Action, aims to strengthen the right to vote for the thousands of eligible New Jersey voters disenfranchised each election cycle.

“The facts show that states that allow election-day registration have substantially higher voter participation, and they also show that election-day registration has functioned smoothly there,” said Professor Frank Askin, Director of the Rutgers School of Law-Newark Constitutional Litigation Clinic.

The lawsuit (63k PDF), filed in Middlesex County Superior Court, argues that New Jersey cannot justify its prohibition against voters who try to register less than 21 days before an election. Election-day registration would provide recourse against burdensome factors often outside of voters’ control that currently rob many thousands of New Jerseyans of their right to vote in elections.

“An overwhelming number of the problems the ACLU-NJ sees year after year monitoring polls and helping voters could be solved in one fell swoop by instituting Election Day registration,” said ACLU-NJ Legal Director Ed Barocas. “Two of the main culprits in denying people their right to vote — citizens not receiving provisional ballots or not having those ballots counted — would be problems of the past.”

New Jersey’s electronic voter databases, modernized in accordance with the Help America Vote Act, can rapidly verify voters’ information uses for its elections, rendering the 21-day registration deadline obsolete. Further, the current regulations are incompatible with modern political campaigning, which targets voters most heavily in the week before an election, when voter interest peaks.

“Historically, the state instituted the 21-day registration cutoff in order to verify voters’ identities, but advances in technology now make that deadline moot,” said Renee Steinhagen, Executive Director of New Jersey Appleseed. “The state has no legitimate reason to cut off voter registration in the weeks before an election, and consequently voters will feel an even greater impact on their rights.”

New Jersey’s overly strict registration regulations disproportionately deny the right to vote to young adults, who move more frequently than older adults. Poll workers in 2009 denied Rutgers student Gabriela Grzybowski a provisional ballot, which would have registered to vote for the next election, when her name was omitted from the rolls. When she attempted to re-register in 2010, she discovered she had missed the deadline.

Rutgers student Beth Breslaw faced a similar situation in 2010. An injury put Breslaw in crutches, preventing her from traveling to Mercer County, where she was registered. She tried to vote in Middlesex County, where she was a resident, but the 21-day rule prevented her ballot from counting in that election, even though it registered her in Middlesex County for the next one.

“Our generation gets an unfair reputation for not being engaged in the political process, but when I look around, that’s just not what I see,” said Matt Cordeiro, Vice President of the Rutgers Student Association, a lead plaintiff in the lawsuit. “I see students desperate to have a say in their democracy, but when they come up against hurdles every step of the way, they question whether the system is functional enough for their vote to count.”

Other students have suffered from administrative failure in processing applications collected through voter-registration drives, including plaintiff and Rutgers student Edward Vasconellos, who had no recourse when his name didn’t appear on the rolls in both 2007 and 2008. His provisional ballot registered for the next election, but because he could not prove he had registered 21 days before the previous election, his vote in that election did not count.

The case, captioned Rutgers University Student Assembly v. Middlesex County Board of Elections, was filed in Middlesex County Superior Court.

Categories: Elections & Voting

New Jersey Transit Agrees to Reinstate Worker Fired for Protest Activities

April 18, 2011

The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey today announced that it has reached a successful settlement in the case of Derek Fenton, the New Jersey Transit worker who was fired for burning three pages of a Koran during a rally held in protest of a proposed Islamic community center in Lower Manhattan last year.

As part of the settlement (494k PDF), New Jersey Transit has agreed to give Fenton his job back and provide him with back pay. In addition, New Jersey Transit will pay $25,000 in damages and $25,000 in attorneys’ fees.

“I am pleased that the matter is now successfully settled,” Fenton said. “Our government cannot pick and choose whose free speech rights are protected, based on whether or not they approve of the content of our statements or actions. This is the very essence of the First Amendment.”

Fenton will not make any additional public comments on the matter.

Fenton, an 11-year New Jersey Transit employee, burned three pages of the Koran during a September 11, 2010 rally. It was his day off and he did not identify himself as a New Jersey Transit employee. A newspaper photographer captured and published the photo of Fenton burning the Koran. When his employers saw the photo, he was terminated on September 13, 2010.

The ACLU of New Jersey filed suit on his behalf, explaining that New Jersey Transit’s actions were illegal, because the law prohibits public employers from firing workers for engaging in constitutionally protected speech on matters of public concern in their personal capacities. Gov. Chris Christie and four members from his office were named in discovery as persons with information relevant to the decision.

“The First Amendment protects Fenton’s right to protest just as it protects the freedom to build a religious center at the location of one’s choosing. And it protects his right not to get fired by a public employer for exercising that right,” said Frank Corrado of Barry, Corrado, Grassi & Gibson, who, along with Rubin Sinins of Javerbaum, Wurgaft, Hicks, Kahn, Wikstrom & Sinins, represented Fenton on behalf of the ACLU-NJ.

“The ACLU understands that Fenton’s speech falls into that category of speech that is offensive to many. In fact, the ACLU itself has denounced anti-Muslim sentiment expressed during the controversy over the community center,” said ACLU-NJ Executive Director Deborah Jacobs. “But while we may disagree with the sentiments expressed by some protestors, we stand up for the constitutional right to express all viewpoints.

The ACLU-NJ filed the federal lawsuit on November 5, 2010. The court was informed of the settlement on April 11, 2011. It signed an order dismissing the case on April 13, 2011, subject to the settlement being carried out within 60 days. The settlement itself was finalized on April 21, 2011.

“This is an important result for free speech rights of public employees. Public employees should not have to worry about their livelihoods being threatened for exercising their constitutional rights,” said Sinins, who also served as the ACLU-NJ’s cooperating attorney in the case. “No matter what their personal beliefs are, if those beliefs have no bearing on their job, they should have the right to express those beliefs on their own time.”

Categories: Free Speech

School District Removes Internet Filters After ACLU Inquiry

April 11, 2011

NEWARK, N.J. — A New Jersey school district has removed filters that blocked lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender related websites after receiving student complaints and the American Civil Liberties Union questioned the district about its use of Internet filters. The inquiry is part of a national “Don’t Filter Me” campaign by the ACLU and Yale Law School to combat illegal censorship of pro-LGBT information on public school computer systems.

The Vineland School District in Cumberland County had been using filtering software provided by Blue Coat, which has a specialized filter called “LGBT.” The district removed the filters from its high school computers on March 31, 2011 — just days after the ACLU of New Jersey submitted an open records request for documents about filtering software. The district subsequently agreed to remove the LGBT filter from middle school computers as well.

Other ACLU affiliates in Michigan, Texas, Pennsylvania and Virginia sent letters today demanding they stop similar viewpoint-based censorship of web content geared toward LGBT communities.

“There is no legitimate reason why any public school should be using an anti-LGBT filter,” said Joshua Block, staff attorney at the ACLU Lesbian Gay Bisexual & Transgender Project. “This is not a case where overbroad filters are accidentally filtering out LGBT websites. These filters are designed to discriminate and are programmed specifically to target LGBT-related content that would not otherwise be blocked as sexually explicit or inappropriate.”

Justin Rodriguez and Shaun Laurencio, two students at Vineland High School had been complaining to their school for three years about various LGBT websites being blocked, and renewed their complaints at the same time the ACLU asked about the district’s filtering policies.
“What really hit this home for me was when I was writing a paper for class about Harvey Milk, but every site with information about his life was blocked for having ‘LGBT content,’” said Rodriguez, a 16-year-old junior at Vineland High School. Harvey Milk was one of the first openly gay elected officials in the U.S. and is a respected historical figure; his birthday is a state holiday in California.

Rodriguez added, “Seeing all these websites that are considered somehow unacceptable because of something I am was really offensive to me.”

Laurencio, an 18-year-old senior, said they had to badger the administration every time they discovered an obstacle.

“At first they’d unblock whatever specific site we’d asked about, but after a while they stopped unblocking the sites,” Laurencio said. “It was really discouraging.”

“Unblocking individual sites is not a viable solution,” said Block. “As long as the anti-LGBT filter is in place, students will be confronted with a demeaning and stigmatizing message that the site has been blocked on account of its LGBT-related content. It’s unfair to put students in the difficult position of asking special permission before being allowed to access LGBT viewpoints. Public schools have a duty to provide students with viewpoint-neutral access to the Internet.”

The ACLU of New Jersey has also filed open records requests with 26 districts in Cumberland, Gloucester and Salem counties, requesting contracts with Internet filtering software providers, policies about the use of software and any communication with software vendors that mention filters related to gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender-related content.

A video showing students how to test whether or not their schools are illegally filtering content, and providing instructions for reporting censorship is available.

Students who want to report unconstitutional web filtering at their schools can fill out this form.

More information on the ACLU’s work on LGBT school issues can be found here: www.aclu.org/safeschools

Categories: Student & Youth Rights Gay & Lesbian Rights

Newark Police Illegally Detain Honors Student Over Cellphone Footage

March 28, 2011

Khaliah Fitchette hugs her mother Kameelah Phillips at their home in Newark

NEWARK, N.J. — The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey (ACLU-NJ) and the Seton Hall Law School Center for Social Justice (CSJ) filed a lawsuit today against the Newark Police Department for illegally handcuffing and detaining a Newark high school honors student who captured video footage on her cellphone of officers responding to an incident on a New Jersey Transit bus.

The lawsuit (1674k PDF), alleges officers violated the constitutional rights of Khaliah Fitchette, 17, by arresting her, seizing her cellphone, and deleting the video footage. The search and seizure was illegal and violated the student’s right to free speech.

“Individuals at the highest levels of the Newark Police Department have continued to turn a blind eye to repeated, pervasive unlawful behavior by its officers,” said Seton Hall Law Professor Baher Azmy, who is representing Fitchette as a cooperating attorney for the ACLU-NJ, and has brought cases against the Newark Police Department in the past. “The abuse of the rights of Newark citizens will continue, unless the Newark Police Department finally confronts and implements serious reforms among its officers.”

Fitchette, an honors student and at the time, junior class president at University High School in Newark, was riding downtown from school on the afternoon of March 22, 2010. Soon after boarding the bus, the driver called Newark Police to attend to a man who had fallen on the floor several rows in front of Fitchette. When Newark Police Officers Noemi Maloon and Lloyd Thomas boarded the bus, Fitchette started to record the scene using the video capability of her cellphone. Fitchette was standing approximately 10 feet away and was not obstructing or interfering with police activity.

Maloon spotted Fitchette recording the scene and demanded she turn her phone off. Fitchette refused because she needed the phone on in case her mother needed to reach her. The officer then grabbed Fitchette by the arm and pulled her off the bus. During this seizure, Maloon stated, “Kids think they can do whatever they want.” She also stated that she didn’t want any footage of this public incident to go on the Internet.

Fitchette said she was startled by what was going on and asked if she was being arrested.

“I was confused by what was going on,” Fitchette said. “The police were treating me like a criminal even though I had done nothing but take a video of a man on the bus.”

The officers handcuffed Fitchette and put her in a patrol car. Officer Thomas seized Fitchette’s cellphone and deleted the video. Violating state law, the officers ignored Fitchette’s repeated pleas to call her mother. Instead, they drove her to a juvenile processing center then to an adult processing center, in order to charge her with a crime, even though she was a juvenile and they had no lawful basis to charge her. After the officers finally acknowledged they could not continue their prolonged detention, they dropped off a crying Fitchette at her mother’s workplace.

“I was scared,” said Fitchette. ”Because I was a junior and I was about to apply to college and I didn’t want a criminal record that I didn’t even deserve, to hold me back from applying.”

Deborah Jacobs, executive director of the ACLU-NJ, said incidents like this erode the public’s trust in the department. In September, the ACLU-NJ filed a petition with the U.S. Department of Justice, asking it to intervene and monitor the troubled department.

“This is another example of egregious misconduct by the Newark Police Department,” Jacobs said. “We have already filed a petition documenting 418 incidents of beatings, false arrests, retaliation and other misconduct by Newark Police. This case is another reason why we desperately need federal intervention from the U.S. Department of Justice.”

The ACLU has challenged illegal police confiscations of cameras, a problem growing more prevalent across the country, including in New Jersey. In 2008, the ACLU-NJ and the CSJ represented Roberto Lima, editor of the Brazilian Voice newspaper, who had been arrested and held in custody by Newark police officers until he relinquished photos of a dead body in an alley taken by his publication. The ACLU-NJ also supported a CBS news camera man who was taken into custody for taking video of an anti-violence rally.

Counsel for Fitchette includes Seton Hall Law School students Dan Bause, William Conaboy, Mark Keogh and Doug Nelson.

Fitchette’s case is captioned Phillips v. City of Newark.

Lawsuit Aims to Make State’s Charter School Review Process Transparent

March 04, 2011

NEWARK — The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey (ACLU-NJ) filed a lawsuit against the New Jersey Department of Education (DOE) today, demanding that it disclose the names of volunteers who reviewed applications to create or renew public charter schools and details about the training they receive.

The lawsuit was filed (5mb PDF) in Superior Court in Mercer County on behalf of the Education Law Center (ELC), which filed the initial request for public information in November, 2010. The DOE denied access to training materials and redacted the identities of the DOE volunteers, whom the DOE asked in November to review 50 applications for schools hoping to open in September 2012.

“Charter schools have a reputation for adding elements of private school experience, but if they're not accountable to the public, they're not holding up the public end of the bargain," Education Law Center Executive Director David Sciarra said. “The public has a right to know who is involved in making decisions about public education.”

Although the DOE provided the ELC with information about its employees, it violated the New Jersey Open Public Records Act on a number of counts by illegally withholding the identities of unpaid volunteers, who play a role in determining which schools receive a charter from the DOE and public funding. The DOE enlists volunteer readers to score and evaluate each application for a school charter, which sets forth a plan for operating a semi-autonomous public school.

Although the DOE claims the withheld materials contain “deliberative, consultative, advisory” information, the ACLU-NJ has reason to believe those materials refer only to criteria for decision-making, not the substance of actual decisions, which means by law the public has a right to see it.

“Charter schools have a mission to serve the public, and in turn the public has a right to know what processes guide the decisions to create them,” said ACLU-NJ Open Governance Attorney Bobby Conner. “When people are denied access to their own public schools, it amounts to theft of taxpayer dollars.”

The case, captioned Education Law Center v. New Jersey Department of Education.

Categories: Open Government

ACLU-NJ and City of Newark Reach Agreement on Circus Protest Lawsuit

February 24, 2011

NEWARK, N.J. — As the circus comes to town this week, free speech comes right behind.

The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey (ACLU-NJ) and the City of Newark have reached a settlement that vindicates the rights of animal welfare activist Nicholas Botti, who was arrested nearly a year ago, while protesting the treatment of animals by Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus. Botti was standing on a public sidewalk outside of the Prudential Center when he was arrested on March 7, 2010 – the last time the circus was in town.

“Most people don’t know how cruelly the animals are treated, and if people have the right to attend the circus, we should have the right to oppose it,” said Botti. “Looking back, it was futile to tell the police we weren’t breaking any laws, but if my experience means the police don't infringe on the rights of other people for speaking their minds, then it is a victory for both civil rights and animal rights.”

On the day of Botti’s arrest, police officers corralled a group of 7 animal-welfare advocates from the sidewalk in front of the Prudential Center to a distant “protest zone,” where sparse foot traffic exposed fewer people to their signs and literature.

As part of the agreement, the City of Newark will train all police officers and city employees responsible for special event permits in Newark’s free-speech policies every six months. The city has an ordinance that requires a permit for free speech activities only when the number of people reaches 50.

“Any policy can only be as good as its enforcement,” said ACLU-NJ Legal Director Ed Barocas. “Over the years we’ve helped Newark build strong free speech policies, and with new emphasis on teaching those policies, they’ll be even stronger.”

The incident last year unfolded when Botti and another activist moved from the fairly isolated “protest zone” to the intersection of Mulberry Street and Edison Place, diagonally across from the arena, where their signs could be seen more readily. Even though neither Botti nor his sign — which read “This is Ringling Baby Elephant Training” next to an image of a prodded elephant — blocked traffic, police arrested him on charges of obstructing the sidewalk and failing to move when ordered by police.

The city requires a permit only when demonstrations exceed 50 participants — much greater than the number of advocates who joined Botti last year.

“We’re gratified that Newark not only recognized the importance of enforcing its free speech ordinances, but responded quickly to institute it,” said Bennet Zurofsky, the attorney who represented Botti for the ACLU-NJ.

The complaint, captioned Nicholas Botti v. City of Newark, along with the settlement order (454k PDF) and past ACLU-NJ work in Newark regarding free speech, can be read online.

Categories: Police Practices Free Speech

ACLU-NJ Circus Suit Makes Free Speech the Elephant in Room

February 02, 2011

NEWARK, N.J. — The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey’s (ACLU-NJ) has filed suit today against the City of Newark for its unconstitutional arrest of an animal welfare advocate while he was exercising his First Amendment right to protest on a public sidewalk outside of the Prudential Center.

The complaint, filed in Superior Court in Essex County, charges Newark Police violated Nicholas Botti’s rights when they refused to allow him to stand on a public sidewalk with a sign depicting the prodding of an elephant next to the words, “This is Ringling Baby Elephant Training.” Botti, a resident of Atlantic Highlands was arrested on March 7, 2010 when the Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus was in town.

“Botti was standing on a public sidewalk, exercising his Constitutionally-protected free speech,” said Bennet Zurofsky, who is representing Botti on behalf of the ACLU-NJ. “He was not blocking the sidewalk, nor was he blocking pedestrian traffic. If he can get arrested for standing on a sidewalk with a sign, what’s to stop Newark Police from arresting anyone else who is doing the same?”

Botti and seven other animal welfare advocates distributed leaflets opposing the treatment of animals by Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus. When they arrived at the center, police corralled them into a designated “protest zone” far from the arena, in an area that saw significantly less pedestrian traffic than the front of the center.

When Botti asked a Newark Police lieutenant what law required the protesters to stand in a protest zone, the officer replied, “My law.”

Although the City of Newark does not have specific written guidelines for political activities in front of stadiums, arenas, or other public venues, it does have an ordinance requiring a permit to hold demonstrations with more than 50 people – a number much greater than the animal welfare activists at the Prudential Center the day of Botti’s arrest.

Botti and another activist moved from the designated zone to the intersection of Mulberry Street and Edison Place diagonally across the street from the arena, where their signs could be seen more readily. When Botti refused to return to the designated zone, police arrested him on charges of obstructing the sidewalk and failing to move when ordered by police, even though neither he nor his sign were blocking traffic.

“Standing on a public sidewalk holding up a sign, irrespective of content, is basic free speech,” said Botti. “The fact that the police arrested me for blocking a sidewalk and didn’t arrest, or even address, the street vendor standing right beside me on the sidewalk shows how unfair it is to single out just the people who speak up as targets.”

The ACLU-NJ has challenged the City of Newark a number of times over impediments to free speech. In 2004, it successfully challenged a city requirement for all groups to get the police chief’s permission before distributing information and to secure a $1 million insurance policy before holding a march. In 2008, the city passed an ordinance ensuring that basic free speech activities would not be subject to the insurance requirement.

The complaint is captioned Nicholas Botti v. City of Newark.

Categories: Police Practices Free Speech

State Agrees to Release Salt Barn Records to ACLU-NJ

January 12, 2011

NEWARK, N.J. — The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey’s (ACLU-NJ) Open Governance Project has won access to the building and site plans of a road salt storage barn in Bethlehem Township, Hunterdon County. The ACLU-NJ’s Open Governance Project sued the New Jersey Department of Community Affairs (DCA) after it denied a resident access to the plans.

In a settlement with the state (294k PDF), the DCA has agreed to release the plans, which were submitted to its Office of Local Code Enforcement in Hunterdon County. In addition to releasing the documents, the state will pay for the ACLU-NJ’s attorney fees.

“We are pleased that the state has come to recognize that the release of these records do not compromise public safety,” said ACLU-NJ Open Governance Project Attorney Bobby Conner. “We are also pleased that the state worked with us to resolve this matter expeditiously. In the future, though we hope government entities will be more cautious before using this as a justification to unlawfully deny access to public records.”

The state had invoked an executive order that allows state agencies to deny requests for public records that could increase the risk of terrorism or heighten the impact of an attack. The barn at issue in this matter stores road salt and has plastic windows and one door. It was built by Bethlehem Township in 2007 with taxpayer dollars.

Carole Chiffarano, the resident who requested the records last fall, said she is glad she will have an opportunity to review the records.

“I’m very happy with the outcome, but I don’t think residents should have to leap through hurdles in order to get public documents,” said Chiffarano. ”I am thankful that the ACLU-NJ was here to help, but there are many residents who don’t have the ability or resources to challenge the state when it tries to keep the public in the dark. I hate to think of the taxpayer resources they spent fighting this.”

Chiaffarano had already received the building and site plans from Bethlehem Township, but she had reason to believe that the construction of the salt barn differed from the plans that Bethlehem submitted to the DCA and other state agencies for their approvals. Chiaffarano was concerned about whether the barn was constructed safely.

Chiaffarano, whose property is 38 feet away from the barn, hoped to compare the municipal documents with the DCA’s. She first requested plans in September 2010, but was denied access under both New Jersey’s Open Public Records Act (OPRA) and her common law rights to obtain public records. In addition to written requests, she called the DCA on November 1, 2010 to schedule an office visit to review the plans. She was told that such a review is “prohibited by state law” and that only the engineer or the "owner of the plans” could access records. As part of the settlement that has now been reached, the requested records were released to Chiaffarano pursuant to her common law rights of access.

The ACLU-NJ’s Open Governance Project, founded in 2009 through a grant from the Pratt Bequest Fund of Rutgers School of Law-Newark, is dedicated to ensuring that government agencies uphold and enforce OPRA and New Jersey’s Sunshine law.

Categories: Open Government

Court Halts Prayers in Point Pleasant Beach

December 17, 2010

NEWARK — The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey won a court order today that calls for the immediate suspension of a Point Pleasant Beach policy that allows for government-led prayer at municipal council meetings. The policy, adopted by the council in October 2010, allowed its municipal council members to lead meetings with prayers that reflect their personal religious beliefs.

The ACLU-NJ sued the borough on behalf of resident Sharon Cadalzo on November 9, 2010, and sought a preliminary injunction halting the practice. The current lawsuit is a second challenge by the ACLU-NJ to the borough's unconstitutional sponsorship of particular religious beliefs. Ocean County Assignment Judge Vincent J. Grasso issued the injunction. The lawsuit is still pending.

"The policy clearly violated the New Jersey constitution, which obligates the government to not show a preference for one religion over another," said Jeanne LoCicero, ACLU-NJ Deputy Legal Director, who argued the motion. "We support the right of government officials to pray on their own time, but when they act as the voice of government, they cannot promote their own religious beliefs."

Cadalzo has been regularly attending council meetings since 2007. Until the new policy was adopted, the borough clerk recited the Lord's prayer and made the sign of the cross. The new policy has allowed the borough to continue its practice by authorizing council members to offer explicitly Christian prayers at their meetings, including the November 9 meeting which Cadalzo attended.

"Our community practices and celebrates many different faiths and beliefs," Cadalzo said. "The borough's actions and policy ignores our diversity and can have a chilling effect on residents who are not a member of the 'preferred' religion."

The ACLU-NJ first filed suit on Cadalzo's behalf on September 16, 2010. It dropped the suit after the borough agreed to stop reciting the Lord's Prayer. The borough then adopted the policy currently in dispute.

"I am pleased that the court has put a stop to this policy, which was a transparent attempt at circumventing the constitution," said ACLU-NJ cooperating attorney Frank L. Corrado, of Barry, Corrado, Grassi & Gibson P.C. in Wildwood, New Jersey. "I sincerely hope borough officials will recognize that promoting one religion over another is alienating, divisive and unconstitutional."

The lawsuit, filed in Superior Court of New Jersey, is captioned Cadalzo v. Borough of Point Pleasant Beach, et al., docket number OCN-L-4087-10.

More information about the ACLU's work to defend religious freedom can be found at http://www.aclu.org/aclu-defense-religious-practice-and-expression and http://www.aclufightsforchristians.com

Categories: Religious Freedom

ACLU-NJ Fights to Strengthen Bloggers' Free Press Rights

December 08, 2010

NEWARK — The American Civil Liberties of New Jersey today submitted a brief to the New Jersey Supreme Court seeking to protect the rights of bloggers and independent, non-traditional journalists under the First Amendment and New Jersey Shield Law.

"The reality is that people can gather and disseminate information without being part of a larger media conglomerate," said Rutgers-Newark Law School Vice Dean Ronald Chen, who wrote the friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of the ACLU-NJ. "The First Amendment protects the lone leafletter just as it does the large newspaper employee. Thanks to the Internet, today's 'lone leafletter' can now reach a much larger audience than in the past."

The ACLU-NJ's amicus brief seeks clarification (257k PDF) of a decision issued by the Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court on April 22, 2010, which narrowly interprets the New Jersey Reporters' Shield Law. In its decision, the lower court improperly limited free-press protections to journalists affiliated with traditional institutional journalism.

The lawsuit, Too Much Media v. Shellee Hale, arose in 2008 when Too Much Media, a Freehold-based software company, sued Washington State resident Shellee Hale claiming that information she disseminated about the company on the Internet was defamatory. Too Much Media sought Hale's confidential sources of information as part of its defamation suit, but Hale invoked the New Jersey Shield Law, which in most instances protects members of the media from the pressure to disclose their confidential sources.

The ACLU-NJ's brief to the New Jersey Supreme Court challenges the Appellate Division's decision to deny Hale protection under the Shield Law based on her lack of affiliation with a traditional media service. The ACLU-NJ argues that the conduct and intent of a person to gather and disseminate information qualifies that person as a journalist, not whether that individual works for a "traditional" media outlet.

"The Shield Law was created to stimulate the free flow of information and serve society's interests to acquire knowledge and hold those in power accountable. It should apply broadly," said ACLU-NJ Legal Director Ed Barocas. "What matters is whether someone acts as a journalist and operates with the intent of a journalist, not whether that person is on a traditional media entity's payroll."

While the ACLU-NJ believes the courts should utilize a broader standard in determining application of the Shield Law's protections, it also agrees that a person who simply makes intermittent comments on a message board or chat forum would not be protected. The organization takes no position and remains neutral on whether the defendant, Hale, has met the standard in this case.

The case is captioned Too Much Media v. Shellee Hale.

ACLU-NJ Sues State for Withholding Salt Barn Plans

December 06, 2010

NEWARK — The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey's (ACLU-NJ) Open Governance Project sued the New Jersey Department of Community Affairs (DCA) Office of Local Code Enforcement today for denying access to plans concerning a road salt storage barn in Bethlehem Township, Hunterdon County. The barn, which stores road salt, was built in 2007 using taxpayer dollars.

Although Carole Chiaffarano, the resident who requested the documents, has already received the building and site plans from Bethlehem Township, she had reason to believe that the construction of the salt barns differed from the plans the township submitted to the DCA and other state agencies for their approval.

Chiaffarano, whose property is 38 feet away from the barn, hoped to compare the municipal documents with the DCA's, but her request was denied. The DCA cited an executive order that allows state agencies to reject requests for public records that could raise the likelihood of terrorism or heighten the impact of an attack.

"I was shocked that my requests were denied because of security reasons," stated Chiaffarano, the plaintiff in the case. "The state's actions leave the Bethlehem community in the dark about whether the barn was built safely and correctly. Since the township's plans are out in the open already, I don't see how comparing two sets of documents poses a risk to anyone."

Chiaffarano, a resident of Bethlehem Township, first requested plans from the DCA in September 2010 hoping to uncover whether the township submitted different versions of the building and site plans for the approval of the DCA and other agencies. In addition to written requests, she called the DCA on Nov. 1 to schedule an office visit to review the plans. She was told that such a review is "prohibited by state law" and that "only the engineer or the owner of the plans" could access records. The agency also denied her requests for the information under the common-law rights that also grant access to public records for New Jersey citizens. Chiaffarano fears that the plans used in the actual construction of the salt barns were not approved by one or more of the appropriate governmental agencies.

"It borders on absurdity that the DCA believes access to records about a barn with plastic windows and one door could put the public at risk," said ACLU-NJ Open Governance Attorney Bobby Conner. "This is an example of a state agency using a ludicrous justification to withhold information from the public."

The case, captioned Carole Chiaffarano v. DCA, is pending in the Superior Court of New Jersey in Hunterdon County.

ACLU-NJ Joins Bi-partisan Legislators to Reject Invasive TSA Measures

November 15, 2010

TRENTON — In a press conference scheduled for noon today in room 103 at the Statehouse, the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey will stand alongside legislative leaders from both sides of the aisle to support a resolution asking the United States Congress to review new TSA screening procedures at airports that violate privacy, and provide little in the way of security enhancements.

"This technology involves a direct invasion of privacy," said ACLU-NJ executive director Deborah Jacobs, "It produces strikingly graphic images of passengers' bodies, essentially taking a naked picture of air passengers as they pass through security checkpoints."

The ACLU maintains that the likely effectiveness of such a technology in preventing attacks does not justify the level of intrusion involved.

News conference attendees include:

Senator Michael J. Doherty (23rd District)
Senator Diane Allen (7th District)
Assemblywoman Alison McHose (24th District)
Assemblywoman Valerie Huttle (37th District)
Assemblyman John DiMaio (23rd District)
Assemblyman Erik Peterson (23rd District)

At the press conference, the Legislators will announce the introduction of a resolution urging Congress to immediately review the new TSA screening procedures and the reports of passenger abuse occurring at our nation's airports. Senator James Beach (6th District) will join Senator Doherty in sponsoring the Senate version of the resolution.

ACLU-NJ Heads Back to Court over Municipal Prayer

November 09, 2010

Point Pleasant Beach replaces Lord's Prayer with Sectarian Prayer Policy

Newark — The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey announced today that it has once again filed suit against Point Pleasant Beach to challenge government-led prayers at municipal council meetings. The ACLU-NJ recently dismissed a previous lawsuit after the borough abandoned its practice of reciting the Lord's Prayer at every council meeting.

Point Pleasant Beach's new policy allows council members, on a rotating basis, to offer sectarian prayers - including the Lord's Prayer - at the start of council meetings. The ACLU-NJ represents borough resident Sharon Cadalzo in a challenge to this unconstitutional entanglement between the government and religion.

"The borough has replaced one unconstitutional policy with another." said Jeanne LoCicero, ACLU-NJ Deputy Legal Director. "New Jersey law is clear that government invocations may not include sectarian prayers."

Cadalzo regularly attends council meetings and began questioning the borough's explicit preference for Christianity more than two years ago.

"I'm disappointed in the new policy," said Cadalzo. "It shows disrespect for the diversity of our community and disrespect for the First Amendment."

The ACLU handles a variety of cases and issues concerning religious freedom. The First Amendment protects the right to practice religion as we wish, a principle that depends on the government demonstrating neutrality towards religion, and not preferring religion over non-religion, thus allowing people to practice their beliefs free from discrimination by government.

"This policy ignores the fact that the borough serves people of many different faiths and undermines the fundamental American value of religious freedom by giving council members a platform to promote their personal religious beliefs," said ACLU-NJ cooperating attorney Frank L. Corrado, of Barry, Corrado, Grassi & Gibson P.C. in Wildwood, New Jersey.

The lawsuit, filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey, is captioned Cadalzo v. Borough of Point Pleasant Beach, et al., docket number OCN-L-4087-10, and will be heard before Ocean County Assignment Judge Vincent J. Grasso on December 3, 2010, at 10 a.m.

More information about the ACLU's work to defend religious freedom can be found at www.aclufightsforchristians.com

Voter Groups Go To Court To Fight For Voting Rights of Students

October 27, 2010

TRENTON – The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey, Project Vote and the Fair Elections Legal Network today submitted a brief seeking to ensure that the Department of Education fulfill a twenty-five-year old mandate to protect the voting rights of private, charter, and public school students, which the DOE has thus-far failed to meet.

“It is appalling that 25 years after the High School Voter Registration Law was issued, there are still no regulations on the books protecting the rights of private and charter school students under the law, and only the most minimal of protections for district public school students,” said Ed Barocas, the ACLU-NJ legal director.

In 1985, New Jersey passed a law giving all eligible high school seniors the right to receive a voter registration form and voter education as they neared adulthood. The law required the DOE to pass regulations to effectuate the law and ensure compliance. But the DOE never did. And even when the DOE earlier this year created a minimal and insufficient compliance requirement for public schools, it still wholly ignored the rights of students at private and charter schools.

In June of this year, the DOE turned down the voting rights groups’ formal request to tighten the oversight requirements. The groups therefore took state educators to court. This appeal of the DOE decision is based on a section of the voter law that says the commissioner of education “shall adopt” regulations on the voting law.

“The result is that students in 40 to 60 percent of school districts are not being educated about a fundamental aspect of our democracy, or are not receiving the tools they need to register and to vote,” stated Robert Brandon, president of the Fair Elections Legal Network. “When Governor Tom Kean signed the law in 1985, it was out of a civic-minded purpose to fight low rates of voter registration and voting that tend to occur among youth. Today’s lawsuit asks the State to honor that promise to New Jersey’s students and enforce their rights under the voting laws.”

The case is especially important for the over 13,000 students who graduate from private and charter schools every year. The State doesn’t monitor those schools at all for compliance with the voter registration law.

The 84,000 students who graduate annually from New Jersey public schools will also benefit from this case, which asks the appeals court to bolster state oversight and monitoring over their voter registration practices for public schools. Currently, school administrators must check a box on a 144-page checklist, once every three years, to affirm compliance. That is the extent of oversight imposed by the State about the voting laws.

According to Census Department figures, youths age 18-24 vote at far lower rates than their older counterparts. The past two presidential elections years have shown gaps ranging from 12 to 23 percent between the rates of youth voter registration and turnout and the voter registration and turnout of the population as a whole.

Estelle Rogers of Project Vote noted that her group is engaged in a year-long project to register 100,000 high school students in five states. “Research shows that it is possible to create long-term change by encouraging life-long civic participation from young people,” said Rogers. “School-based voter registration drives are one of the best ways of accomplishing this change,” she added.

Police Accountability Day Takes ACLU-NJ to the Streets

October 22, 2010

NEWARK — The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey will empower New Jersey citizens by distributing information about our rights when confronted with police misconduct or abuse at New Jersey rail hubs today. The organization also submitted supplemental information to the petition it filed last month with the Department of Justice detailing additional misconduct in the Newark Police, as well as a petition from residents of Newark in support of federal investigation.

"Our top priority for today is educating citizens about their rights when confronted by police misconduct," said Deborah Jacobs, executive director for the ACLU-NJ. "It's essential that we exercise our rights - it's use them or lose them."

To help citizens of New Jersey prevent police abuse and confront it as it happens, volunteers from the ACLU-NJ will distribute “know your rights” cards at heavily trafficked train stations in Newark, New Brunswick, Princeton and Hoboken during morning and afternoon rush hours.

Each year the ACLU-NJ distributes approximately 12,000 of the wallet-size resources, known as bust cards, and posts them in English (1mb PDF), Spanish (1mb PDF) and Portuguese (1.3mb PDF) on its website (www.aclu-nj.org). The organization regularly holds forums and workshops throughout the state educating people about their rights.

Today's bust-card blitz is part of coordinated ACLU-NJ efforts to bring oversight to New Jersey's police, including advocacy to reform the Newark Police Department, the state's largest municipal department. The ACLU-NJ filed a supplemental petition to the DOJ (82k PDF) adding new allegations of misconduct the organization has found since filing a petition with the Department of Justice last month.

Since filing the petition Sept. 9, the ACLU-NJ learned of 13 more lawsuits filed during the petition's original study period, between Jan. 2008 and July 2010, bringing the total number of suits filed during that time to 64. Since July, citizens have filed at least three more lawsuits alleging police misconduct, and two officers have had criminal charges filed against them.

Since the ACLU-NJ submitted its petition, the taxpayer bill for case settlements continues to rise. Ramon Guzman received a settlement of $300,000, bringing the settlements paid by city taxpayers for police misconduct to more than $5,000,000 over the past three years. Guzman, who could not read English, was coerced into signing a false confession admitting to crimes he did not commit and spent 10 months in jail before his charges were dismissed.

Further bolstering the original petition, Newark community activists today "submitted a petition of their own", with 402 signatures calling for federal intervention.

"We hope the Department of Justice will hear and heed our pleas for help," said Dadisi Sanyika, Political Action Director of the Newark Unit of the New Jersey NAACP.

Flavio Komuves, senior counsel of the ACLU of New Jersey, said that the new incidents described in the supplemental petition support the ongoing need for federal intervention.

"The new data show that the NPD is beset with serious and systemic problems that need to be addressed through federal help and an independent monitor," Komuves said. He added that one of the reforms touted by the NPD, an early warning system for potentially troublesome officers, has been put on hold while the police union pursues a grievance about the matter.

"Even the officers' resistance to a performance-monitoring program speaks volumes about the ingrained lack of accountability in the NPD," Komuves added.

The ACLU advocates for best practices in policing to prevent the abuse of citizens. The ACLU also frequently represents police officers (44k PDF) whose civil liberties have been violated.

Categories: Police Practices

N.J. Supreme Court Lowers Copy Costs

October 20, 2010

NEWARK — The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey applauded the New Jersey Supreme Court this week for lowering the cost of court records to make it consistent with the new rates imposed under the Open Public Records Act (OPRA). "The ACLU-NJ wrote to the Supreme Court" (143k PDF) last month seeking to confirm that it would lower its copying costs to correspond to the OPRA standard, as has been its practice.

Last month, Governor Christie signed into law a bill significantly reducing the rates for paper copies of public records accessed through OPRA to five cents per page for letter-size copies and seven cents per page for legal-size copies. The lowering of copy costs was long-sought by open government advocates, including the ACLU-NJ and New Jersey Foundation for Open Government (NJ FOG), whose members encountered exhorbitant fees for copies as a barrier to transparency.

"The Supreme Court's changes to its fee schedule not only provide consistency in fees for public records in the State, but also enable greater access to court records and information," said Bobby Conner, staff attorney for the ACLU-NJ Open Governance Project.

The court's previous fee schedule for records - 75 cents per page for the first 10 pages, 50 cents per page for the next 10 pages, and 25 cents per page for additional pages - corresponded to the now-obsolete fees articulated in OPRA prior to the passage of the recent amendments.

The ACLU has long recognized that an open and transparent government is a founding value of American democracy. The ACLU-NJ's Open Governance Project, the only full-time public interest legal program in the state dedicated solely to open governance matters, works closely with the New Jersey Legislature and county and local government agencies to promote greater access to public meetings and records.

"The new rates correspond to the actual costs of providing the court records," Conner added. "The Court has clearly sent a message that public access to government is a right, not a privilege to those who can afford it."

Categories: Open Government

About

October 14, 2010

This is an example of a WordPress page, you could edit this to put information about yourself or your site so readers know where you are coming from. You can create as many pages like this one or sub-pages as you like and manage all of your content inside of WordPress.

Category: Uncategorized

ACLU-NJ Challenges Recitation of Lord's Prayer at Council's Meetings

September 20, 2010

Newark — Acting on behalf of a borough resident, the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey announced today that it has filed suit against Point Pleasant Beach to challenge the borough's longstanding practice of reciting the Lord's Prayer at its municipal council meetings. The ACLU-NJ has also asked the court to issue an injunction halting the practice while the suit is ongoing.

"The Constitution forbids a government entity from showing preference to a particular religion," said Jeanne LoCicero, ACLU-NJ Deputy Legal Director. "The prayer recited at Point Pleasant Beach council meetings is one of the most extreme examples we have seen of an explicit preference for Christianity."

After examining public records, the ACLU-NJ learned that the Borough has been reciting the Lord's Prayer - one of the most well-known Christian prayers - at its council meetings for at least six years.

Point Pleasant Beach resident Sharon Cadalzo, who regularly attends council meetings, expressed her concerns about the recitation of the Lord's Prayer to both the current and former mayor. After years of distress over the practice, Cadalzo sought the ACLU-NJ's help to file a complaint against the practice.

"People of all faiths and beliefs should feel welcome at public meetings," said Cadalzo. "It's a matter of fairness. No member of the community should feel that their beliefs exclude them from public life."

"Beginning a municipal council meeting with a prayer rooted in just one religious tradition not only violates the state constitution, but also divides the community," said ACLU-NJ cooperating attorney Frank L. Corrado, of Barry, Corrado, Grassi & Gibson P.C. in Wildwood, New Jersey.

The lawsuit, filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey, is captioned Cadalzo v. Borough of Point Pleasant Beach, et al., docket number L-3409-10, and is before Ocean County Assignment Judge Vincent J. Grasso.

ACLU Files Suit Against Camden Police Drug-Planting

September 16, 2010

Case Highlights Urgent Need For Systemic Reforms

CAMDEN, NJ — The American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of New Jersey today announced the filing of a lawsuit on behalf of an innocent Camden, New Jersey man jailed for more than a year as the result of drugs planted on him by police officers later implicated in a wide-scale drug-planting conspiracy affecting nearly 200 other Camden residents.

Joel Barnes was at a friend's house in August 2008 when Camden police officers Robert Bayard and Antonio Figueroa entered the friend's home without a search warrant, detained Barnes, demanded information from him that he did not have, and then arrested him for unlawful possession of a controlled substance after planting drugs on him.

Earlier this year, Camden police officers Kevin Michael Parry and Jason Stetser, also at the scene at the time of Barnes' arrest, pleaded guilty to numerous federal charges, including conspiring to deprive others of their civil rights. Parry admitted to a federal judge in March that he and several other Camden police officers, including Stetser, Figueroa and Bayard, planted drugs on innocent people. The officers threatened to arrest individuals on charges related to that planted evidence if they refused to implicate themselves in crimes.

"Planting evidence on innocent people in order to send them to prison is one of the most serious forms of police misconduct, and police who engage in such behavior must be held accountable," said Edward Barocas, Legal Director of the ACLU of New Jersey. "Mr. Barnes deserves to be compensated for the year of his life now lost forever and for the trauma he suffered at the hands of these corrupt officers."

After Figueroa and Bayard entered his friend's house on August 2, 2008, police handcuffed and unlawfully detained Barnes in a van outside the friend's home for more than an hour despite not being in possession of any illegal drugs or contraband. Every so often, Figueroa would return to the van and ask Barnes, "Where's the shit at?" Surmising that Figueroa was referring to controlled substances, Barnes truthfully responded that he was unaware of any drugs in the house.

Figueroa then pulled out a bag containing drugs and said, "Tell us where the shit's at and we'll make this disappear." Barnes was told that the drugs in the bag would carry much more serious criminal charges than any drugs that might be found and that he would receive a shorter period of incarceration if he told police the location of any drugs potentially in the house. But because Barnes could only truthfully say that he knew of no drugs in the house, he was arrested for unlawful possession of a controlled substance, unlawful possession of a controlled substance with an intent to distribute the substance, and unlawful possession of a controlled substance within 1,000 feet of a school zone - charges that ordinarily carry between 10 and 20 years imprisonment.

"I felt helpless and didn't know what to do," said Barnes. "I knew I hadn't done anything wrong, but I also knew that the officers had all of the power and I had none. It's disturbing that the police officers who are supposed to protect the community were the ones breaking the law, misusing their power, and abusing so many innocent people."

Barnes initially pleaded not guilty to all of the charges against him but, fearing a jury would be far more likely to believe the officers' testimony than his own truthful testimony, and not wanting to risk spending his remaining youth in prison, he ultimately pleaded guilty to one count of unlawful drug possession within 1,000 feet of a school zone. Barnes entered the Camden County Jail on April 17, 2009. However, after Parry and Stetser pleaded guilty to the criminal charges against them, the conviction against Barnes was vacated and he walked out of custody freed on June 8, 2010 - having served one year, one month and 24 days in incarceration.

"The plight of Mr. Barnes highlights the urgent need for far-reaching and systemic reforms in the Camden Police Department," said Jay Rorty, Director of the ACLU Criminal Law Reform Project. "Had there been proper supervision, Camden's police officers would not have been able to plant drugs on Camden residents in the first place. The public's faith in the fairness of the criminal process rests on the integrity of police officers. Concrete steps need to be taken immediately in order to restore the public's trust in its police force."

Affordable Fees for Copies of Records Signed Into Law

September 10, 2010

Governor signs long-fought-for bill into law for a more transparent NJ

NEWARK — In an important victory for open government, Governor Chris Christie today signed into law a bill lowering fees charged by state and local government for copies of public records, championed by Assemblyman Joseph Cryan and Senator Loretta Weinberg and backed the ACLU-NJ and open government advocates across the state.

"This marks the end of a barrier that for far too long kept the public from having access to government," said ACLU-NJ Open Governance Project Attorney Bobby Conner. "This new law brings a new day for transparency in New Jersey. Now public records will be more available to everyone, not just those who can afford it. It will help New Jersey's citizens to better hold their officials accountable."

The law limits what government agencies can charge for copies of public records to five cents per page for letter-size copies and seven cents per page for legal-size copies, based on actual costs of copying. Previously, New Jersey's Open Public Records Act had allowed state and local government to charge 75 cents per page, often prohibitive for ordinary citizens holding their officials accountable. In February, however, the Appellate Division of New Jersey Superior Court ruled that as of July 1, no agency could charge citizens more than the actual costs of copying records.

The ACLU-NJ, which contributed to the drafting of the legislation, has advocated for more reasonable copying fees for more than a decade. Expanding on the fundamental ACLU-NJ mission to bring greater transparency to the state, the organization last year formed the Open Governance Project, thanks to a generous grant from Rutgers School of Law-Newark.

The Open Governance Project is currently working with legislators to draft more comprehensive updates to OPRA and the Sunshine Law (Open Public Meetings Act), which hasn't been updated since first passing in 1975 and needs revisions that address electronic communications.

"We're gratified that a very long battle in the fight for accountability has secured greater access for the public," said ACLU-NJ Executive Director Deborah Jacobs. "There's still a long way to go before accountability weaves its way into all levels of New Jersey's government, but this is a fundamental step. The ACLU-NJ will remain a watchdog against government secrecy to let the public keep watch over their government."

The Open Governance Project, which claims the only pro bono attorney in New Jersey working exclusively on transparency issues, has won other recent victories to secure more openness among New Jersey's officials, which can be found online.

Categories: Open Government

ACLU-NJ Petitions Justice Department to Intervene in Newark

September 08, 2010

banner_police_pet_200: Newark Police Department Petition for Justice

NEWARK—The ACLU-NJ filed a petition with the U.S. Department of Justice today, (300k PDF) making an appeal for the agency to rein in and reform the long-troubled Newark Police Department with federal intervention.

"The problem in Newark is much bigger than the actions of any one police officer, or even any one administration, and it cannot be contained internally," said ACLU-NJ Executive Director Deborah Jacobs. "Our petition demonstrates an established culture of lawlessness that can only be reformed through external intervention."

The 96-page petition exposes a level of abuse in the Newark Police Department warranting intervention from the DOJ Civil Rights Division, Special Litigation Section. Federal law empowers the U.S. attorney general to step in when a police department systemically deprives people of their rights, including through the patterns of false arrests, inconsistent discipline, discrimination against employees, delinquent internal affairs practices, and, above all, acts of violence against citizens bringing injuries and deaths that have distinguished Newark as particularly egregious.

Combing through public records, the ACLU-NJ learned that Newark paid out over $4 million — mostly in settlements — for cases filed between January 1, 2008 and July 1, 2010. As documented in the petition, twelve of those incidents involved department employees, while 26 were brought by citizens.

The settled cases amount to only a fraction of the 407 incidents of misconduct collected in the petition, including 261 complaints to internal affairs during the 2008-2009 calendar year. In addition, 37 other lawsuits brought during that two-and-a-half year period — 7 by department employees and 30 by citizens — remain pending. Additionally, 50 separate tort claims filed detail abusive treatment from officers, while 21 other complaints charge misconduct independently.

Contained within the petition are heartbreaking stories of violence, discrimination, and retaliation.

In one case settled in March 2010, an officer fractured several locations of a man's jaw and face as other officers passively looked on after he asked how to file a complaint with internal affairs. In a pending case filed last year, police allegedly beat a man so severely that he suffered permanent, debilitating spinal cord injuries and paralysis. Another pending case, filed in 2009, details officers' threats to throw a juvenile from a bridge if he did not admit involvement in a crime. When he refused, they beat him and urinated on him in a secluded location. Later, the police department "lost" the soiled t-shirt submitted to internal affairs as evidence.

The complaint describes seven deaths at the hands of the NPD, from either intentional shootings or officers' dismissals of urgent health complaints, as well as stories of several people who lost their jobs when their wrongful detention kept them from work.

The petition displays a lethargic response to accusations of misconduct. Out of the 261 internal affairs complaints filed in 2008 and 2009, internal police investigators substantiated the merits of only one — an improper search allegation. Equally troubling, the petition documents near-routine discouragement of complaints in addition to clear campaigns of retaliation, harassment, threats, and bribery meant to intimidate those who do successfully file complaints into silence. This inattention has allowed officers with troubled disciplinary histories to remain on patrol, including one with 62 career complaints, another with 45, one who had faced seven suspensions for insubordination and other offenses, and another who had faced five suspensions for neglect of duty.

"I challenge anyone to read the horror stories in this petition and still claim that misconduct hasn't spun out of control in Newark." said Jacobs "It's high time to address the problems within NPD once and for all."

The ACLU-NJ has been the most vocal advocate for the reform of the Newark Police Department since our founding 50 years ago. After the infamous 1967 unrest that arose from and resulted in police violence, the ACLU-NJ recorded citizens' complaints and filed three lawsuits demanding order in the unruly Newark Police Department. In addition to informing citizens of their rights and examining the effectiveness of police policies, we have fought the department's violations of civil rights in numerous lawsuits.

"The problems within the NPD didn't develop overnight, and we don't expect change overnight," said Jacobs, "but progress over the past three years is too little to protect citizens, and it's obvious that we need outside expertise and help."

The ACLU-NJ hopes that Department of Justice intervention will mean reforms like an improved internal affairs process responsive to citizens' complaints; enhanced risk-management systems that detect troubling patterns of employee misconduct; increased training; a discipline matrix to ensure equality in employee discipline; and, above all, an independent monitor with the power to fully audit the department's operations and to mandate reforms truly capable of rebuilding the department from the ground up.

New Jersey has a notable history of successful federal intervention. A federal consent decree in 1999 addressing racial profiling brought major reforms to the New Jersey State Police that affected all of its operations. Similar consent decrees transformed troubled police departments in Pittsburgh, Cincinnati and Los Angeles and inspired officials in New Orleans and Washington, D.C. to personally petition the DOJ to intervene.

ACLU-NJ Counters Church's Effort to Unmask Online Critic

September 01, 2010

NEWARK — Countering a New Jersey church's unjustified pursuit of an anonymous e-mailer's identity, Public Citizen and the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey (ACLU-NJ) asked a court this week to rescind a legal order filed by the church and to protect the e-mailer's privacy.

The two groups filed a brief in the Superior Court of New Jersey in Morris County this week, arguing that the church's request for the source of an e-mail blaming poor management at Our Lady of the Magnificat School for declining student enrollment violated the First Amendment.

"The Constitution allows everyone to express an opinion on matters that concern them without worrying about undue retaliation," said ACLU-NJ Deputy Legal Director Jeanne LoCicero. "Our tradition of anonymous speech reaches back to the publication of the Federalist Papers. No one has the right to intimidate people into silence by threatening to unmask the anonymity they're entitled to."

After several parents of children at the Our Lady of the Magnificat School received an e-mail in February accusing the school of poor management and speculating about student enrollment, the church brought concerns to court in June over slander and potential damage to its reputation.

The court ordered Cablevision, the Internet service provider, to produce documents identifying the critic. Cablevision notified the critic, who contacted Public Citizen and the ACLU-NJ for assistance.

"Established law says that Internet critics cannot be unmasked unless several procedural and substantive protections are met," said Public Citizen attorney Paul Alan Levy. "The requirement that legal and factual merit must be shown before the identity of Internet speakers can be discovered has been the law in New Jersey for nearly a decade."

As ruled in a case that Levy argued a decade ago before New Jersey's Appellate Division, certain criteria must be met for a court to allow the search for an anonymous online commenter's identity to proceed. First, the online commenter must receive notification in order to secure a legal defense. Second, a legal showing must prove the material in question is in fact defamatory. Third, a factual showing must prove the case against the critic is strong. The church in this case has met none of those criteria, Levy said.

The groups are asking the court to vacate its order to Cablevision. They are working with local attorney Richard L. Ravin of Hartman & Winnicki, P.C.

Read the brief online at http://www.citizen.org/documents/In_re_OLM_Brief_Supp_Motion_Reconsideration.pdf

Categories: Free Speech Student & Youth Rights

ACLU-NJ Input Adds Transparency to Newark Charter School

September 01, 2010

Newark — The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey (ACLU-NJ) announced the successful resolution of requests to review Lady Liberty Academy Charter School's (LLACS) public records and to videotape LLACS board meetings. After an anonymous community member contacted the ACLU-NJ to help her seek the school's records, the ACLU-NJ worked with LLACS to improve the charter school's practices for sharing information with the public.

As part of the resolution, Lady Liberty has adopted ACLU-NJ recommendations for greater transparency.

"We are proud that Lady Liberty has renewed its commitment to open government," stated ACLU-NJ Open Governance Attorney Bobby Conner, who assisted in the resolution. "This resolution helps the entire community by making sure that the most important information to the public is easily accessible."

Also as part of the resolution, the school will maintain its meeting agendas, minutes and other vital public records online in addition to posting specific details about the public's right to participate in meetings. Additionally, the anonymous requester has received hundreds of pages of documents sought from the school.

Lady Liberty Academy Charter School, established in 2001, fosters student achievement by providing Newark schoolchildren with a rigorous academic and social curriculum.

The ACLU-NJ's Open Governance Project, founded in spring 2009, works to increase the public's access to the workings of their government.

Categories: Open Government

ACLU-NJ Probes FBI Mapping Based on Ethnicity

July 27, 2010

NEWARK - The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey today filed a Freedom of Information Act request with New Jersey's FBI field offices asking for records regarding the agency's collection of racial and ethnic data in local communities. Joining 31 other ACLU affiliates nationally, the ACLU-NJ seeks more details concerning the FBI's authority as described in the 2008 FBI operations guide to map businesses, behaviors, lifestyles and traditions considered "ethnic-oriented."

"The potential abuse that could stem from the FBI's mapping of America by race demonstrates exactly why transparency is so crucial to a democracy," said ACLU-NJ Executive Director Deborah Jacobs. "The public has a right to know what kinds of information the government gathers about ordinary Americans, and the public has a right to know how that information will be used."

The FBI's 2008 Domestic Intelligence and Operations Guide (DIOG) refers to agents' power to collect, use, and map racial and ethnic data to assist its "domain awareness" and "intelligence analysis" activities. The DIOG, first released with heavy redaction in September 2009, was released with fewer redactions this January in response to a lawsuit filed by Muslim Advocates. Still, the public has little access to information about the FBI's implementation of this authority.

"The FBI's mapping of local communities based on race and ethnicity, as well the ability to target investigations based on supposed racial and ethnic behaviors, raises serious civil liberties concerns," said Michael German, ACLU policy counsel and former FBI agent. "Creating a profile of a neighborhood based on the ethnic makeup of the people who live there for law enforcement or domestic intelligence is unfair, un-American and unable to stop crime."

In addition to New Jersey, FOIA requests for the same kinds of information were also filed in Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Washington, DC, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont and Virginia.

ACLU-NJ Calls for Thorough Investigation of Shooting in Newark Park

July 21, 2010

Newark—The ACLU-NJ calls on the State Office of Attorney General to conduct a thorough investigation of the tragic July 16, 2010 shooting death of a citizen by an Essex County Sheriff's officer, and has filed a public information request with the Essex County Sheriff's Office to shed greater light on the incident.

"Considering the seriousness of the incident, and many unanswered questions, this investigation demands the legitimacy that only an external review can provide," said Deborah Jacobs, executive director for the ACLU-NJ. "The public's confidence in this investigation depends on whether the professionals undertaking it operate independently, outside of the county structure."

The questionable circumstances surrounding the shooting in Branch Brook Park of DeFarra "Dean" Gaymon, which allegedly followed a confrontation with the officer who shot him, demand an in-depth, independent review from the Attorney General's Shooting Response Team.

Many questions still remain. Inconsistent reports in media have painted an unclear picture of what actually happened at the scene. Additionally, the ACLU-NJ has not learned whether Essex County immediately reported the shooting to the Attorney General's office, as required by policy, nor how soon after the incident the officer was questioned or discussed the incident with his supervisors.

Normally the State Division of Criminal Justice, the office under the attorney general's supervision that law enforcement must notify when force used by an officer involves death or injury, assigns the County Prosecutor's Office to carry out investigations. However, the ACLU-NJ believes the Division of Criminal Justice should cede the investigation instead to the experts at the Shooting Response Team, who can add greater accountability to the inquiry.

The ACLU-NJ's request filed today with the Essex County Sheriff's Office asks for radio transmissions, use-of-force reports, arrest reports and other data that could shed light on the shooting. Today's actions are part of a larger ACLU-NJ effort both statewide and in Essex County advocating for best practices in policing.

ACLU-NJ Celebrates 50 Years on the Front Lines of Freedom

June 16, 2010

Newark, N.J. - For five decades, the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey has been a gale force in the most critical social debates of our time and a vigilant guardian of civil rights for all.

In June, the ACLU-NJ will mark the 50th anniversary of its founding and celebrate its standing as one of the largest and most active affiliates in the nation. Created to counter the growing pressures on civil liberties in the state, the affiliate's first official meeting took place on the night of June 16, 1960. Since its start, the affiliate, which has continued to keep its headquarters in Newark, has seen its membership multiply nearly 10-fold, from 1,600 people to more than 15,000.

"We believe that the liberties in the Bill of Rights belong to every American, to all the people in New Jersey regardless of their political beliefs, race, religion or national origin," ACLU-NJ founder and longtime President Emil Oxfeld said in the original press release announcing the formation of the state's affiliate. "We believe these freedoms must be exercised if democracy in our state is to grow and thrive."

Oxfeld went on to list issues that desperately needed attention at the time - due process, racial discrimination, the separation of church and state, and freedom from censorship - all principles the ACLU still defends daily.

"While some of the issues raised in our cases over the years seem archaic by today's standards, many haven't changed at all," said ACLU-NJ Executive Director Deborah Jacobs, who has led the affiliate since 1999, including during the biggest membership spike in its history. "The law has advanced remarkably in areas like women's rights, lesbian and gay rights, and safeguarding personal privacy, but with issues like free speech, police practices and religious freedom, no fight ever stays won."

"The ACLU of New Jersey has been a leader in the crucial civil liberties battles of our time," said Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the national ACLU. "While each new era brings a wave of assaults on freedom, the ACLU of New Jersey responds swiftly and decisively, protecting the rights of all Garden State residents. It has proven its value on the American political landscape."

Since opening its doors and springing into action - its first official undertaking was commending the Clifton Library's stance against banning books like Lady Chatterley's Lover - the ACLU-NJ has doggedly worked for justice and equality in New Jersey.

In its first decade the ACLU-NJ took strong action following the 1967 Newark Rebellion. Staffers took to the streets in the aftermath, painstakingly cataloguing police abuses to the ACLU-NJ would refer to in its demands for reform. The New Jersey affiliate also emerged even more progressive than the national ACLU, becoming one of the first state affiliates to take a stand against the Vietnam War.

Since those early years, the ACLU-NJ has grown into one of the country's largest and most active state affiliates, with a record of milestones that has earned it a role on the national stage. Among its accomplishments, the ACLU-NJ:

Defended the rights of women in schools, from a tennis star (represented by Ruth Bader Ginsburg) who won the right to play on the high school boys' tennis team, to the Princeton student who turned its Ivy League all-male eating clubs co-ed.
Blocked a bill requiring a "one-minute period of silence" for prayer in public schools in 1983.
Defended 12 motorists who had been racially profiled on the New Jersey Turnpike in the late 1990s.
Propelled New Jersey to become the first state in the nation to grant equal standing to gay and lesbian couples jointly adopting in 1997.
Successfully challenged the state's ban on late-term abortion in 1998 and a law requiring parents to sign off on a minor's abortion in 2000.
Challenged secret detentions and organized locally, fending off attempts to chip away at individual rights following the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.
Defeated local laws written to exclude immigrants from housing, won humane working conditions for immigrants, and helped enforce the rights of young immigrants to attend public school.
Established stronger First Amendment protections in schools and malls, as well as developments run by homeowners associations.

The ACLU-NJ is celebrating the clients, attorneys, leaders and volunteers - many involved in the cases highlighted above - who have built its legacy, from its founders to its future. The stories of these 50 Faces of Liberty can be found at the ACLU-NJ website, http://www.aclu-nj.org

"Society has changed dramatically since our founding, but we've never lost the fire that fuels the ACLU's advocacy," Jacobs added. "We can't always predict what challenges lie ahead for liberty in a changing world, but whatever they are, the ACLU stands ready to defend the fundamental rights of ordinary Americans."

The year-long commemoration will culminate November 4 at the NJ Freedom Fest: A night of laughter and liberties, hosted by comedian Jimmy Tingle and featuring faces from the ACLU past and present, to be held at the Heldrich Hotel in New Brunswick.

Categories: Student & Youth Rights Reproductive Freedom Religious Freedom Privacy Prisons Poverty Rights Police Practices Open Government National Security Immigrant Rights Gay & Lesbian Rights Free Speech Elections & Voting Discrimination Cyber-Liberties Criminal Justice Additional Issues

ACLU Sues Over Closed Meeting on Open Spaces

May 20, 2010

Newark — The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey's Open Governance Project today announced the filing of a lawsuit challenging the actions of the West Orange Open Space and Recreation Committee, which excluded members of the public from its March meeting. The ACLU-NJ today filed notice with the court that the complaint had been served on West Orange and the committee.

"The Open Spaces Committee plays a substantive role in shaping open space projects in West Orange, but the committee sought to keep the public in the dark," said ACLU-NJ Open Governance Attorney Bobby Conner. "West Orange residents showed up to the public meeting and the doors were literally shut in front of them."

The plaintiff, Frances Chasan Holland, had hoped to attend the Open Space Committee's March 8 meeting, seeing it advertised in the local paper and town newsletter. But when Holland arrived, the committee members in attendance falsely told her that they lacked the requisite quorum for a public meeting. In violation of the Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA), they shut the doors and went into closed session, reportedly drafting an ordinance regarding the development of steep slopes.

"A township official who serves on the committee told me to wait in the hall, and said they would all wave to me on the way out," Holland said. "They then held their meeting behind closed doors, away from the community members their decisions affect."

When Holland requested information about the meeting, West Orange claimed that the committee lacked influence over the rights of residents and OPMA didn't apply. However, as a voting body the committee holds significant sway over residents' rights. It identifies, prioritizes and recommends properties for West Orange to acquire for open space projects, which qualifies it as public under OPMA. Further, the West Orange municipal code mandates the Open Space Committee follow OPMA.

"The committee chooses which land should be considered for development, and that gives it a tremendous amount of power," said Conner. "The public has a right to know the basis for decisions that determine the future of their town."

The case, captioned Holland v. Township of West Orange, was filed Wednesday, April 21, 2010, in Superior Court in Essex County. The ACLU-NJ also filed complaints regarding the matter with the New Jersey Attorney General and the Essex County Prosecutor, which are still pending.

Categories: Free Speech Open Government

ACLU Open Governance Attorney Honored with Award

May 20, 2010

Newark — ACLU-NJ Open Governance Attorney Bobby Conner, who has spearheaded the organization's Open Governance Project since its launch last year, will receive the 2010 Professional Achievement Award of the New Jersey State Bar Association (NJSBA) Young Lawyers Division in recognition of his contributions to the state's legal landscape.

"In just four years out of law school, Conner has not only become a leading advocate in the field of open government, but has also shined professionally as a creative colleague who holds himself to the highest standards," said ACLU-NJ Deputy Legal Director Jeanne LoCicero, who nominated Conner for the award. "Whether he's shedding light on public contracts in a town of 500 or helping rewrite laws that affect the entire state, the passion behind his work is just as strong. He's driven by the knowledge that every piece of his advocacy adds up to greater accountability."

Conner's award, to be presented at the New Jersey State Bar Association's annual meeting in Atlantic City today, each year recognizes a young lawyer in the state who has demonstrated excellence in a particular area of law, argued for a significant verdict, or won a game-changing decision, among other distinctions.

Conner has established the Open Governance Project as a powerhouse for transparency, ensuring that government agencies uphold and enforce the Open Public Records Act and Open Public Meetings Act (the "Sunshine Law") throughout New Jersey. He regularly helps members of the public seeking access to their government and teaches public officials how to better comply with New Jersey's open governance laws. He has worked closely with Senator Loretta Weinberg to draft amendments she has introduced to update both the Sunshine Law and the Open Public Records Act.

Conner's contributions to the growing body of public records decisional law are evident. Conner successfully argued that police use-of-force reports are not exempt from public access, persuaded the Union County freeholders to publicly apologize to a resident they had silenced because they disagreed with his comments, and ensured that emergency medical service invoices hidden by the Hackensack government saw the light of day. In addition, Conner's friend-of-the-court brief in Burnett v. Gloucester, decided just last week, helped ensure that public documents maintained by a third party cannot be shielded from the public. The Appellate Division adopted the ACLU-NJ's position, also ruling that towns are prohibited from treating requests for a range of identifiable documents as impermissible fishing expeditions based solely on their breadth.

"In a state with more than 1,800 government entities — from cities to school boards to public authorities — New Jersey presents an especially difficult challenge for residents looking for transparency in the democratic process," Conner said. "When we fight for open government in one jurisdiction, we send a message to every official in New Jersey: if you obstruct the public from access to records or meetings, you will hear from the ACLU."

When Conner first came to the ACLU-NJ full time in 2007, he managed the organization's legal intake and quickly became the resident expert on pursuing public documents. In 2009, a generous grant from Rutgers School of Law-Newark allowed the ACLU-NJ to more doggedly pursue open government, and, as a natural fit for the position, Conner stepped into the role of open governance attorney for the new Open Governance Project. He graduated from Rutgers School of Law-Newark in 2006, where he served as a government fellow at the Eagleton Institute of Politics at Rutgers University.

"Dynamic young lawyers like this year's honorees are the future of this profession," said New Jersey State Bar Association President Allen A. Etish.

Categories: Open Government

ACLU-NJ Exploring School's Ban of LGBT Book

May 10, 2010

Newark - The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey sent an Open Public Records Act request Friday to the Rancocas Valley School District for documents that will shed light on the district's decision to remove the book Revolutionary Voices: A Multicultural Queer Youth Anthology from the Rancocas Valley High School library. The book, which shares gay students' coming-out stories and reflections on identity, won the School Library Journal's Adult Books for High School Students Award in 2001.

"The ultimate decision of whether a book can be removed does not rest simply on whether a few individuals or students may be offended," said ACLU-NJ Executive Director Deborah Jacobs. "Decisions to censor literature should only be based on a standard set of neutral criteria unrelated to the political or social themes in the book."

The school district made its decision after a political group specifically singled out books with lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender themes. The ACLU-NJ filed its request in order to learn whether the school district's policies were applied fairly, without discrimination.

"Educators and school librarians are the best qualified to determine what kinds of books and materials schools should keep in their libraries," said Jacobs. "Neither political groups nor parents have a right to impose their decisions, morals, or values on all students and families."

In 1982, the United States Supreme Court held that school boards have only a limited right to remove books from school libraries. "Local school boards may not remove books from school library shelves simply because they dislike the ideas contained in those books," the Court explained. Rather, removals should be based only on "educational suitability," with school boards taking the input of educators into account.

"If we started removing every book that one group or another objects to, our libraries' shelves would practically be bare," Jacobs noted. "The idea is to expose students to a diversity of themes and views, not to tightly restrict the information they receive."

More Information

Rancocas Valley Regional OPRA Request (99k PDF)

Categories: Student & Youth Rights Gay & Lesbian Rights Free Speech Discrimination

Government Records Stored Off-Site Still Public, Court Rules

May 10, 2010

Newark - In a victory for transparency, the Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court ruled today that government documents maintained by outside agents must be made available to the public.

"No matter where a government agency chooses to keep its records, the public will now have access to them," said ACLU-NJ Open Governance Staff Attorney Bobby Conner, who argued the case for the ACLU-NJ before the court in January. "If today's decision hadn't closed the lower court's loophole, all government agencies in New Jersey could have evaded the law simply by maintaining their records with outside sources."

The court upheld the ACLU-NJ's arguments that Gloucester County had broken the Open Public Records Act (OPRA) when it denied David Burnett access to settlement agreements he had requested. The county's explanation - that the records were not "made, maintained or kept on file by the county" - did not hold true, as the county had entered into the requested settlement agreements through agents acting on its behalf, in the form of insurance carriers or outside legal counsel.

As the ACLU-NJ argued in its September 2009 friend of the court brief, and as the court today upheld, OPRA applies equally to both government records maintained by outside agents and government records stored among the entity's in-house files. The court also held that Burnett's request for every settlement agreement within a specified time frame did not require inappropriate research, rejecting the county's assertion.

"This decision is a double win for open government," Conner added. "First, the court recognized that citizens have a right to see records of their government's activity - no matter who stores them. The ruling also prevents towns from treating requests for a range of identifiable documents as if they were impermissible fishing expeditions."

The ACLU-NJ's Open Governance Project, founded in spring 2009, works to increase the access of the public and the press to the workings of their government. The project saw another recent victory as a friend of the court in O'Shea v. West Milford, which determined that police departments' use-of-force reports are public records.

Categories: Open Government

ACLU Renews Call for Equality with Marriage Lawsuit

May 03, 2010

TRENTON - Standing with the state's leading civil rights and minority rights organizations, the ACLU-NJ today called for the end of New Jersey's unequal system of civil unions and demanded the beginning of an era of equality where all people have an equal right to marriage, regardless of their sexual orientation.

"A separate system of rights for a particular minority group has once again failed to fulfill the actual promise of equality, as has been the case throughout history," said Vice Dean of Rutgers-Newark School of Law Ronald Chen, who authored the amicus brief in the case on behalf of the ACLU-NJ and seven other notable minority rights and civil rights organizations.

Although courts have allowed legislatures to enact separate systems of rights for minorities in the past, the ACLU brief explains that judges have always struck down those systems when they are shown to perpetuate disparities. Moreover, the ACLU-NJ argues that a history of excluding a minority group from access to rights is not in itself a public interest that can justify continued exclusionary practices.

The brief cites the evidence that civil unions have not provided the equal protection the court promised in 2006, when it issued a ruling in the first iteration of this case. Since then, couples in civil unions have learned firsthand that an institution so poorly understood cannot actually protect their rights. Couples have found themselves justifying their relationship to those with influence over their lives - from their children's public school teachers to the administrators of county hospitals - who understand marriage, but not the separate new structure created only for them.

"By devaluing certain families and setting them apart from others, it affects how those families are treated in schools, in hospitals, and in almost all daily transactions. And children are most harmed of all," said ACLU-NJ Legal Director Ed Barocas. "Civil unions institute inequality in ways both mundane and profound. Our state must end the daily struggle it imposes on our fellow citizens by having denied them the right to marry."

The ACLU-NJ joined the first filing of Lewis v. Harris in 2002 on behalf of seven same-sex couples seeking the right to marry. The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled unanimously in October 2006 that granting lesser rights to same-sex couples violated the Constitution. However, the court entrusted the legislature to enact a solution, which resulted in the civil union folly that continues today. Two years later, in 2008, the state's Civil Union Review Commission found the institution fell far short of the equality the court had intended to provide. In January 2009, after an ardent campaign waged on the ground in New Jersey, the New Jersey Senate failed to pass marriage equality when the bill came up for a vote at the end of the legislative session.

The other signatories to the brief submitted today are the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, the Anti-Defamation League, the Asian-American Legal Defense and Education Fund, the Garden State Bar Association, the Hispanic Bar Association, Legal Momentum, and the National Organization for Women of New Jersey.

Documents

Lewis - Brief

Categories: Gay & Lesbian Rights Discrimination

ACLU-NJ Defends Anti-Abortion Student's Free Speech

March 24, 2010

NEWARK — The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey today revisited the most important student speech case — Tinker v. Des Moines — with a friend-of-the-court brief submitted in support of a Bridgeton High School student's right to wear a red armband bearing the word "life."

"While the ACLU seeks to ensure that public schools do not impose religious views on students, we just as fervently fight against school officials who try to silence the religious and political speech of students," said ACLU-NJ Legal Director Ed Barocas.

Bridgeton school administrators banned the student from observing a nationwide day of solidarity against abortion, which she had wanted to mark by distributing anti-abortion literature during non-instructional hours and by remaining silent, letting her red "life" armband speak for her. The school district's initial objections, according to the student's lawsuit, arose from a misreading of the establishment clause, which prevents the government from imposing religion on individuals. But, as the ACLU-NJ explained in its brief, as long as the speaker is a student, not a government official, religious speech deserves the same protections as any other speech.

The school district failed to meet standards that allow exceptions to students' free speech rights, offering no evidence that the student's message would cause a material disruption of the school. Even the district's fairly restrictive dress code policy does not allow the school to sidestep the First Amendment. The dress code, which allows students to accessorize their uniforms with jewelry and hosiery, cannot grant administrators the discretion to ban forms of speech that the Supreme Court expressly protected in Tinker v. Des Moines. In that case, a school did not have the right to prohibit students from wearing black armbands to protest the war in Vietnam.

"Schools cannot silence a student's free speech just because her message might make others uncomfortable," stated Ronald K. Chen of Rutgers Constitutional Litigation Clinic, who submitted the brief on behalf of the ACLU-NJ. "Students do not shed their right to free speech at the school house gate - it's as true today as when the Supreme Court declared it 41 years ago."

The ACLU-NJ ardently defends religious freedom. In recent years, it successfully defended a second-grader's right to sing the song "Awesome God" at an after-school talent show and helped overturn the dismissal of jurors in a criminal trial based on the prosecutor's belief that they had worn overtly religious clothing. A list of other ACLU cases in support of religious freedom can be found at http://www.aclufightsforchristians.com

The case is captioned C.H. v. Bridgeton Board of Education and is proceeding in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.

Documents

CH - Brief

Categories: Student & Youth Rights Free Speech

Newark's Public Housing Opens Doors to Free Speech

March 11, 2010

NEWARK - The ACLU-NJ announced a free speech victory yesterday for Newark's political candidates, who will now be able to extend their campaigns within the walls of Newark's public housing complexes.

"The right to engage in political activity is fundamental to American democracy," said ACLU-NJ Legal Director Ed Barocas. "Fortunately, candidates in Newark can now exercise their right to campaign freely, and residents of Newark will have the right to tap into the free flow of information."

The Housing Authority drafted a new rule and clarified existing ones after the ACLU-NJ contacted the housing authority expressing concern after hearing reports from City Council hopefuls John Sharpe James, Darrin Sharif and Louis Shockley that the NHA had silenced their constitutionally protected speech.

As in previous years — and as famously documented in the film Street Fight chronicling the candidacy of Newark Mayor Cory Booker — office-seekers reported their thwarted attempts to talk to residents door-to-door and use community rooms for campaign events. One candidate reported that the housing authority forced him to leave an outdoor townhouse complex where he had tried to make contact with voters, shutting residents out of the political process as a result.

After ACLU-NJ prodding, the housing authority confirmed that candidates can now hold political events in apartments' community rooms, discuss campaign issues door-to-door with tenants in townhouse complexes, and accept invitations from public housing residents to speak at political discussions in their homes — under the condition that tenants' associations play no role in the process.

"All I want as a candidate is the right to share my ideas with the residents of Newark, and to then let the residents decide for themselves," said Darrin Sharif, a candidate for Central Ward councilman. "I'm grateful that I can now participate in the democratic process without barriers between me and the people I hope to serve."

The ACLU-NJ has previously challenged numerous Newark policies and actions that infringed on free speech, including: Newark police arresting a newspaper publisher for refusing to turn over photographs the police did not want him to publish, an unconstitutional requirement for people to buy expensive liability insurance before holding marches or demonstrations, and a requirement that anyone distributing leaflets meet the police chief's standards for "good moral character."

In 2008, just as the City Council passed an ordinance firmly ending the insurance requirement, the ACLU-NJ was forced to write another letter to challenge the new ordinance — this time requiring a group of 15 people to secure a permit before gathering or walking down the street. In January 2010, after years of ACLU-NJ advocacy, the City Council finally passed a new ordinance that resolves many of the City's problematic permit policies.

Categories: Free Speech Elections & Voting

ACLU Cheers Court for Slashing Inflated Costs of Records

February 15, 2010

NEWARK — The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey applauded last week's court decision requiring government agencies to charge the public for only the actual cost of copying records — no more.

"This decision relieves citizens of having to pay exorbitant fees for records and helps to restore the public's trust in their government," said Bobby Conner, staff attorney for the ACLU-NJ Open Governance Project.

Ending the high fees to access government records has long been a priority of the ACLU-NJ, which formed its Open Governance Project in June 2009 specifically to end these kinds of barriers to transparency and openness through advocacy, litigation, and public education about access to government information and by working with government agencies to resolve disputes and concerns.

The court's decision, which takes effect July 1, 2010, resolves a longstanding problem written into the Open Public Records Act (OPRA), the law guaranteeing the public's access to government information. Although OPRA clearly states that government agencies cannot charge the public more than the actual costs of copies, the statute also provided a fee structure that allowed government agencies to charge citizens rates well beyond those of commercial copy shops for copies of public records.

The court clarified the matter by firmly limiting the fees to the actual costs of providing the records. If a government agency charges a fee higher than the maximum it can charge as listed in OPRA, the agency must document and justify the higher rate.

To determine the actual cost per page, as required, the court suggest agencies average all annual costs associated with its copying equipment and recalibrate the fees at least once annually.

"Public access to government is a right, not a privilege to those who can afford it," Conner added. "The public's right to know protects democracy, and the elimination of unnecessary fees protects the public. This decision removes what had been a thick barrier to citizen ownership of a transparent government."

Categories: Open Government

ACLU-NJ Stops Landlord from Chilling Free Speech

February 08, 2010

SOMERVILLE — The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey (ACLU-NJ) on Friday stopped a prominent property manager from shutting down a local resident's free speech.

"This was a triumph for the First Amendment," said ACLU-NJ Staff Attorney Michael A. Norwick, who argued the case. "This ruling allows all citizens to speak freely, not just the rich and powerful. Expensive lawsuits shouldn't be used as a weapon to scare people into silence. This ruling strengthened the right to speak truth to power rather than the inclination among the powerful to control the conversation."

State Superior Court Judge Yolanda Ciccone sided with the ACLU-NJ in dismissing Plainfield landlord David Connolly's lawsuit, which claimed t-shirts graphic designer Christopher Spolarich had designed and marketed online defamed him. Spolarich, who runs a small side business selling satirical and issue-oriented t-shirts and novelties, called Connolly "a crook and a slumlord" in some of his merchandise. Connolly asked the third-party site selling Spolarich's merchandise to remove the vendor's wares and afterward filed what appeared to be a SLAPP suit, short for "strategic lawsuit against public participation."

The ACLU-NJ defended Spolarich's right to criticize Connolly, a well-known public figure in Central New Jersey. Connolly Properties manages approximately 60 residential apartment buildings in New Jersey and Pennsylvania, with about 30 of them in Plainfield. Connolly has come under intense public scrutiny in local media and among officials after complaints surfaced from his tenants of substandard living conditions. Connolly's properties have been cited for hundreds of building code violations, and his companies have pled guilty to dozens of municipal court complaints brought by the Plainfield Division of Inspections.

The judge ruled Spolarich's criticism to be a constitutionally protected opinion - not defamation - as a matter of law. Additionally, Connolly would not have been able to prove he had sustained any damages from the sale of Spolarich's products criticizing him, which were available for just slightly more than two weeks; the online store had complied with Connolly's wishes to take them down from the site.

"The prospect of being forced to pay thousands of dollars for expressing my opinions terrified me," said Spolarich. "I risked losing my house because I wrote a tongue-in-cheek slogan for a t-shirt. I'm so grateful that this ruling will send a message to anyone thinking of suing to stop free speech: no one can buy off the First Amendment."

The case, Connolly v. Spolarich, was filed in the New Jersey Superior Court, Somerset County.

Categories: Free Speech

5 Former AGs Challenge Jails' Blanket Strip Searches

January 18, 2010

NEWARK, NJ - The American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of New Jersey (ACLU-NJ) today filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of five former New Jersey Attorneys General opposing the blanket strip search policies of the Burlington County Jail and Essex County Correctional Facility. The jails' policies currently require strip searches for people charged with but not convicted of minor offenses, and even when there is no reasonable suspicion that an arrestee possesses contraband.

"Strip searching every detainee is unconstitutional, it contributes little to jail security and it creates an intolerable risk of subjecting detainees to needless humiliation," said Ed Barocas, Legal Director for the ACLU-NJ. "There is no legitimate reason for these types of policies to exist."

The amicus brief , filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on behalf of former New Jersey Attorneys General Robert J. Del Tufo, Deborah T. Poritz, John J. Farmer Jr., Peter C. Harvey and Zulima V. Farber, defends the privacy and Fourth Amendment rights of Albert Florence.

Florence filed a lawsuit in 2005 charging officials at the two jails with unconstitutionally subjecting him to two strip searches despite a lack of reasonable suspicion. The searches followed his erroneous arrest during a 2005 traffic stop for a fine he had already paid. He was ordered during the searches to squat naked and, while standing in front of prison guards, to lift his genitals.

"Being forced to strip naked is humiliating, and people charged with minor crimes shouldn't be strip searched unless there's a reason to think they're hiding something," said David Shapiro, staff attorney with the ACLU National Prison Project.

Consistent with legal precedent, U.S. District Court Judge Joseph H. Rodriguez ruled in February 2009 that the strip search of Florence violated the Constitution. However, officials representing both Burlington and Essex Counties appealed the decision, placing the case before the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.

The former Attorneys General's brief notes that Judge Rodriguez's decision prevents strip searches only for non-indictable offenses that do not involve contraband and when there is no reason to suspect contraband. Additionally, his decision does not preclude strip searches following visitation.

Previous federal rulings have also banned strip searches of low-level arrestees unless jail officials can prove reasonable suspicion that the inmate may have drugs, guns or other illegal contraband. The standard of reasonable suspicion still allows prison officials to use broad discretion in determining if a strip search is necessary.

A copy of the amicus brief is available online at: http://www.aclu.org/prisoners-rights/florence-v-board-chosen-freeholders-county-burlington-et-al-amicus-brief

Additional information about ACLU-NJ is available online at: http://www.aclu-nj.org

Additional information about the ACLU National Prison Project is available online at: http://www.aclu.org/prison

Categories: Privacy Prisons Criminal Justice

NJ Overturns Unjust Sentencing Law

December 09, 2009

Judges will now have discretion in sentencing for non-violent offenses

TRENTON — In a landmark victory for civil rights, the New Jersey Senate today passed a bill (S1866) revising a decades-old policy that had punished people more harshly for committing non-violent drug crimes within several hundred feet of schools, unfairly targeting city dwellers. Once signed into law, individual judges will be able to use their discretion to issue fair sentences appropriate to the crimes committed.

"This legislation is smart on crime, not soft on crime. It marks a major step forward toward achieving justice in New Jersey's criminal justice system," said Deborah Jacobs, executive director of the ACLU-NJ. "New Jersey's judges will now have authority to sentence people based on the severity of the crime, not the location."

This legislation overturns the drug-free school zone law, which mandated lengthy sentences for any drug crime committed near a school. As a result, people in New Jersey's more densely packed areas — for example, cities like Newark, Camden, Jersey City or New Brunswick — have been subject to a stricter standard of justice than those in the suburbs. Over the course of the drug-free school zone policy, 96 percent of those arrested for drug-free school offenses in New Jersey were black or Latino.

The Assembly passed the companion legislation, A2762, last year, and will need to vote on it once again to concur with the Senate version. Gov. Jon Corzine has said he will sign the bill once it reaches his desk.

This legislation promises fairness not only to New Jersey citizens relying on the criminal justice system, but to taxpayers. New Jersey's prisons and jails are dangerously overcrowded and many non-violent offenders are serving sentences much longer than needed. Judges will be able to decide the appropriate punishments, and New Jerseyans will know that everyone, everywhere across the state has a fairer shot at justice.

Changing this law has been a top priority for the ACLU-NJ over the past decade, in a broad coalition with organizations including the Coalition of Community Corrections Providers of New Jersey, Corporation for Supportive Housing, Families Against Mandatory Minimums, Hispanic Directors Association, Latino Leadership Alliance, New Jersey Association on Correction, Volunteers of American Delaware Valley and Women Who Never Give Up. In addition, cities like Newark and Camden have passed resolutions supporting S1866.

Categories: Prisons Discrimination Criminal Justice

Pentecostal Minister Can Now Preach in Prison

November 29, 2009

Pentecostal Minister Can Preach In Prison Following ACLU Lawsuit

TRENTON — Prompted by an American Civil Liberties Union lawsuit, state prison officials in New Jersey have agreed to restore the right of a devout Christian prisoner to preach at weekly worship services and teach Bible study classes.

Under the terms of a settlement agreement, Howard Thompson, Jr., an ordained Pentecostal minister, will once again be allowed to preach in prison, a practice banned two years ago without any warning or justification.

"The decision by prison officials in New Jersey to allow Mr. Thompson to resume practicing his faith is a welcome acknowledgement that religious freedom in this country extends to all," said Daniel Mach, Director of Litigation for the ACLU Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief. "The ban on prisoner preaching was clearly at odds with the law and the American value of religious liberty, and this decision was long overdue."

Thompson had preached at weekly worship services at the New Jersey State Prison (NJSP) for more than a decade when, in 2007, prison officials issued a blanket ban on such preaching by inmates, even when done under the direct supervision of prison staff. In response, the ACLU and the ACLU of New Jersey filed a lawsuit on Thompson's behalf last December, arguing that the ban unconstitutionally infringed upon Thompson's right to freely practice his religion. The lawsuit named NJSP Administrator Michelle R. Ricci and New Jersey Department of Corrections Commissioner George W. Hayman as defendants.

Since entering NJSP in 1986, Thompson has been an active member of the prison's Christian community, preaching at Sunday services, teaching Bible study classes and founding the choir. His preaching never caused any security problems. Indeed, the prison's chaplaincy staff had actively supported and encouraged Thompson, believing that he was a positive influence on his fellow inmates.

"The ban prevented me from responding to my religious calling to minister to my fellow inmates, something I had done honestly, effectively and without any incident for years," said Thompson. "All I have ever wanted was to have my religious rights restored so that I could continue working with men who want to renew their lives through the study and practice of their faith."

Ordained in October 2000 during a service at NJSP overseen by the prison's chaplain, Thompson sincerely believes it is his religious calling and obligation to preach his Pentecostal faith and has always been willing to do so under the full supervision of NJSP staff.

"The right to freely express religious viewpoints without the fear of repercussions is one of Americans' most fundamental constitutional rights," said Edward Barocas, Legal Director of the ACLU of New Jersey. "It is gratifying to see prison officials in our state take that constitutional obligation seriously."

The legal team for Thompson included Mach and Heather L. Weaver of the ACLU Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief and Barocas and Nadia Seeratan of the ACLU of New Jersey.

A copy of the settlement agreement is available online at: www.aclu.org/religion-belief/thompson-v-ricci-et-al-settlement-agreement

A copy of the ACLU's complaint on behalf of Thompson is available online at: http://www.aclu.org/prison/restrict/37953lgl20081120.html

Additional information about the ACLU of New Jersey is available online at: http://www.aclu-nj.org

The lawsuit was just the latest in a long line of ACLU cases defending the fundamental right to religious exercise, a more expansive list of which is available online at: http://www.aclu.org/defendingreligion

Categories: Religious Freedom Prisons

Court Unhands Police Use of Force Information to Public

November 08, 2009

WEST MILFORD — In a victory for open-government and police accountability, the New Jersey Appellate Division ruled today that "use of force" reports, which document the circumstances surrounding a police officer's use of force against a citizen, are government records that must be made available to the public under the Open Public Records Act (OPRA).

"This decision opens a necessary window for advocates, journalists, and above all, members of the public," said ACLU-NJ Open Governance Staff Attorney Bobby Conner, who argued the case before the court in June. "The public has a right to know when police force is justified and when it's used recklessly. Replacing secrecy with sunshine allows the public to truly make progress in ensuring the government follows its own laws."

The ACLU-NJ's Open Governance Project filed a friend of the court brief challenging West Milford's failure to disclose use of force reports, requested by resident Martin O'Shea. The town claimed the records should be exempt from public access under OPRA as "criminal investigatory records" both because they pertain — however tangentially — to criminal investigations and because no specific law requires police departments to keep use of force reports.

However, as the ACLU-NJ argued and the court upheld, the Attorney General enforces a policy requiring all law enforcement officers to complete a use of force report any time physical, mechanical or deadly force is used against another person, giving the policy the force of law. Moreover, because use of force reports are used anytime a police officer uses force, irrespective of any criminal investigation, West Milford's claim was further invalidated.

Use of force reports extend beyond a public record for the ACLU-NJ, which advocates for the state's local police departments to adopt best practices and works toward greater police transparency and accountability. An ACLU-NJ report - The Crisis Inside Police Internal Affairs (1.2mb PDF) - released in June 2009 found that nearly every police department across the state violated the Attorney General's Internal Affairs Policies and Procedures when citizens complained against police, revealing cracks within police departments that threaten accountability to the public.

"Giving citizens insight into how police officers exercise their power places the police's accountability directly in the public's hands," said ACLU-NJ Executive Director Deborah Jacobs. "The first step to understanding whether the police are acting in our best interest is to understand the actions they're taking."

ACLU-NJ To Protect Voters' Rights This Election Day

November 01, 2009

Newark — The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey (ACLU-NJ) and League of Women Voters of New Jersey (LWVNJ) will again team up this Election Day, November 3, to offer help to voters statewide and to collect information that sheds light on how well our election systems work. The ACLU-NJ and LWVNJ will assist voters who have questions or experience problems through our voter assistance hotline, 1-800-792-VOTE, near several New Jersey polling sites, and at county election courts.

"The League of Women of New Jersey and ACLU-NJ are committed to safeguarding democracy and voting rights as New Jersey heads to the polls," said Anne Ruach Nicolas, Executive Director of the League of Women Voters of New Jersey. "Through the hotline, at the polls, and in the courthouses, New Jersey voters can reach us, quickly and easily, to report issues and for assistance."

Unfortunately, a New Jersey Supreme Court decision in September limited the ability to help voters and document problems this year. The court banned all exit polling — including by media organizations — and voter education within 100 feet of a polling site, overstepping the intentions of laws protecting voters from intimidation. The organizations' voter protection efforts will shift focus this year to a strong presence on its voter hotline and at election courts in light of this recent decision, which severely limits Election Day free speech.

As in years past, volunteer attorneys will be available in some counties to represent voters turned away from the polls who then petition the court for the right to vote. However, this year, the ACLU-NJ and LWVNJ want to call attention to a particular problem reported last year in several counties involving deputy attorneys general (DAGs), who represent the counties' side in disputes over voters' eligibility. Would-be voters who had filed court applications to vote did not have the information they needed to understand that DAGs who asked them for detailed information were entitled to use their responses in legal arguments against them. The ACLU-NJ has developed a Know Your Rights in the Courthouse (258k PDF) publication, which volunteers will distribute to voters at courthouses on Election Day.

"Our voter protection efforts bring transparency to election systems that operate far too often behind a curtain," said Deborah Jacobs, ACLU-NJ Executive Director. "The information we gather enables us to provide the most comprehensive analysis of weaknesses in New Jersey's election systems, one of which is lack of collection and analysis of the complaints the state itself receives."

The LWVNJ and ACLU-NJ will staff the hotline, 1-800-792-VOTE, from 6 a.m. to 8 p.m. on Election Day, November 3, to answer voters' questions and offer assistance with problems voters may encounter at the polls. The League's voter assistance hotline is available year-round.

Read the ACLU-NJ and LWVNJ report — Making Every Vote Count: 2008 Elections (1.7mb PDF) — on elections issues that arose during the 2008 elections, including recommendations for poll monitor training and voter education.

Categories: Free Speech Elections & Voting

ACLU-NJ and Police Organization Resolve Sexual Orientation Dispute

October 28, 2009

NEWARK - The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey (ACLU-NJ) and the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives (NOBLE) announced the resolution of a dispute involving two women who were turned away from a fundraising dance hosted by the organization. The women claimed they and their friends were excluded based on their sexual orientation or gender expression.

Towana Christopher

"We are grateful that the matter is settled, but even more, we are grateful that this resolution promises to help other lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals," stated Cheryl Rogers who, along with her partner Towana Christopher, claim that they and friends were not welcomed at a NOBLE sponsored fundraising dance held in April in Edison, NJ. "While no one should have to face discrimination, we are glad that our experience can lead to stronger ties and greater understanding between police officers and the LGBT community."

While NOBLE did not concede that any act of discrimination occurred, the two groups resolved the dispute amicably, with each gaining a better understanding of the other's views. NOBLE will extend outreach to the lesbian, gay, transgendered and bisexual (LGBT) community, and the complainants have agreed to not to pursue any legal action. Both parties expressed an interest to move forward with a strong commitment to equal rights.

"NOBLE understands the destructive power of discrimination, and we handle every complaint with the seriousness it deserves," said Jessie Lee, Jr., NOBLE's National Executive Director. "We welcome this resolution as a way to help better educate all New Jerseyans about their right to be free from discrimination."

NOBLE, recognizing the pivotal role of law enforcement in building ties with the LGBT community, has agreed to expand its outreach by appearing at events to educate the LGBT community about hate crimes laws and bias crimes. The organization will also post a statement on its website each June - to coincide with Pride Month - expressing its support for equal treatment from law enforcement regardless of anyone's sexual orientation or gender expression.

"We are proud that this resolution creates an opportunity for police officers to build a bridge with the LGBT community," stated ACLU-NJ Legal Director Ed Barocas, who represented the two women. "This resolution helps not only the women involved, but the rights of all members of the LGBT community."

NOBLE, headquartered in Alexandria, Virginia, was founded in 1976 with a mission to ensure equity in the administration of justice in the provision of public service to all communities, and to serve as the conscience of law enforcement by being committed to justice by action.

The ACLU-NJ, based in Newark, implements legal, legislative and public education programs in conjunction with large numbers of volunteers to advance the ACLU's goals of liberty and justice for all.

ACLU Hits the Street Informing Newark of Rights

October 22, 2009

Newark — The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey is conducting a public education blitz throughout the city of Newark today to raise awareness of public's rights when confronted by the police. ACLU-NJ Volunteers will be distributing hundreds of "Bust Cards" to passersby in the Central and East Wards.

"The number of complaints to our office about police practices in Newark keeps growing," said Ed Barocas, Legal Director for the ACLU-NJ. "We want to arm people with knowledge they need to assert their rights."

The ACLU-NJ's "Bust Cards" provide clear and simple information about how best to manage a confrontation with police. The distribution of the cards, available in English, Spanish and Portuguese, falls on October 22, the International Day Against Police Brutality. Volunteers will distribute them at Penn Station, in the Ironbound and other downtown locations.

Police practices are a top priority for the ACLU-NJ which has led advocacy for best police practices throughout New Jersey. It recently released a report on access to Internal Affairs in local police departments, which receive little oversight. The organization will soon release a report on police use of Confidential Informants in New Jersey. In addition, the ACLU has several ongoing lawsuits against Newark and other police agencies.

Bust Cards

English Bust Card (1mb PDF)
Spanish Bust Card (69k PDF)
Portuguese Bust Card (1.3mb PDF)

Categories: Police Practices

ACLU-NJ Fights for Plans to Raze Housing Complex

September 16, 2009

ACLU-NJ Fights for Access to Plans to Raze Public ComplexPlainfield may be parsing words to avoid releasing details of widely known proposal

NEWARK, NJ - The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey's Open Governance Project appealed to the New Jersey Government Records Council (GRC) today on behalf of a Plainfield resident unlawfully denied information about a proposal to raze a Plainfield public housing complex.

"The Housing Authority presented plans publicly that were even covered in the news - they didn't just vanish," said Robert F. Edwards, the Plainfield resident who requested the proposal. "I have no doubt these records exist, but the Housing Authority just doesn't want the public to have them."

Edwards twice requested a Plainfield Housing Authority proposal presented at a July 2008 meeting of the Plainfield Planning Board to raze 120 units from the city's Elmwood Gardens public housing complex. The Housing Authority claimed it had not given the Planning Board a proposal, despite a Courier News article after the meeting detailing plans, sketches and documents related to replacing the existing units with townhouses.

The ACLU-NJ suspects the Housing Authority parsed the word "proposal" (which was the term Edwards used in his request for documents) to improperly deny Edwards's request. Despite differences in terminology, Edwards's request noted the Planning Board meeting, the subject matter and the newspaper article, clearly in reference to plans to raze the complex.

On August 20, the ACLU-NJ filed a third request, which the Housing Authority has ignored in violation of the Open Public Records Act's requirement that a government agency respond within seven business days.

"Government agencies cannot ignore their responsibilities under the law by parsing words or claiming that records widely known to be real do not exist," Bobby Conner said, staff attorney for the Open Governance Project. "If it looks like the same proposal and acts like the same proposal, it is the same proposal, no matter what the Housing Authority internally calls it."

The ACLU also requested fines be imposed on the Custodian of Records of Housing Authority if shown to have been misleading the GRC and Edwards to believe that no records exist.

The complaint is captioned Robert F. Edwards v. Plainfield Housing Authority and is pending before the Government Records Council.

Legal Documents

Edwards - Complaint (3.7mb PDF)

Categories: Open Government

Open Governance Project Sues for Emergency Health Information

September 02, 2009

HACKENSACK - The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey's Open Governance Project filed a lawsuit Monday (3mb PDF) against the City of Hackensack to uncover information the city has concealed from residents concerning the financial situation of the town's emergency medical services (EMS).

"Our government should never hide public information, especially when the well-being and public safety of citizens are at stake," said Hackensack resident Patrick Finley, whom the ACLU-NJ is representing for access to the documents. "The public has a right to know the true costs of our emergency services."

Last year, Hackensack eliminated its emergency medical corps and contracted emergency medical services from Hackensack University Medical Center (HUMC). Under the agreement, the hospital would be responsible for EMS services, and provide up to $140,000 in services for uninsured patients. Hackensack would shoulder any additional expenses. Finley filed two public record requests this year concerning how much of the $140,000 in services had been used, and both were denied. The ACLU-NJ Open Government Project stepped in to obtain his access to documents rightfully available to him under New Jersey's Open Public Records Act.

The City of Hackensack, which revealed in July that it had received documents concerning the costs incurred, explained initially only that the "city manager refused to release information to requestor." The city has since revised its response, now claiming the documents are exempt from release because they are "consultative" and "deliberative." Yet the requested documents - communications between the city and HUMC, which includes correspondence and bills - are not consultative or deliberative, but rather public records directly tied to an existing contract.

"Public documents don't get an exemption from our open records laws on a municipal employee's say-so," said Bobby Conner, ACLU-NJ Open Governance Staff Attorney. "The law is clear that our government must disclose its contracts."

Finley's case is only the latest of several advocacy matters the Open Government Project has taken on since its June inception. Last month, the project successfully advocated on behalf of Garwood resident Bruce Paterson, who had been silenced by the Union County Board of Chosen Freeholders. The Freeholders apologized and recognized his First Amendment rights after the ACLU-NJ intervened.

The case is captioned Patrick Finley v. City of Hackensack et al. and was filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Bergen Vicinage.

Categories: Open Government

ACLU-NJ Celebrates New Chapter in Police Accountability

August 27, 2009

The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey celebrated a turning point today for New Jersey's police with Governor Jon Corzine's signing of the Law Enforcement Professional Standards Act of 2009, making monitoring of the State Police permanent, with oversight conducted by the New Jersey Office of the Attorney General. The organization has long fought to make such legislation a reality.

"This law marks a milestone that was ten years in the making, and is a huge victory for everyone in New Jersey," said ACLU-NJ Legal Director Ed Barocas. "However, the State Police only accounts for a fraction of the state's police officers. We now must focus on bringing the same level of accountability to every police department in New Jersey."

The ACLU-NJ has worked toward monitoring of the state police for a decade, beginning with its lawsuit on behalf of numerous victims of racial profiling on the New Jersey Turnpike. Yet, years later, racial profiling remains a concern on the southern end of the Turnpike, where 30 percent of people stopped are African American, compared to the 20 percent in the north, as the ACLU-NJ testified to the legislature this spring. Under the federal consent decree in effect since 2000, monitors only checked whether a driver who was pulled over was breaking the law, rather than viewing the overall pattern of stops, including whether African Americans are stopped at disproportionately higher rates.

With an independent state monitor of the State Police in place, the ACLU-NJ will shift its focus to New Jersey's over-500 local police departments. This spring the ACLU-NJ released the results of a survey - The Crisis Inside Police Internal Affairs (1.2mb PDF) - investigating nearly every department's practices for taking complaints against officers. The report revealed that it was difficult to even file a complaint, and almost impossible to receive correct information or a just resolution.

The problems with police are compounded by New Jersey's status as one of the only states without licensing for police officers. Licensing protects communities against problematic police officers who can escape discipline by simply moving departments.

"New Jersey stands at a monumental crossroads with the passage of this law," Barocas said. "We can see how far we've come, but at the same time we can see how much further we need to go. Most police officers perform their difficult jobs with great integrity. Laws like the one signed today can protect the good reputations almost all police officers deserve, as well as the safety of our communities, by identifying the officers who soil their good names."

Categories: Police Practices

New Open Governance Project Wins Free Speech Fight

August 24, 2009

ELIZABETH - With help from the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey's new Open Governance Project, a citizen activist celebrated a free speech victory that culminated Thursday, August 20, in a public apology from the Union County Freeholders for silencing him at their June meeting.

"People in the public have a voice and shouldn't be silenced," said Bruce Paterson. "Questioning the government is a fundamental right, and I'm grateful that right was defended. The freeholders - and all public officials - need to respect the constitutional rights of their constituents."

During the public comment period of the Freeholders' June meeting, citizen activist Bruce Paterson raised concerns over potential nepotism in the county's hiring practices. Union County Freeholder Vice-Chairman Daniel P. Sullivan said he would not tolerate discussion about family members and cut off Paterson's remarks.

The ACLU-NJ's Open Governance Project sent a letter explaining that free speech principles protect the public's right to speak at meetings about the hiring practices. The freeholders relented to the ACLU-NJ's demand to end their practice of cutting off such comments and will read its formal apology at the Freeholders' August meeting in Elizabeth.

"Public bodies don't have the right to shut down free speech when they disagree with what someone says," said ACLU-NJ Open Governance Attorney Bobby Conner, who advocated on Paterson's behalf. "The watchword in our state this summer has been accountability, yet it's only meaningful when the rights of citizens to question their government are respected."

Paterson's victory is only the latest success of the Open Governance Project, formed this past spring to fight for greater access to New Jersey government. The project is unique in its scope as the only legal outfit in the state with the resources to litigate open-government cases pro bono on a full-time basis.

"The arrests of officials this summer remind us of what can happen when the people's work is done in back rooms. Our project will help open the doors for the public," Conner said. "Conducting government in the sunshine is essential to protecting democracy and holding our officials accountable."

Categories: Open Government Free Speech

Newark Mayor Cory Booker Earns 'C' Average Junior Year

July 13, 2009

NEWARK - School is out for Newark's students, but Mayor Cory Booker's junior-year report card on civil liberties has just been released by the ACLU-NJ. The mayor passed, but not with flying colors. At the end of his third year in office, the Stanford and Yale-educated All-American and Rhodes Scholar earned a "C" average in civil liberties, with his worst grade, a "D," in the area of Police Practices.

"Mayor Booker deserves high marks in public speaking, but he has room to improve on the subject of civil liberties," said ACLU-NJ Executive Director Deborah Jacobs. "The Mayor came to City Hall promising to protect civil liberties, but when it's time to put those principles into practice, he hasn't lived up to his potential."

The good news: Mayor Booker earned a "B" on Immigrant Rights, and a "B" in Open Government.

The bad news: Mayor Booker earned a "C-" for Free Speech, and a "D" in Police Practices - and just barely.

"This report card is more than just handing out a grade -- we're looking at the real lives of people in this city and adding up the costs to their rights," said Jacobs. "The Booker administration still needs to learn that you can't have public safety without public trust, and you can only earn that trust by respecting the rights of the people."

Categories: Police Practices Open Government Immigrant Rights Free Speech

Most NJ Police Departments Violate Law on Police Complaints

June 04, 2009

NEWARK - Today the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey released a report - The Crisis Inside Police Internal Affairs (1.2mb PDF) - revealing that the vast majority of New Jersey police departments do not follow state law regarding citizens' complaints against police officers. The ACLU-NJ issued recommendations, including greater transparency, reporting and oversight to fix the problems.

"This is the first report of its kind in the nation," said Samuel Walker who is Professor Emeritus of Criminal Justice, University of Nebraska at Omaha, and the author of two books on citizen oversight of the police. "It's stunning that a state with a strong law on internal affairs could have so many departments out of compliance with the law."

The New Jersey law governing police complaints, called the Internal Affairs Policy and Procedures, requires that all police departments have an accessible internal affairs process that accepts complaints from both citizens and officers at any time, thoroughly investigates them, interviews all parties and makes a finding at the conclusion of the investigation.

To determine whether that law was followed, the ACLU-NJ called over 500 police departments to ask how a person could file a complaint; reviewed police internal affairs statistics from around the state; reviewed 50 internal affairs files from individuals who filed complaints; and obtained internal affairs statistics from every county.

Our telephone survey demonstrated that most departments violate state law on internal affairs by insisting that complaints be filed in person (63 percent), refusing to accept anonymous complaints (49 percent) and denying juveniles access to the complaint system unless their parents participate (79 percent).

Many law enforcement agencies employ automated phone systems, which rarely gave callers the option of filing a police complaint, and police personnel the ACLU-NJ spoke with were often unsure of the complaint procedures. ACLU-NJ callers found it difficult to speak to a live person, and callers who spoke different languages could not always connect to staff who understood.

Apart from the language barriers, calls to 425 law enforcement agencies asking specifically about immigration turned up disturbing barriers to immigrants. Although 88 percent of agencies stated that immigration status was irrelevant to filing an internal affairs complaint, 46 percent of those agencies stated that ICE may be contacted if the complainant was undocumented, further discouraging complainants from reporting abuse.

"A gulf of intimidation divides the police from the public, and we need oversight and accountability to build a bridge between the two," said Bobby Conner, ACLU-NJ Staff Attorney. "Everyone deserves to have their complaint heard. Everyone needs to know that what they went through matters. We can't stop the bad apples from ruining the bunch if we can't even lodge a complaint against them."

As for solutions, the ACLU-NJ looks to improve transparency, accountability and oversight by the New Jersey Office of the Attorney General. The report calls for mandatory training to ensure all police employees - from receptionists to police chiefs - understand the process for filing complaints with police.

The ACLU-NJ also found that investigations are not thorough (for example, many failed to meet the requirement under law that all parties be interviewed in an investigation) and suggests statewide timeline standards for acknowledgements, investigations and dispositions of complaints. As well, reports on internal affairs, which the IAPP requires, are both incorrect and insufficiently descriptive across the board, and the state must issue standards to improve them.

Another key recommendation is for the counties and state to provide the needed oversight and enforcement of local internal affairs processes, as well as keeping their own people and policies current on the law.

"It's frustrating that the police officers who elude investigation are the very ones who unfairly give all police, including a lot of good police, a bad name," said Richard Rivera, a retired police officer who worked on the report. "New Jerseyans deserve to have faith in their police officers, and that faith comes when they know their voices can be heard."

The ACLU-NJ's recommendations draw from its survey of departments as well as years of experience fighting against police abuse. Currently, the ACLU-NJ is in litigation with the City of Newark over two police stops - one involving two Pop Warner football players and their then-19-year-old coach held at gunpoint by police, and one involving a woman sexually harassed by police. In the past, the ACLU-NJ represented three African American children harassed by police in Manalapan in 2003 while their white friends were told to leave, law students held at gunpoint in a 1996 police stop, and dozens of other victims of police misconduct over the years.

"This report is unique in its scope, in the depth of its statistics and in its honesty describing the realities that make filing an internal affairs complaint so emotionally taxing," said Walker. "When a person's only avenue for justice is to turn to the same police department that has victimized them, it's intimidating - and that's why it's so crucial that police officers follow these laws."

Read the ACLU-NJ's other recommendations to fix the crisis with police departments and view actual responses given to callers in its report: The Crisis Inside Police Internal Affairs (1.2mb PDF) .

Categories: Police Practices Open Government

Court Backs Class Action by Passaic County Inmates

June 02, 2009

NEWARK - A federal district judge late last week allowed inmates to pursue claims as a class, rather than as individuals, in a lawsuit against Passaic County and the New Jersey Department of Corrections (DOC) for unconstitutional conditions at the Passaic County Jail (PCJ). Their new class status acknowledges their common experiences at the facility, and extends the claims of the individual plaintiff inmates to all inmates housed at Passaic County Jail during the suit.

"The law is clear that the system-wide failures at Passaic County Jail warrant class-action status, and we are pleased with the court's decision," said plaintiffs' co-counsel Emily B. Goldberg, visiting assistant clinical professor at the Center for Social Justice (CSJ) at Seton Hall Law School. "The people confined at Passaic County Jail all experience the same deplorable conditions - extreme heat in the summer, extreme cold in the winter, inadequate ventilation and overcrowding, just to name a few."

The Decision, Issued Thursday, allows the lawsuit to move forward with a class that includes people currently incarcerated at PCJ or who will be housed there during the lawsuit, a group of men and women that could number into the thousands. Plaintiffs had sought class-action status for their claims that PCJ is a dangerous and unsanitary facility that risks the health and well-being of inmates, corrections officers and community members who visit the jail. Local fire officials, for example, have testified that the jail's lack of emergency detection alarms and fire-fighting systems have reached "crisis proportions." The court appropriately recognized that class action status allows the ACLU-NJ and CSJ to respond to "common harms likely to affect the entire inmate population."

The court also rejected the DOC's arguments that DOC Commissioner George Hayman was not responsible for the conditions at PCJ. Hayman, as the overseer of operations and management of all prisons and county jails in the state, was responsible for inspections of PCJ and allowing it to operate despite being in violation of state regulations regarding health and safety, implicating him in the claims.

"The commissioner has a legal responsibility to ensure that conditions in jails are humane and sanitary, and this decision confirms that the scope of his authority includes the unacceptable and unlawful conditions at Passaic County Jail," said Christopher Michie, of the law firm Dechert LLP, the cooperating attorney handling the case on behalf of the ACLU-NJ.

This lawsuit is one of several challenges in the Past Four Decades against Passaic County Jail, which has become infamous in the state. Since the first lawsuit was filed more than 30 years ago, conditions have not improved. Last year, all federal detainees were removed from the jail after a federal judge found the conditions to be so horrendous that they were punitive.

Categories: Prisons

ACLU-NJ Issues Report on 2008 Elections

May 12, 2009

TRENTON -- The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey and the League of Women Voters New Jersey today released a report on voting rights problems (2mb PDF) encountered during the 2008 elections, calling once again for same-day voter registration, better state analysis and more comprehensive poll worker training, among other steps toward reform. While the nation experienced unprecedented voter turnout in the June and November 2008 elections, including in our state with millions of New Jerseyans successfully casting their vote in the historic presidential race, voting rights advocates documented a number of problems at the polls that interfered with the right to vote.

"A truly successful election is when every eligible voter casts a counted ballot," said Anne Ruach Nicolas, Executive Director of the League of Women Voters of New Jersey. "I applaud the improvements that have been made, but there is more work to be done."

The ACLU-NJ and the League of Women Voters of New Jersey undertook the largest voter protection effort in state history, placing over 200 advocates on phone lines, at the polls and in the county courthouses, collecting 741 complaints statewide.

The effort sought not only to resolve voter problems on the Election Days, but also to provide a much-needed analysis of the state and county processes, with an emphasis on where to focus resources and how to improve operations.

Citizens reported numerous irregularities in attempting to vote, including:

Voters not provided with provisional ballots
Misinformation from poll workers, including instructions to vote at the wrong polling site
Improper requests for identification
Inoperable machines
Shortages of supplies at the polls

In addition to identifying problem areas, the report notes a number of improvements in New Jersey voting systems. Communication improved between advocates and the Division of Elections and county elections offices, so complaints were resolved more quickly. This election saw greater focus on the Motor Vehicle Commission's compliance with the federal Motor Voter Law, resulting in 800,000 new registrations from the MVC, tripling the numbers from 2006, when New Jersey was ranked number 42 out of the 43 states to register voters at state vehicle agencies. Additionally, the publication of comprehensive, uniform and accessible poll worker training guides improved poll worker performance from last election, and increased cooperation from Essex and Hudson County elections and corrections officials resulted in 420 eligible citizens in jail voting.

In addition to analyzing complaints and identifying trends, the LWVNJ and ACLU-NJ have provided a number of recommendations, many of which are based on best practices in other states, to help reform New Jersey voting systems.

"We don't have to reinvent the wheel when it comes to voting systems, since other states have already found ways to solve many of the problems New Jersey faces," said Deborah Jacobs, Executive Director for the ACLU-NJ. "We just need the will and the resources to improve voting rights in New Jersey."

The key recommendations focus on improving poll worker training and performance; recording, tracking and addressing voter complaints and problems; and educating and assisting voters. In addition, the report recommends that New Jersey follow the lead of the Ohio Secretary of State by convening a public summit on a wide array of voting and election administration issues. Discussions were led by election officials, voting rights advocates, academics and legislators, and the conference produced a 109-page report that evaluated various methods for improving elections. We believe New Jersey should emulate Ohio's lead and convene a similar event in our state every year.

This report is the 2nd report co-authored by the ACLU-NJ and LWVNJ documenting problems, improvements and recommendations for solutions in the state.

Resources

Making Every Vote Count: 2008 Elections issued May 2009 (2mb PDF)
Voting Rights and Wrongs issued June 2008 (62k PDF)

Categories: Elections & Voting

ACLU-NJ Sues Newark Police For Illegal Stop of Young Football Players

April 23, 2009

'Pop Warner Three' held at gunpoint and told they had no rights

NEWARK — The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey announced that it filed a lawsuit today against the Newark Police Department on behalf of two African American teenagers and their Pop Warner football coach who were held at gunpoint in an illegal police stop.

"Our clients were subjected to atrocious treatment by the police, which no one should have to suffer," said Avidan Cover of Gibbons P.C., who represents the Pop Warner Three. "We filed this lawsuit to ensure that these young men receive justice and that these sorts of abuses never happen again."

Faheem and Tony

Faheem Loyal & Tony Ivey Jr.

On the night of June 14, 2008, then-13-year-old Tony Ivey Jr., then-15-year-old Faheem Loyal and their football coach Kelvin Lamar James were pulled over and abused by several Newark police officers after a day centered around their Pop Warner football team, the North Ward Scorpions. They were pulled out of the car in the rain at gunpoint, held with guns pointed at them while police searched them and their car and, when James commented that the officers' search of his car violated his rights, he was told by an officer in obscene, threatening language that they didn't have any rights and that the police could do what they want and "had no rules." The three had committed no crimes, and a thorough search of the car turned up only football equipment.

Ivey, Loyal and James were left shaken up and frightened by the incident and feel ongoing distrust of police officers. "I used to think I might become a police officer," said Ivey. "But not anymore."

"I count on the police to protect my son, and instead they threatened his life," said Cassandra Jetter-Ivey, Tony's mother. "This isn't just about three boys at a police stop - this is about making sure it doesn't happen again. This is about restoring our trust in the police."

One of the most troubling aspects of this case was the handling of Jetter-Ivey's Internal Affairs complaint about the matter. It was initially lost, then wasn't properly followed-up on, and at one point Jetter-Ivey was told by an officer that the complaint was transferred to the gang unit because the incident involved three black youths. In fact, to this day, the families have never received a response to their Internal Affairs complaints.

The ACLU-NJ brought the incident to the attention of the City of Newark, and later to the public with a march through the city on October 22, 2008. Newark officials expressed concern and made progress with the ACLU-NJ on implementing a number of reforms that will make Internal Affairs more accessible, such as putting information about how to file a complaint on the Newark Police website, and agreeing to develop pamphlets about how to file a complaint. However, many more reforms are needed, particularly the establishment of an independent monitor.

Independent monitoring is the keystone to successful policing at the city and state levels. Independent monitors — effective in cities like Denver, San Jose, Boise and Portland — have turned poor departments around and transformed good departments into great ones. The New Jersey State Police has improved dramatically with the benefit of a monitor. And as the state police can attest to, an independent monitor's influence can bring technologies and resources that police officers need to do their jobs well. Independent monitors also help departments identify and remove the bad apples that spoil the reputation of the majority of officers who perform their difficult jobs with integrity.

"We can't fix the cracks in Internal Affairs if we can't see them, which is why we need an independent monitor to shine a light into the Newark Police Department," said ACLU-NJ Executive Director Deborah Jacobs. "A flashlight into the police department can prevent a nightstick to the chest. Innocent residents of Newark need a department they can have faith in for the city to be safe."

In addition to advocating for reforms of police practices, the ACLU also represents police officers whose rights have been violated or who have acted as whistleblowers, as documented in a forthcoming report about Internal Affairs units around the state, specifically delving into Newark's operations.

The case is captioned Jetter-Ivey v. Newark Police Department. The complaint alleges that the police officers' action violate the students' and coach's right to be free from unlawful searches and unlawful detention, and to equal treatment; and violates their rights under the New Jersey Civil Rights Act and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination. The lawsuit demands that Newark takes all steps necessary to establish proper training and supervision with respect to searches and detentions, unlawful discrimination, and the proper handling of complaints. It also seeks damages for the unlawful actions taken by the police against the students and coach.

NJ's Federal Law Enforcement Used GPS To Track People's Cell Phones

April 23, 2009

Justice Department Documents Reveal Former U.S. Attorney Chris Christie Approved Tracking Whereabouts With No Warrant

NEW YORK - The American Civil Liberties Union announced today its discovery that former U.S. Attorney for New Jersey Chris Christie gave approval to track people's precise whereabouts through their cell phones without a warrant.

"This is just the newest example of our privacy rights careening over the edge with federal officials drunk at the wheel," said ACLU-NJ Executive Director Deborah Jacobs. "Big Brother is tucked away in our cell phones, and the man behind the curtain is Chris Christie."

Justice Department documents made public today through a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic Frontier Foundation show that the government is actively taking advantage of GPS or other similarly precise technology to monitor people's coming and goings, specifically in New Jersey as well as Florida, and that it does not always obtain a search warrant beforehand.

"Tracking the location of people's cell phones reveals intimate details of their daily routines and is highly invasive of their privacy," said Catherine Crump, a staff attorney with the ACLU. "The government is violating the Constitution when it fails to get a search warrant before tracking people this way."

Although low-level courts have authorized the tracking, New Jersey and Florida are the only two known states in which federal prosecutors are obtaining court orders for GPS or similarly precise tracking information merely by showing that the tracking information is "relevant and material" to a criminal investigation - a substantially lower burden than the "probable cause" standard required by the Constitution.

The Justice Department itself has stated that federal prosecutors should seek probable cause warrants to obtain precise location data in private areas. Considering the fact that people do not even have an opportunity in court to challenge the tracking, since they are not informed of the proceedings, it's essential that the government have a sufficient legal basis before initiating this surveillance.

The ACLU wishes to participate in such proceedings as amicus curiae in the interest of defending the rights of those potentially subject to tracking.

The ACLU and EFF sued the Justice Department in July 2008 for records related to the government's use of cell phones as tracking devices. Some documents have been turned over but the lawsuit continues over additional information about the government's practices.

Attorneys on the case are Crump of the ACLU, David Sobel of EFF and Arthur Spitzer, Legal Director of the ACLU of the National Capital Area.

Categories: Privacy Open Government National Security

Student Newspaper v. Student Government: Round Two

March 24, 2009

MONTCLAIR - The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey announced its second lawsuit on behalf of the student newspaper The Montclarion, which was denied the minutes of a closed-session meeting of the Student Governing Association (SGA) that it requested earlier this year through the Open Public Meetings Act.

"The SGA decides which student organizations receive funds and which do not, and that grants it an enormous amount of power," explained Montclarion Editor-in-Chief Bobby Melok. "The students and the newspaper need to know how decisions are made - otherwise accountability is impossible."

The Open Public Meetings Act requires organizations to disclose information about their meetings if the organizations are empowered to spend government money or perform government functions that affect people's rights. Although incorporated as a private entity, the SGA is empowered by Montclair State University, a public school, to make decisions to fund student organizations. In that capacity, the SGA effectively acts as an arm of the public university.

The ACLU-NJ's lawsuit asserts that the SGA violated the Open Public Meetings Act when it improperly went into closed session on February 4, 2009, and then when it then failed to provide The Montclarion with sufficient information regarding that closed session.

"Students have a right to hold the SGA accountable and observe its decision making," said ACLU-NJ Staff Attorney Bobby Conner, who is representing The Montclarion. "You can't have democracy without transparency."

The ACLU-NJ successfully resolved a matter for The Montclarion last year in another tussle with the SGA. The Montclarion contacted a lawyer who investigated the SGA's violations of the Open Public Meetings Act - clearly an ongoing problem - and refused to turn the attorney's correspondence over to the SGA when the SGA demanded it. In retaliation, the SGA froze the paper's funding. The Montclarion successfully re-secured its funding, and with the help of the ACLU-NJ went independent in November of 2008.

The case is captioned Montelican Publishing, Inc. v. Student Government Association of Montclair State University. The case was filed Friday, March 20, 2009, in Superior Court in Essex County.

Categories: Student & Youth Rights Open Government Free Speech

ACLU-NJ Challenges School's Severe Zero Tolerance Policy

March 10, 2009

NEWARK - The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey filed a lawsuit today challenging the suspension of a student for over-the-counter medication in Pinelands Regional School District, an egregious application of its "zero tolerance" policy.

"This case illustrates why zero tolerance policies make zero sense," said ACLU-NJ Executive Director Deborah Jacobs. "In New Jersey and across the country, we have seen good students suspended or expelled for minor infractions. Zero tolerance policies serve no one - not parents, not teachers and not students."

The ACLU-NJ's client, known as P.P. to protect his identity, was suspended when a search of his locker uncovered an expired over-the-counter allergy pill in his backpack. P.P., an honors student who volunteers in the town's library and had never been in trouble before, was suspended for five days, which the administration said was required under the school's policy of "zero tolerance."

School officials pointed specifically to their policy barring possession of an "illegal or dangerous item, product, or commodity," but school officials failed to explain why the non-prescription Alavert allergy tablet was either dangerous or illegal.

"Discretion was built into the law for a good reason - every situation is different," said Frank Corrado, of Barry, Corrado, Grassi & Gibson, who represents P.P. for the ACLU-NJ. "Don't our children deserve to have the full circumstances taken into consideration before taking away their educational opportunities as punishment?"

Like other school districts across the country that adhere to a policy of "zero tolerance" without discretion, Pinelands Regional's policy violates due process rights. But Pinelands Regional also violates New Jersey's laws governing student discipline, which give schools authority to automatically suspend or expel students only if their offenses involve firearms, assaults with weapons or assaults on employees. Everything else requires school officials to make case-by-case decisions, depending on the severity of an offense, the age of the student and the student's history.

"The punishment absolutely does not fit the crime, especially because no crime has been committed," said the mother of the student. "I understand that students need to be punished when they break the rules. But what can parents do when the rules are too strict?"

The ACLU-NJ has wrangled before with discipline issues in the Pinelands Regional School District. In 2004, amid racial tensions in Pinelands Regional High School, the administration threatened about forty students with suspension if they continued to wear anti-racism shirts bearing the message "If I was. . ." on the front, and the name of a minority group (e.g.Asian, gay, black) followed by the words, "Would you still be friends with me? We are all different. End the Hate," on the back.

Two students wore the shirts the day after the administration's threat and refused to take them off when asked, resulting in a three-day suspension. After the ACLU-NJ wrote a letter to the school, the administration promised not to punish any more students, to promote diversity and to expunge the records of the suspended students.

The case was filed in state court in Ocean County and is captioned P.P. v. Board of Education of Pinelands Regional School District.

Categories: Student & Youth Rights

ACLU-NJ Wins Case Allowing Same-Sex Couple To Divorce in NJ

February 05, 2009

Decision brings state one-state closer to full marriage rights for gays and lesbians.

NEWARK - The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey today celebrated a victory in a case that allows a same-sex couple married outside the state to get divorced in the New Jersey courts.

"While the day a relationship ends is never happy, I am relieved that the courts of New Jersey are allowing us to move on, rather than keeping our relationship status in legal limbo," said LaKia Hammond, the ACLU-NJ client who was granted a divorce in New Jersey today. "Breaking up is painful enough, and I'm happy we won't have to face the hardship of having to fight just to make it official."

Despite Hammond's valid marriage in Canada, the New Jersey Office of the Attorney General argued that the couple should not be granted a divorce. Rather, the state attorney suggested that the couple should be granted "dissolution of civil union." However, as the ACLU-NJ argued, without an actual divorce from their marriage, the couple might still be considered legally married in Canada as well as in U.S. states that recognize same-sex marriages but do not have civil unions.

"The judge properly recognized that if you come to New Jersey with a valid marriage, you are entitled to leave with a divorce," said Lawrence Lustberg of Gibbons, P.C., who, along with Avidan Cover of Gibbons and solo practitioner Stephen Hyland, represented LaKia Hammond as cooperating attorneys for the ACLU-NJ. "Not granting a divorce in this situation would create confusion and undermine the longstanding legal principle of comity, which requires us to respect laws of other countries."

New Jersey Superior Court Judge Mary C. Jacobson recognized that New Jersey accepts all foreign marriages except for ones that are affronts to New Jersey public policy. The Office of the Attorney General could muster no legitimate argument in this case to justify such an exception, especially given that the New Jersey Supreme Court had made clear that allowing marriages of same-sex couples could be permissible in New Jersey.

In fact, the New Jersey Supreme Court held in Lewis v. Harris that the state cannot create a system that imposes greater legal or economic hardships on same-sex couples that are not placed on opposite-sex couples. Not allowing the couple a divorce would have forced them to begin a second legal process to completely end their legal relationship, placing additional economic and legal burdens on same-sex couples.

"This decision is a step in the right direction, but one that never should have had to be made," said Hyland. "The Attorney General needlessly created confusion and legal problems for these couples. She should simply recognize out-of-state marriages -- the only way to ensure equal treatment for couples married outside of New Jersey."

The decision puts into question the legality of the Attorney General's 2007 formal opinion ordering that out-of-state marriages not be accepted as marriages but, rather, be transformed into civil unions.

Today's decision comes just over a month after the New Jersey Civil Union Review Commission, tasked with examining the effects of the 2007 civil union law, determined that the legal category was separate and unequal.

"By creating a separate system of rights and by injecting language and titles not understood or easily incorporated into existing real-life events and transactions, the Civil Unions Law has failed to fulfill the promise of equality," said Ed Barocas in testimony before the New Jersey Civil Union Review Commission, which in December 2008 declared civil unions to be separate and unequal. "The continued injustice for our state's gay and lesbian citizens exists on levels both profound and mundane."

Categories: Gay & Lesbian Rights

NJ AG and ACLU File Suits Against Health Care Denial Rule

January 15, 2009

NEWARK - The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey applauded New Jersey Attorney General Anne Milgram for signing onto a lawsuit challenging the Bush administration's Health Care Denial Rule on the same day the national ACLU announced a separate lawsuit on behalf of the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association (NFPRHA) against the same rule. The rule, promulgated in the last throes of the Bush administration, allows a broad range of health care workers to refuse to provide health services, even in emergencies.

"The attorneys general play a critical role in fighting this rule, and we applaud Anne Milgram's initiative to step into the fray as the ACLU has," said ACLU-NJ Legal Director Edward Barocas. "The federal government has always been able to balance both patients' rights and the personal beliefs of medical professionals, and this rule is the Bush administration's way of toppling the balance away from patients' needs. This rule puts access to contraception in jeopardy and leaves women in a medical limbo where they have to question whether they'll get the services they need in time, if at all."

In addition to the ACLU's lawsuit on behalf of NFPRHA and the lawsuit brought by the six states' attorneys general led by Connecticut and including New Jersey, a third lawsuit was filed today by the Planned Parenthood Federation of America with Planned Parenthood of Connecticut.

As stated in today's legal papers, the rule significantly undermines the ability of millions of women and men in the United States to access essential family planning, reproductive and other health care services and information. It expressly permits a broad range of health care workers and facilities to refuse to provide services, information, and counseling, potentially even in emergency situations. At the same time, it fails to require refusing providers to either notify their employers or their patients of their objections to providing care.

"Experts, medical professionals and the patients whose rights this rule limits all agree that this policy will endanger lives and sacrifice patients' individual liberties," Barocas added. "The Bush administration should be ashamed that it spent its last months slipping in last-minute policies that put Americans' health at risk."

During a 30-day comment period, HHS received more than 200,000 responses. The overwhelming majority opposed the rule, including major medical associations such as the American Medical Association and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, women's health organizations, members of Congress, state governors and attorneys general, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, religious advocates, and the general public.

The final rule fails to address many of the concerns raised in these comments, including whether the rule prevents states from enforcing their own laws enacted to protect access to reproductive health care, whether the rule allows providers to refuse care even in emergency situations, and whether women seeking family planning services at federally funded health centers are still assured counseling for abortion care if they request it.

The Department of Health and Human Services promulgated the rule on December 19, 2008.

The National Family Planning & Reproductive Health Association is a vital membership organization representing the nation's dedicated family planning providers-including state, county, and local health departments; family planning councils; hospital-based clinics; and other private nonprofit family planning organizations and providers.

The ACLU's complaint is available at: http://www.aclu.org/reproductiverights/gen/38321lgl20090115.html

Categories: Reproductive Freedom

ACLU-NJ Clients Win Victory for Same-Sex Couples

December 29, 2008

NEWARK - The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey won a victory today on behalf of a couple that was denied use of an Ocean Grove boardwalk pavilion for their civil union reception. The New Jersey Office of the Attorney General, Division on Civil Rights, issued a "finding of probable cause" that the Ocean Grove Camp Meetings Association violated the state's anti-discrimination law.

"The unexpected results of this painful incident have been a renewed sense of community and energy in Ocean Grove, evidenced by the flying of hundreds equality flags, fundraising events, porch parties, and support for local restaurants," said ACLU-NJ client Luisa Paster in a statement from Ocean Grove United, a group of residents committed to civil rights for all. "We now look forward to the Camp Meeting Association lifting its ban on the use of the pavilion and allowing both marriage and civil union ceremonies to take place there on an equal basis."

Harriet Bernstein and Luisa Paster, both residents of the Ocean Grove section of Neptune City, had planned to hold a civil union ceremony at the pavilion shortly after the 2006 civil union law passed. The Ocean Grove Camp Meetings Association, a private body responsible for granting applications to use the site, denied their application, claiming that civil unions violated the group's Methodist principles.

"The Camp Meeting Association could have limited use of the pavilion to its own members," said Lawrence Lustberg of Gibbons, P.C., who represents the couple as a cooperating attorney for the ACLU-NJ. "However, once the Association opens its facility to the general public, then it must remain open on a nondiscriminatory basis."

The Division on Civil Rights ruled that the Camp Meetings Association was not entitled to an exemption to New Jersey's Law Against Discrimination because use of the property was both commercial and publicly advertised, and because the Camp Meeting Association agreed to make the pavilion available for public use in order to obtain a state tax break. The Ocean Grove Camp Meetings Association's tax-exempt status was revoked in 2007 because of its discriminatory practices.

"Just two weeks after the Civil Union Review Commission found that civil unions are separate and unequal, we have a flesh-and-blood case illustrating how couples are treated differently," said ACLU-NJ Legal Director Ed Barocas. "This decision brings us one step closer to stopping a parallel system of unequal rights."

The case will now go before an Administrative Law Judge for final disposition.

The ACLU-NJ also represents Emily Sonnessa and Jan Moore, who likewise sought to hold their civil union in the pavilion. The Division on Civil Rights did not find probable cause in their case because the couple applied to use the pavilion after the Camp Meeting Association closed the pavilion to both civil unions and weddings.

Categories: Gay & Lesbian Rights

ACLU Protects Prisoner's Religious Liberty

December 09, 2008

State Prison Officials Prevent Ordained Pentecostal Minister from Preaching

TRENTON, NJ - The American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of New Jersey today filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of a New Jersey prisoner, an ordained Pentecostal minister, who is asking the state to respect his religious freedom by restoring his right to preach.

Howard Thompson Jr. had preached at weekly worship services at the New Jersey State Prison (NJSP) for more than a decade when prison officials last year issued, without any reason, a blanket ban on all preaching by inmates, even when done under the direct supervision of prison staff.

"Ours is a country where people are free to express their religious viewpoints without having to fear repercussions," said Edward Barocas, Legal Director of the ACLU of New Jersey. "The New Jersey State Prison may not deny its prisoners their most basic constitutional rights."

Since he entered NJSP in 1986, Thompson has been an active member of the prison's Christian community, participating in and preaching at Sunday services and other religious events, teaching Bible study classes and founding the choir. His preaching has never caused any security incidents, and the prison's chaplaincy staff has actively supported Thompson and encouraged him to spread his deeply held message of faith.

But in June 2007, prison officials banned all prisoners from engaging in preaching of any kind, without any warning or justification -- which they still have not given.

"I have a religious calling to minister to my fellow inmates, and I've done so honestly, effectively and without incident for years," Thompson said. "All I want is to have my religious liberty restored and to be able to continue working with men who want to renew their lives through the study and practice of their faith."

According to the lawsuit, which names NJSP Administrator Michelle R. Ricci and New Jersey Department of Corrections Commissioner George W. Hayman as defendants, Thompson first preached a service at NJSP over a decade ago, when he relieved the former Protestant chaplain, who had been unable to lead a scheduled service due to illness.

During the next decade, before he was ordained as a Pentecostal minister, Thompson periodically preached at Sunday services, taught Bible study classes and participated in and led the prison choir he founded. During these years, Thompson received his call to ordained ministry and to preaching and leading others in worship, study, and prayer.

"Prisoners do not forfeit their fundamental right to religious liberty at the prison gate," said Daniel Mach, Director of Litigation for the ACLU Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief. "The prison's absolute ban on inmate preaching clearly violates the law and Mr. Thompson's right to practice his faith."

Thompson, ordained in October 2000 during a service at NJSP overseen by the prison's chaplain, sincerely believes it is his religious calling and obligation to preach his Pentecostal faith and is willing to do so under the full supervision of NJSP staff.

This lawsuit is the latest in a long line of ACLU cases defending the fundamental right to religious exercise, a complete list of which is available online.

In 2007, the ACLU of Rhode Island prevailed in a lawsuit challenging a similar restriction on prisoner preaching, successfully overturning a statewide ban and restoring the plaintiff prisoner's right to preach during weekly Christian services.

Read Howard Thompson's complaint and preliminary injunction brief online.

Learn about the ACLU Program on the Freedom of Religion and Belief and the ACLU-NJ online.

Categories: Prisons Religious Freedom

ACLU to Unveil New Immigration Report at Human Rights Forum

December 09, 2008

NEWARK - The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey released a new report today, on the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, giving an overview of the state's landscape for immigrants. The report will be released at a New Jersey immigration forum this evening commemorating International Human Rights Day, hosted by the ACLU-NJ, the American Friends Service Committee and a dozen of the leading immigration groups in the state.

"The anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a time to take stock of where we are as a country with respect to human rights and examine how far we still have left to go," said ACLU-NJ Executive Director Deborah Jacobs. "Our report looks at the state of human rights for New Jersey's immigrants and the direction we must take as a state to guarantee that their rights are honored rather than denied."

The report puts New Jersey's diversity in perspective, offering statistics about its ethnic makeup while recounting its history, including recent history: immigration raids, driver's license restrictions, and the Attorney General's August 2007 directive prohibiting police from asking immigration status of victims and witnesses.

"Immigrant rights are human rights," said Amy Gottlieb, director of the American Friends Service Committee's Program on Human Rights in Newark. "Right now, we have a duty to make sure that the next four years don't bring the same hostile policies we've seen in the past four. We as advocates are strategizing to create a society that pays attention to human rights every day, not just on the day designated to commemorate them."

Tonight's forum will address the most pressing issues for New Jersey immigrants, including how human rights guarantee immigrants' rights, the effect of the recession on New Jersey's immigrant communities, and how the political climate toward immigrants in America will fare in an Obama administration.

Please join us for our immigration forum tonight:

Sixtieth Anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights Immigration Forum
Wednesday, December 10, 7 p.m.
89 Market Street, Eighth Floor, Newark
973-854-0403 for information

Resources

The Rights of Immigrants in New Jersey (826k PDF) a report issued by ACLU-NJ.

Categories: Immigrant Rights

ACLU Applauds Commission's Finding that Civil Unions Are Unequal

December 09, 2008

The ACLU today applauded the findings of the New Jersey Civil Union Review Commission, which found that civil unions are unequal and urged the State to give same-sex couples the right to marry.

"We agree with the commission's unanimous findings that civil unions are inadequate," said ACLU-NJ Legal Director Ed Barocas. "The commission found that the term 'civil union' is not well-understood by the public, impedes healthcare access and business transactions and places legal rights at risk. It hurts families who travel out-of-state, harms LGBT students and stigmatizes children raised in families labeled with this second-class status by the state. It will likely cost the state millions of dollars each year over nothing more than designating a class of people as unequal.The commission's report stated, "In a number of cases, the negative effect of the Civil Union Act on the physical and mental health of same-sex couples and their children is striking, largely because a number of employers and hospitals do not recognize the rights and benefits of marriage for civil union couples."

The law creating civil unions in New Jersey took effect in February 2007, but the commission's report released today found that civil unions did not give couples the same benefits of a marriage, which the ACLU has argued from the beginning.

"The civil unions law has failed to fulfill the promise of equality," Barocas added. "The law created a separate system of rights by injecting language that is not easily understood and hard to fit into real-life events. The continued injustice for our state's gay and lesbian citizens exists on many levels, from the practical, to the legal, to the profound.

"In addition to addressing the issue of inequality, the commission determined that a marriage law would alleviate disparities, increase state revenues, and help the state's job market, which are critically important during a recession. It seems that the state needs to consider the benefits of marriage to both the people of New Jersey and to its own coffers."

Categories: Gay & Lesbian Rights

ACLU-NJ Launches Largest-Ever Voter Protection Effort

November 02, 2008

Advocates prepare for potential Election Day problems

Newark - Today the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey announced its largest voter advocacy effort ever for Tuesday's election, with more than 175 volunteer poll monitors and attorneys available to assist voters at most county courthouses. The organization also registered nearly 700 pre-trial detainees to vote in Essex and Hudson County correctional facilities.

"With the heightened interest we've seen throughout this election, we're preparing for potential problems and we're redoubling our efforts," said Deborah Jacobs, Executive Director for the ACLU-NJ. "We want to make sure that every eligible citizen has the right to vote and that every vote counts."

The ACLU-NJ, with the help of the League of Women Voters of New Jersey Education Fund, will deploy poll monitors throughout New Jersey to hand out voting rights cards, answer voter questions and assist individuals whose voting rights are denied. Unfortunately, the State has limited the number of monitors that the ACLU-NJ can deploy to one per polling location. In addition, poll monitor access to voters is constricted due to an Attorney General rule requiring anyone wishing to distribute information -- even non-partisan voter rights cards -- to stay 100 feet away from the polling places. The ACLU-NJ has challenged this rule in court and has an appeal pending before the State Supreme Court that will not be heard until long after the last ballots this election are cast.

ACLU-NJ attorneys will be on hand in 13 county courthouses to provide legal assistance and observe how voters' claims are adjudicated. The New Jersey Public Advocate has also said it will have attorneys available to assist voters in many county courthouses.

"Voters who go to court to challenge denied votes need to know that the representatives of the Attorney General are not there to represent them, but to work on behalf of the Board of Elections," said Ed Barocas, ACLU-NJ Legal Director. "Voters who seek assistance can turn to attorneys from the ACLU-NJ or the Office of the Public Advocate, who will be available at various courthouses around the state to represent them."

The ACLU-NJ and LWVNJ will staff its Vote Line, 1-800-792-VOTE, from 6 a.m. to 8 p.m. on Election Day to answer voters' questions and offer assistance with problems voters may encounter at the polls.

Our Active Voting Rights Advocacy

Proper Distribution of Provisional and Emergency Ballots.

Improper distribution of both provisional ballots -- ballots for people who believe they are registered to vote but are told they cannot -- and emergency ballots for machine malfunctions has proven a recurring problem in past elections. This year especially is important because several counties have said they may not be able to process all new voter registrations in time for Election Day.

"Knowing to provide provisional ballots is critically important this year in particular," said Jacobs. "Several counties have said that they may not be able to process all new voter registrations in time for Election Day -- meaning thousands of eligible voters could have their right to vote challenged because of the State's inaction." The ACLU-NJ has urged the State to provide all resources necessary to help counties process every registration before the polls open tomorrow.

Our Lawsuit to Certify Voting Machines.

The accuracy of voting machines has also raised concerns for the ACLU-NJ, which has joined the Rutgers Constitutional Litigation Clinic lawsuit Gusciora v. Codey, which concerns the fact that New Jersey's electronic voting machines cannot be adequately certified or examined, as demanded by New Jersey law. As part of the case, the ACLU-NJ had to fight for the release of a report by Princeton University experts who tested the state's Sequoia voting machines and found that they are highly susceptible to hacking; the court finally released the report on October 17. The ACLU-NJ has also objected to the State's continual delays in adding voter verified paper trails to electronic voting machines.

Securing the Right to Vote for Citizens Who Have Past Criminal Convictions.

This year, the ACLU-NJ registered about 500 pre-trial detainees to vote in Essex County Jail and over 150 in Hudson County Jail.

"The corrections officials in both Hudson and Essex counties have been incredibly helpful to the ACLU-NJ in assisting citizens who are in jail exercise their right to vote," said Barocas. "These people have not been convicted of a crime and are innocent until proven guilty -- and therefore eligible to vote."

Before the voter registration deadline, the ACLU-NJ contacted the 21 county elections offices and found that more than one third -- eight in total -- illegally demand unnecessary documents from former prisoners trying to register to vote. These counties incorrectly stated that documentation was required to verify the completion of their criminal sentence in order to register.

The ACLU-NJ requested that the Division of Elections send written clarification to the offending counties to inform them that the law does not require citizens who have completed criminal sentences to provide extra documentation when registering. The Division of Elections has not responded to ACLU-NJ requests for a copy of such notices to the counties, and it has not confirmed whether any were sent. Following tomorrow's election, the ACLU-NJ will continue its advocacy with the Division of Elections requesting better training and education of those working in elections.

Our Concerns

One of the ACLU-NJ's top concerns is whether state and county governments will track voting problems from the polls to the courthouse. The State Division of Elections does not report on election problems and solutions, making it difficult to understand why problems happened and therefore making it a challenge to resolve them.

"Information about what goes wrong at the polls hasn't been well documented or analyzed by elections officials in the past, making recurring problems worse," said Jacobs. "That leaves advocacy groups to recommend changes needed to make elections as successful as possible -- a task that really should be the duty of the state."

The ACLU-NJ has advocated for improvements to New Jersey voting systems and met with the Secretary of State and elections officials on several occasions -- as recently as last month. In September, the ACLU-NJ sent a letter urging the Division of Elections to take critical steps before Election Day to help ensure voting rights, including making the "Am I registered?" inquiry form on the Division of Elections website more functional; clarifying the language on the website concerning identification requirements; and providing counties with standard procedures concerning county-based intake of voting complaints.

The Divisions of Elections has not responded, and it does not appear that any recommendations have been implemented.

Read the ACLU-NJ and LWVNJ report on elections issues that arose during the February presidential primary, which includes recommendations for poll monitor training and voter education.

Categories: Elections & Voting

ACLU-NJ Announces Representation of Newark Police Abuse Victims

October 22, 2008

NJ calls for reforms at city and state level in major march against police brutality

NEWARK - The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey announced its representation of three victims of police misconduct today and will lead a march against police brutality through downtown Newark in commemoration of International Day Against Police Brutality.

"Police abuse doesn't always look like Sean Bell or Rodney King," said ACLU-NJ Executive Director Deborah Jacobs. "Any degree of police abuse can be devastating and traumatic. Our young clients are incredibly brave, but they shouldn't have to be. The only way to stop abuse is to start taking real steps toward reform."

The newest ACLU-NJ complaint against the Newark Police involves 13-year-old Tony Ivey Jr., 15-year-old Faheem Loyal and their football coach Kelvin Lamar James, who were pulled over on June 14, 2008 and abused by several Newark police officers after a day centered around their Pop Warner football team, the North Ward Scorpions. They were pulled out of the car in the rain, searched, had guns held against their bodies and told they "didn't have any fucking rights," despite committing no crimes and having only football equipment in the car.

Tony, Faheem and Kelvin were left shaken up and frightened by the incident and feel ongoing distrust of police officers.

"I don't want anyone else to have to go through what we did that night," said Ivey. "Kids shouldn't have to be afraid of the police. I used to want to be a police officer, but now I'm not even sure who is there to protect me and who might point a gun at me."

The ACLU-NJ brought the incident to the attention of the City of Newark, which has expressed significant concern and promised to make reforms to its Internal Affairs operations. However, the ACLU-NJ has asked the City to include an independent monitor in Mayor Booker's current restructuring of the police leadership positions and believes that an independent monitor is the only way to ensure accountability and best practices on an ongoing basis. Thus far, the City has not made a commitment to independent monitoring.

This is the third case the ACLU-NJ has been involved in within the past year that seeks remedies for Newark police misconduct.

Independent monitoring is key to successful policing at the city and state levels. In major police departments - like Denver, San Jose, Boise and Portland - independent monitors have turned poor departments around and transformed good departments into great ones. The New Jersey State Police has improved dramatically with the benefit of a monitor. And, as the state police can attest to, an independent monitor's influence can bring technologies and resources that police officers need to do their jobs well. Independent monitors also help departments identify and remove the bad apples that spoil the reputation of the majority of officers who perform their difficult jobs with integrity.

The ACLU-NJ is also calling for reforms at the state level. As the State contemplates the end of the consent decree it entered into with the federal government after a tragic shooting on the Turnpike and the revelation of policies and training that encouraged racial profiling, it must implement reforms that will preserve the gains made under the consent decree and take the state police to the next level. Although the state police has improved markedly under the consent decree, there are ongoing problems, including stops on the southern end of the New Jersey Turnpike that remain disproportionate to the racial makeup of the area. The statistics have consistently shown that more than 30 percent of drivers stopped on the southern end of the Turnpike are people of color compared to fewer than 20 percent on the northern end.

In December 2007, Governor Corzine's Advisory Committee on Police Standards issued a report with recommendations for needed reforms. To date, none of those recommendations has been implemented.

The ACLU-NJ sent a letter to Governor Jon Corzine outlining its recommendations for statewide police reforms, including ongoing independent monitoring, licensing of police officers, keeping accurate statistics on racial profiling, creating diversity among police officers and requiring consistent discipline practices so all officers are treated fairly.

The ACLU-NJ has invited hundreds of advocates, police abuse victims and law enforcement professionals to the March Against Police Brutality, which will pass through "police checkpoints" calling for accountability measures. Marchers will invoke the names of New Jersey victims of police misconduct and brutality, from people who won settlements several years ago to ACLU-NJ clients whose cases are ongoing.

Half a dozen victims of police abuse will share their stories at the march, including Mary Weaver, whose son was killed by the East Orange Police; Herb Morton, a Continental Airlines Captain who was pulled over for speeding on the Turnpike despite the fact that his cruise control was set at 55 mph; and Laila Maher, who endured traumatic mistreatment at the hands of the New Jersey State Police while driving on the Turnpike.

"That night will always stay with me," said Maher. "When we left DC late after my bar exam class to drive up to New York, I never expected that by the end of the night I'd be looking down the barrel of a gun. Police brutality can happen to anyone, so none of us should feel comfortable until it stops."

Each checkpoint touches on a different facet of police brutality, beginning with a reading of the ACLU-NJ demands for reform at the attorney general's office, moving to Newark Penn Station to distribute information about individual rights in the face of police questioning, and ending at the Brazilian Voice newspaper with a vigil for the victims of police abuse. Roberto Lima, the editor of the Brazilian Voice, has a current lawsuit against the Newark Police Department, which violated his free press rights when he was held in custody until he agreed to forfeit all copies of pictures his photographer took of a crime scene (even though he had already given them all of the photos).

Ivey, Loyal and James are being represented by Avi Cover and Lawrence Lustberg of Gibbons, P.C. who are serving as cooperating counsel on behalf of the ACLU-NJ.

In addition to advocating for reforms to police practices, the ACLU also frequently represents police officers whose rights have been violated or who have acted as whistleblowers.

Read the ACLU-NJ Executive Director Deborah Jacobs' Star Ledger op-ed about the case of Tony, Faheem and Kelvin.

ACLU-NJ Files Brief Defending Immigrants' Right to Housing

October 08, 2008

PLAINFIELD, NJ - The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey, ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project, Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), Seton Hall Law School Center for Social Justice and the law firm Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP (Fried Frank) filed a friend of the court brief in the case Del Rio-Mocci v. Connolly Properties, Inc., in order to protect the right to housing for Latinos and other immigrants and to thwart anti-immigrant efforts to compel landlords to enforce federal immigration law.

"It's a huge stretch to claim that RICO, a law aimed at dismantling organized crime, stops landlords from renting to people they are legally allowed to rent to," said ACLU of New Jersey Legal Director Ed Barocas. "The first attempts to run immigrants out of town failed in Hazleton, Pa., and Riverside, N.J., and this new backdoor attempt is no better."

The brief was filed on behalf of leading organizations and institutions that represent the interests of, and provide services to, immigrant communities in New Jersey, including: the New Jersey Institution for Social Justice, the New Jersey Immigration Policy Network, the Latino Leadership Alliance of New Jersey, CATA: the Farmworkers' Support Committee, the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, the Latin American Legal Defense and Education Fund, and the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey.

"Landlords are neither qualified nor authorized to act as de facto immigration agents," said ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project attorney Eunice Lee. "They lack the skills and training to make immigration status determinations, and forcing them to do so will lead to wrongful denials of housing."

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court in New Jersey by the Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI), an organization that has sponsored a series of anti-immigrant municipal housing ordinances throughout the country, alleges that by renting apartments to undocumented immigrants, landlords are in violation of federal statutes which impose criminal penalties for harboring undocumented persons. In effect, plaintiffs are seeking to have federal law interpreted in a manner that will compel landlords to screen and investigate the immigration status of prospective tenants.

"Latinos and others -- regardless of nationality or immigration status -- will face additional scrutiny when attempting to secure or maintain housing because landlords will be hesitant to rent to individuals they perceive to be immigrants based solely on race or language ability," said Cynthia Valenzuela, MALDEF's Director of Litigation. "This is a dangerous and unlawful precedent that would ripple far beyond New Jersey and create a national climate of fear and racial profiling in the provision of housing."

Local anti-immigrant municipal housing ordinances have been consistently struck down by courts that found them to be plainly discriminatory and preempted by federal law. Since efforts to displace immigrants through unconstitutional local ordinances have been unsuccessful, IRLI now brings this suit that threatens to destabilize local communities and vulnerable populations by inducing the wrongful denial of housing to Latinos and other immigrants, creating fear in immigrant communities, and otherwise, sanctioning the wrongful denial of civil rights.

"New Jersey's immigrant service providers are deeply troubled by this effort to deprive immigrant families of a roof over their heads," said Bassina Farbenblum, an attorney at Seton Hall's Center for Social Justice. "This lawsuit is yet another misguided attempt by anti-immigrant groups to end-run state and federal anti-discrimination laws and deny immigrant men, women and children their basic human right to shelter."

The amicus brief, filed by leading organizations on behalf of organizations that represent or provide services to immigrant communities, urges the court to reject the claims presented in this unprecedented case and argues that a determination in plaintiffs favor will impermissibly require landlords to engage in immigration status determinations, and will inevitably result in unlawful discrimination against immigrants (including U.S. citizens and lawful residents) in New Jersey and throughout the country.

Read the ACLU-NJ Amicus Brief

Connolly Amicus Brief (696k PDF)

Categories: Immigrant Rights Discrimination

ACLU-NJ Holds March for Police Accountability

September 18, 2008

Oct 22 Flyer:

NEWARK - The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey is turning the tables by setting up checkpoints of its own -- checkpoints to hold police accountable.

On October 22, in honor of International Day Against Police Brutality, the ACLU-NJ and People's Organization for Progress are holding a march through Downtown Newark with three checkpoints at sites related to police practices.

WHAT: A press conference followed by a march and rally through Newark to recognize International Day Against Police Brutality

DATE: Wednesday, October 22, 2008, 4:30 p.m.

CHECKPOINT 1: Stating of Demands for Reform

4:30 p.m.
The Governor's Offices in Newark
153 Halsey Street, Newark

CHECKPOINT 2: Getting the Word Out

5:30 p.m.
Distributing Know Your Rights cards at Newark Penn Station:

What To Do If You're Stopped By The Police (English) (118k PDF)

What To Do If You're Stopped By The Police (Spanish) (69k PDF)

What To Do If You're Stopped By The Police (Portuguese) (1.3mb PDF)

CHECKPOINT 3: Vigil for Victims of Police Misconduct

6:30 p.m.
To honor the victims of police abuse and the officers committed to accountability Offices of the Brazilian Voice newspaper
412 Chestnut Street, the Ironbound

The march, a part of the ACLU-NJ's statewide police accountability campaign "Law and Disorder: Police Accountability Unit," will honor the victims of police abuse and recognize police officers committed to accountability within their departments. Different colored armbands will identify notable people.

In its police accountability campaign, the ACLU-NJ is working with police departments to create responsible police practices and training community leaders to prevent police abuse in their own neighborhoods.

Categories: Police Practices Discrimination Criminal Justice

ACLU-NJ Files Suit Against Notorious Passaic County Jail

September 03, 2008

Newark, NJ - The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey (ACLU-NJ) and Seton Hall University School of Law's Center for Social Justice (CSJ) today Filed A Class Action Lawsuit against Passaic County for unconstitutional conditions at the Passaic County Jail.

"The Passaic County Jail is notorious for its deplorable conditions. There are people in Passaic County Jail who have not been convicted of any crime, yet they are living in extremely dangerous and unsanitary conditions," said Emily B. Goldberg, CSJ visiting assistant clinical professor. "Everyone knows how horrendous the situation at Passaic County Jail is, yet jail and county officials have been allowed to get away with it for decades. The lawsuit filed today is intended to send a strong message: It is time for those responsible to face the music and starting cleaning up the conditions at Passaic County Jail immediately."

The suit was filed on behalf of pre-trial detainees - people who have been arrested but not yet tried or convicted - and inmates awaiting sentencing who have suffered from overcrowding and unsanitary living conditions.

The jail, designed to hold 896 inmates, routinely squeezes in over 1,700 through revenue-generating contracts with other agencies, including a current contract to house inmates from overcrowded prisons in Philadelphia. Inmates, locked in cells for 23 hours a day, are forced to eat, sleep and perform bodily functions all in the same room. The units, which are infested with rodents and insects, have inadequate ventilation and heating systems. The inmates endure oppressive temperatures in summer and freezing temperatures in winter, with insufficient clothing to keep them warm - only one thin, short-sleeved uniform is issued to inmates. Local fire officials have testified in court that the jail's lack of emergency detection alarms and fire-fighting systems has reached "crisis proportions."

Earlier this year, the U.S. Marshals Service removed all federal detainees from PCJ after United States District Court Judge Katharine S. Hayden issued a ruling that found the jail's conditions so horrendous as to be punitive. Judge Hayden, calling the conditions "shameful," gave two federal criminal defendants shorter prison sentences because of the time they were detained at PCJ.

"The conditions at PCJ are an affront to human decency," said Christopher Michie, of the law firm Dechert LLP, who is the cooperating attorney handling the case on behalf of the ACLU-NJ. "For years, the Passaic County Freeholders have received millions upon millions of dollars to house inmates at PCJ. Instead of using that money to expand the facility or to build a new one, they have used it to balance the County budget. At the same time, these men and women are forced to live like animals. The County has a legal and moral obligation to treat people humanely. This appalling situation has to be brought to an end."

The case is captioned Angel Colon v. Passaic County.

Categories: Prisons

1 in 5 NJ Schools Puts Up Barriers for Immigrant Children

September 02, 2008

NEWARK - As New Jersey students head back to school, the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey has released findings that at least 20 percent of New Jersey public school districts are breaking the law by asking for information that would reveal a parent or child's Social Security number or immigration status as a prerequisite for enrollment. On Friday, the ACLU-NJ sent letters to Department of Education Commissioner Lucille Davy and the 187 offending school districts in New Jersey asking them to more aggressively enforce the laws that stop schools from requesting Social Security numbers or immigration status.

"The law is clear -- so why are so many schools still illegally requesting this information?" asked ACLU-NJ Racial Justice Attorney Nadia Seeratan, who oversaw the study. "The Constitution promises every child in the United States a right to education; requiring proof of citizenship as a condition of enrollment breaks that promise."

Beginning in July, the ACLU-NJ attempted to survey 635 New Jersey school entities listed by county on the Department of Education website (615 districts as well as 20 charter schools, which have unique application processes) to assess the legality of their enrollment requirements. ACLU-NJ staff and volunteers successfully contacted 516, or 80 percent, of all school districts and charter schools.

The survey found that 139 - over a quarter of those successfully contacted - illegally required information that would reveal the Social Security number or immigration status of students seeking to enroll despite state, federal and constitutional laws prohibiting the practice. Another 48 suggested that immigration information would help in the registration process. Thus, a total of 187 - more than one in three - responded in violation of the law or in a manner prone to deter student enrollment.

At least 35 school districts in the state requested Social Security numbers or immigration information on their written enrollment forms, including Hackensack, Hoboken and Roselle Park.

Monmouth County was the worst offender, with 26 districts requiring citizenship or immigration-related information to enroll.

When the ACLU-NJ conducted a similar survey two years ago, it found that 58 of the 224 school districts surveyed required proof of a child's immigration status. Of those, nearly two-thirds said they would remove sections of their enrollment forms asking for students' status. In this year's follow-up survey, 21 of the offending school districts from 2006 still required that information, including Irvington, Trenton and Middlesex.

"Two years after our first survey of schools, we've found the same problems, and in many cases, in the same schools," said Seeratan. "Many of New Jersey's children won't have equal access to an education unless schools follow the law and treat all students equally."

Attending school is one of the fastest ways for immigrant children to assimilate in the United States, and an education empowers students to become productive members of an open society. Brown v. the Board of Education called education "perhaps the most important function of state and local governments" and said success in this country is nearly impossible without one. A 2004 Pew Hispanic Center study found that Latinos in New Jersey were the most likely to feel that discrimination in school interfered with their ability to succeed in this country.

"Every child in New Jersey has a right to an education," said Deborah Jacobs, ACLU-NJ executive director. "And it's in our best interests as a society for all children to be educated. New Jersey, as one of the most diverse states in the nation, has a special obligation to make sure all children, from every background and walk of life, can have a solid education."

Further Information

Letter to Education Commissioner Davy (240k PDF)
List of Districts Violating (156k PDF)
Fact Sheet - Access to Education (15k PDF)

Categories: Student & Youth Rights Immigrant Rights Discrimination

ACLU-NJ Client Takes Down Town's Lawn Sign Restrictions

August 07, 2008

HAWTHORNE - An ACLU-NJ client who challenged the borough of Hawthorne's unconstitutional ordinance banning political lawn signs won his battle last night when the Hawthorne Council unanimously agreed to rescind the ban in its monthly meeting.

"The Borough was wrong to threaten me with fines and then issue me a ticket. I'm relieved that they are going to take the ordinance off the books," said ACLU-NJ client Andy Gause, who had been forced to take down his Ron Paul signs. "Local governments need to be held accountable when they violate the constitution."

The ACLU-NJ represented Gause after he was issued a citation in April for displaying signs supporting Ron Paul's candidacy. The lawsuit, filed in federal district court in Newark, challenged the town's ban of political signs except for 32 days before an election and seven days after.

The borough decided to settle soon after the suit began and, acknowledging that Gause raised "legitimate concerns regarding the First Amendment," the borough has promised to amend the ordinance to eliminate time limits on political signs and not enforce the current ordinance while it is still on the books.

"Ordinances like this one are cropping up all over New Jersey - this isn't by any means isolated," said ACLU-NJ Deputy Legal Director Jeanne LoCicero. "Even if the restrictions aren't being enforced, the ordinances will have a chilling effect. Until they are taken off the books, we will continue fighting them."

The ACLU-NJ is now investigating an ordinance in North Plainfield banning lawn signs - the most severe the organization has seen. There, no one can hang a sign except for within 10 days before an election and until 72 hours after.

In June, the ACLU-NJ also came to the aid of a Barack Obama supporter whom the Borough of Shrewsbury warned that if she didn't remove her sign, she would risk a summons. That borough is not enforcing the ordinance and is planning to eliminate the ban.

Visit Gause v. Borough of Hawthorne for a copy of the ordinance rescinding the sign restriction and the complaint.

Categories: Free Speech Elections & Voting

Free Speech Barred at Poll Sites, NJ Court Rules

August 06, 2008

NEWARK - Today the New Jersey appeals court upheld a 2007 directive from the state Attorney General barring constitutionally protected free speech activities and voter education within 100 feet of a polling place. The directive, which the ACLU-NJ fought on the grounds that it limited far more speech than state legislation authorized the Attorney General to ban, hampers voter education efforts at the polls by the ACLU-NJ and other NJ public education organizations.

"This decision threatens two sacred rights for every citizen in the state: the right to vote and the right to free speech," said ACLU-NJ cooperating attorney Frank Corrado of the law firm Barry, Corrado, Grassi and Gibson. "We are immediately petitioning the New Jersey Supreme Court to hear this case."

The directive, issued in a letter from New Jersey Attorney General Anne Milgram last summer, forbids any contact with voters coming and going from polling sites, except contact from people conducting exit poll research, which has its own set of restrictions. Members of the press and public interest groups have to seek advance approval from county elections boards to conduct exit polling and give two weeks' notice of the exact location and names of everyone who may conduct polling. Even when conducting exit polling, however, the groups will still not be permitted to inform voters of their rights at the polls.

In its decision, the court said the legislature meant to essentially ban all free speech activity at polls, not just speech related to electioneering for candidates or issues. The Appellate Division's decision means not only that all distribution of material is prohibited, but all suggestions of any kind made by one person to another are also prohibited.

"The legislature never meant to ban so much speech -- it meant to protect citizens from voter intimidation," said ACLU-NJ Legal Director Ed Barocas. "People at the polls will be violating state law if they distribute any kind of information or if they offer any suggestion to another person, even if the suggestion is who the Yankees should trade for. The directive creates an absurdity that the Appellate Division has turned a blind eye to."

The Appellate Division also held that the broad ban doesn't violate the First Amendment because the court believed people could abuse the right to hand out information at the polls -- but the state had not submitted any evidence of there ever being a disturbance.

The ACLU-NJ, along with other New Jersey groups, has long held voter education drives on Election Day to help people at the polls. Since 2005, even before the Milgram directive, ACLU-NJ volunteers distributing voter rights cards within 100 feet of polling sites were threatened with arrest. The ACLU-NJ submitted evidence that once they were forced to move outside the 100-foot zone, they had little access to voters who may have needed their help.

"I've always found it ironic that the Attorney General is specifically prohibiting work that helps voters exercise the same rights she is duty-bound to protect," Barocas added. "The Attorney General and the Court of Appeals are threatening to arrest people who help voters understand a basic right in a democratic society. Polling places should be free speech zones, not speech-free zones."

Read the ACLU-NJ report about this year's February 5 primary election, which discusses the impact of the electioneering directive.

Categories: Free Speech Elections & Voting

Beleaguered Student Newspaper Goes Independent

July 29, 2008

MONTCLAIR - The Montclair State University (MSU) Montclarion became independent from the Student Government Association (SGA) of Montclair State University last Thursday night by vote of the MSU Board of Trustees, following the approval of the Board's Finance Committee. This move follows the ACLU-NJ's recent representation of the paper when the SGA infringed upon freedom of the press by halting the paper's funding in response to the paper's investigation of the SGA violating the Open Public Meetings Act.

"The right to a free press is now free to thrive at Montclair State University," said Gary Nissenbaum of the Nissenbaum Law Group, who along with his colleague, Neelam Singh, Esq., helped the paper become independent. "He who pays the piper does not call the tune, and now with The Montclarion independent, journalism will not be hindered."

The Montclarion will now receive funds through a separate student fee going solely toward the newspaper, meaning it will be supported by students directly, not by the university or SGA. Accordingly, the Nissenbaum Law Group is filing papers today with the Secretary of State of New Jersey to form a student-directed new entity that will own and run the Montclarion.

The battle began last year, when the SGA authorized The Montclarion to hire an attorney, who determined the SGA had violated the Open Public Meetings Act. In response, SGA President Ronald Chicken ordered the paper to turn in confidential correspondence between the newspaper and its lawyer. When the paper refused, Chicken froze the funding and even passed a measure saying The Montclarion had no First Amendment free press protections.

In January, the SGA agreed to release most of The Montclarion's funding and rescind its request for legal documents, but the SGA reneged on its promise to turn over the paper's funds. Then at a February SGA meeting, the funds were unfrozen and university President Susan Cole said if the newspaper became independent, the university would pay for The Montclarion to publish in the interim.

"After what it took for us to get here, the Montclarion staff truly appreciates what it means to operate an independent press free from outside control," said Bobby Melok, editor-in-chief of The Montclarion for the upcoming school year. "We feared for our funding, for our free press rights and for the future of The Montclarion. Now that our battle is over, we can focus on our bread and butter: news that matters to students - like open meetings."

Categories: Free Speech

Judge Stops Transfer of More Women Prisoners

July 24, 2008

TRENTON - The New Jersey Superior Court today Issued an Opinion that stops the New Jersey Department of Corrections (DOC) from transferring any more women prisoners to the New Jersey State Prison (NJSP), a maximum-security men's prison, until the resolution of an ongoing legal battle over previous unlawful transfers. The court also granted the women's request to pursue their claims as a class action. In addition, the court denied a motion by the DOC, brought on five separate legal grounds, to dismiss the women prisoners' complaint, and also rejected the DOC's motion to summarily terminate the case.

"This is a great first step toward getting these women out of conditions that no one should be forced to endure," said Ed Barocas, Legal Director of the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey. "When the court issues its final ruling we expect to see a permanent stop to the arbitrary transfer of women to the men's prison, an end to their inhumane conditions and the DOC penalized for its wrongdoing."

The class action lawsuit, Jones v. Hayman, filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey in December 2007, challenges the DOC's transfer of a group of women prisoners to NJSP, where women are denied basic movement in the prison and barred from the prison's main yard, deprived of access to the prison law library and the prison school and denied access to basic hygiene. The suit charges that the women's transfer and their oppressive conditions of confinement were unconstitutional and discriminatory based on their sex.

"The underbelly of this issue is over-incarceration," said ACLU-NJ Executive Director Deborah Jacobs. "Until we find alternatives to locking people up, we're going to see an increase in cases of abuse in prisons. We need to be smart on crime, not soft on crime."

In March, evidence emerged that James Drumm, Assistant Administrator of the New Jersey State Prison, offered women prisoners reductions in their disciplinary sentences in exchange for making false statements describing conditions as better than they were. After one prisoner in disciplinary segregation told the ACLU about the offer, she was beaten by a prison guard, according to her sworn statement and those of three other women prisoners.

In later statements to the court, women prisoners described a campaign of intimidation intended to punish and silence women who spoke out. Other sworn statements of women prisoners described bullying and intimidation carried out by the internal affairs unit of the DOC, the Special Investigations Division (SID).

"These rulings amount to a sweeping victory for women prisoners who have suffered grossly unfair and inhumane treatment," said Mie Lewis, ACLU counsel for the case. "We are delighted that after thoroughly analyzing the arguments on both sides, the court has vindicated the rights of women prisoners."

On Tuesday, July 22, the DOC agreed to withdraw the statements obtained by James Drumm from the record and to provide the ACLU with further evidence concerning the alleged official misconduct. Previously, at an April 11, 2008 court hearing, corrections officials agreed to withdraw medical and psychiatric evidence that the ACLU alleged had been collected in violation of court rules and ethical standards.

More information on the case, including statements from the women prisoners, is available online at: http://www.aclu.org/womensrights/nj_prison/index.html

Categories: Prisons Discrimination

ACLU-NJ Resolves Newark Free Speech Lawsuit But Eyes Another

July 14, 2008

NEWARK, N.J. - After more than four years of contending with the city of Newark, the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey announced the resolution of one free-speech battle only to have to confront a new one.

"The city is putting up new barriers to free speech that will silence poor people," said People's Organization for Progress president Larry Hamm, whose organization engages in free speech activity in Newark. "Free speech should be just that -- free -- and available to all people, not just those who can afford to pay for it."

Last week, an ACLU-NJ lawsuit on behalf of itself, New Jersey Peace Action and People's Organization for Progress against the city for requiring people to buy million-dollar insurance policies to engage in their constitutionally protected free speech rights was resolved. Newark, which the New Jersey Superior Court in Essex County had told could not ask for "speech insurance," effectively required it anyway in violation of the court's order, and the city paid the ACLU-NJ's legal fees for having to go back to court to resolve the matter.

The ACLU-NJ was dismayed to learn that just as this matter was coming to a close, on May 21 the Newark City Council passed an ordinance that again violates free speech rights -- this time by requiring a group of 15 people to get a permit to gather and forcing them to pay at least 20 percent of the costs of their activities. The new ordinance requires any group of 15 people on a city street, sidewalk or park to obtain a permit from the city or risk a citation. Before this ordinance was passed, the city only required a permit if the activity forced a street or sidewalk to close. The ACLU-NJ sent a letter to the city today to challenge the new ordinance.

"If you want to have a family picnic in Branch Brook Park, or take your co-workers to lunch, or celebrate with your baseball team, or sing Christmas carols with your neighbors -- if there are 15 people or more, you'll have to apply for a permit," said ACLU-NJ Executive Director Deborah Jacobs. "This ordinance doesn't just hurt free speech -- it disrupts the community."

The ordinance also requires people engaging in free speech activities to pay for at least 20 percent of all incidental costs, including police costs. Therefore, poorer residents, grassroots organizations and other groups who can't afford to pay for their speech activities will effectively be barred from engaging in constitutionally protected expression. The ACLU-NJ's letter to the city points out that the New Jersey Supreme Court has made it clear that there should be no monetary impediments to the right of people to engage in free speech.

In its letter, the ACLU-NJ requested a meeting with the city's attorney and sought assurances that the new ordinance will be rescinded or amended to adhere to principles of free speech. Unless the city reverses this policy promptly, more legal action is likely.

"As soon as Newark agreed to fix its original anti-free speech policy, another one popped up in its place," said ACLU-NJ cooperating attorney Bennet Zurofsky of the Newark law firm Reitman Parsonnet. "We have requested a meeting with Newark officials to settle this game of whack-a-mole once and for all - but we are prepared to move forward with legal action again if that's what it takes."

The city had vowed in 2004 not to impose the insurance requirement in light of the Essex County judge's decision ruling it illegal. The court found the city had never even authorized the requirement for insurance; Newark officials had no authority to ask for it. In addition, the New Jersey Supreme Court, in 2000, ruled that insurance requirements violated free speech protections. Nevertheless, city officials refused to take the insurance requirement off the permit applications, and organizations continued to have their permit applications delayed or denied for their failure to buy the million-dollar insurance policy.

The original case was captioned People's Organization for Progress, et al. v. City of Newark and filed in New Jersey Superior Court in Essex County in 2004.

The ACLU-NJ's July 14 demand letter to Newark can be found at /index.php/download_file/view/84/668/

A musical blog about the ongoing problem, written by ACLU-NJ Executive Director Deborah Jacobs, can be found at http://www.aclu-nj.org/theissues/freespeechexpression/blogfreespeechloathinginne/

Categories: Free Speech

List of Potential NJ Threats Finally Released

July 07, 2008

NEWARK - After four years of wrangling with the Office of the New Jersey Attorney General, the ACLU-NJ has finally obtained a list of the organizations identified by New Jersey law enforcement as "potential threat elements (PTEs)." These designations, made by municipalities in order to receive funding from Department of Homeland Security grant programs in 2003 and 2004, identified people or groups that law enforcement thought might commit acts of terrorism in the future.

"This has been a long and important battle for open government," stated Gary D. Nissenbaum, Esq. of the Nissenbaum Law Group located in Union, who served as cooperating counsel for the ACLU-NJ. "Our goal was to ensure that no one was targeted for First Amendment activities or religious affiliations, as we have seen in past times of political unrest."

As a result of this lawsuit, the Office of the Attorney General finally provided a List of 59 Entities Containing PTEs it had designated. This disclosure confirmed that no groups were improperly identified as PTEs; none were houses of worship, and no private individuals were identified.

Fourteen of the organizations identified by Hudson County were on either the U.S. Department of State's list of foreign terrorist organizations or the Anti-Defamation League's list of American extremist groups. The fifteenth PTE listed in Hudson County was described as "a well-recognized criminal organization with its roots in El Salvador and Guatemala."

When the ACLU-NJ learned in 2004 that municipalities had to list "potential threat elements" to receive federal grant money, it requested information about the list from municipalities and the state. The concern over identification of private individuals, religious organizations, peace groups or anyone else protected by the First Amendment was heightened by the fact that inclusion on this list would trigger a preliminary investigation by the FBI.

In other states, PTEs and criteria for their designation were placed on public government websites. However, New Jersey's towns refused to do so.

In December 2004, the ACLU-NJ sued former Attorney General Peter Harvey, who then said in September 2005 that his office had not directed towns to deny the requests. Another round of ACLU-NJ requests for information turned up a 2004 memorandum from the Attorney General directing towns not to release potential threat information to the ACLU-NJ.

On August 31, 2006, after the ACLU-NJ sued Harvey again, the Superior Court of New Jersey awarded the ACLU-NJ over $10,000 in legal fees, having found that Harvey inappropriately withheld documents about PTEs. Soon after, the Attorney General's office admitted that three counties had named PTES: Hudson, Cape May and one other county that to this day remains unidentified. As a result of the June 10 Attorney General's Office disclosure, the actual names of the PTEs have now been released as part of a larger list supplied by the Office of the Attorney General.

"Open government is central to democracy," said ACLU-NJ Executive Director Deborah Jacobs. "The government can't expect to set policy in the dark and not have people holding up flashlights and asking about secrecy."

Categories: Open Government National Security

ACLU-NJ Challenges Bans on Political Lawn Signs

July 01, 2008

NEWARK - The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey today announced actions to stop two municipalities from unconstitutionally prohibiting political yard signs - one on behalf of a Ron Paul supporter and another for a Barack Obama backer.

"The free exchange of ideas is an essential part of our democracy. These bans on political signs prevent people from engaging in a traditional American pastime: expressing your view," said cooperating attorney Lawrence Ross, a partner at the law firm of Bressler Amery & Ross, who sent the Shrewsbury letter. "No matter your opinion, you are free to express it, regardless of any time frame."

The ACLU-NJ has come to the aid of Hawthorne resident and Ron Paul supporter Andrew Gause, who was issued a citation for displaying signs supporting Ron Paul's candidacy for the Republican nomination. The ACLU-NJ lawsuit on his behalf, filed in federal district court in Newark, challenges the enforcement of a Borough of Hawthorne ordinance that bans political signs except during the window of time 32 days before an election and seven days after.

The Hawthorne ordinance would keep residents from putting up signs for Obama, McCain or any other political cause throughout the summer until the beginning of October, despite the fact that the campaigns are in full swing and a central part of current public debate.

"Posting a sign on my private property is a basic right guaranteed by the Constitution," said Gause. "I hope this lawsuit inspires others to stand up to fight for our constitutional rights, and I hope the borough of Hawthorne is held accountable. Free speech is the most basic American right, and the consequences for breaking it must be taken seriously."

The ACLU-NJ also sent a letter to the Borough of Shrewsbury on behalf of a Barack Obama supporter who received a notice giving her two options: remove the Obama sign or risk receiving a summons. The letter requested that the borough repeal its similarly unconstitutional ordinance: a wholesale ban on political signs except during the 60-day period before an election and the five days afterward.

"Election season often reveals unreasonable restrictions on campaign signs," said Deborah Jacobs, Executive Director for the ACLU-NJ, "but the right to speak one's mind about politics is at the heart of the First Amendment."

The ACLU-NJ successfully challenged a similar ordinance against the Borough of Franklin Lakes in 2001.

The current legal action -- Andrew Gause v. Borough of Hawthorne, Patrick Botbyl, Robert Scully, and Donald Turner -- was filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.

A copy of the complaint can be found at /index.php/download_file/view/77/668/

Categories: Free Speech Elections & Voting

ACLU Helps Land Victory for Voters and Open Government

June 20, 2008

NEWARK - The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey celebrated a superior court ruling today allowing experts commissioned to test the state's voting machines to speak about their findings.

"This decision is a victory for democracy in New Jersey," said Avidan Cover of Gibbons PC, who wrote the brief on behalf of the ACLU-NJ. "Our right to vote is only secure when we know whether our votes will be counted. If there are problems, we're one step closer to knowing before the election, not after."

Modifying a previous order, Judge Linda Feinberg ruled today that a gag order on experts inspecting New Jersey voting machines would last only 90 days, beginning June 30. In that time, the experts will have 30 days to test the machines and 30 days to issue their findings. Then the State has 30 days to review the experts' findings. Following that, the information will be made available to the public.

"We're gratified by this ruling," said Cover, who submitted a friend-of-the-court brief earlier this month on behalf of the ACLU-NJ, New Jersey Press Association, North Jersey Media Group and New Jersey Foundation for Open Government asking Feinberg to reverse her earlier order silencing experts from releasing findings about the state's voting machines. "This means that we can have meaningful public debate," he added.

In May, the court allowed experts to investigate the integrity of the machines, but they were not allowed to discuss the results until the lawsuit was finished, including through appeals, even if they believed there were security problems or serious errors.

For More Information

Read the ACLU-NJ and League of Women Voters of New Jersey's report about voting rights during the February primary election, including voting machine problems at /index.php/download_file/view/530/668/

Categories: Open Government Elections & Voting

ACLU-NJ Demands End to Voting Machine Gag Order

June 10, 2008

NEWARK - The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey, New Jersey Press Association, North Jersey Media Group and New Jersey Foundation for Open Government today submitted a friend-of-the-court brief to the NJ Superior Court, seeking reversal of an order that silences experts from discussing future findings about the state's Sequoia voting machines even if concealing their findings could compromise the integrity of elections.

In May, the court agreed to let investigators examine the machines. But the court prohibited those experts from discussing their findings until the case is finished, including through appeals, even if they believe there are errors or the system can be hacked.

"If the flaws in voting machines are under wraps until this case is over, the November election will have come and gone long before we'll know whether our votes were accurately counted," said Lawrence Lustberg of Gibbons PC, who, along with Avidan Cover of Gibbons PC, wrote the brief on behalf of the ACLU-NJ. "Our state has the responsibility to uphold our constitutional right to vote, and the public has the right to know when that right is threatened."

The ACLU-NJ does not object to the portion of the court order that keeps Sequoia's proprietary information - the unique design of its machines - confidential.

The lawsuit, Gusciora v. Codey, filed by Rutgers Constitutional Litigation Clinic, stemmed from the fact that the current electronic voting systems cannot be adequately certified or examined, as demanded by New Jersey law.

Earlier this month, the ACLU-NJ and League of Women Voters of New Jersey released a report on voting rights documenting the biggest problems during the February presidential primary, and voting machine errors were some of the most prevalent and serious problems.

More Information

Read the brief at http://tinyurl.com/63tssm (1.5mb PDF)
Read the ACLU-NJ and LWVNJ voting rights report http://tinyurl.com/6nazbw (62k PDF)

Categories: Elections & Voting

Student's Case Ensures Religious Freedom

June 09, 2008

NEWARK - In the midst of the 2008 graduation season, the ACLU-NJ has successfully settled a lawsuit on behalf of Bilal Shareef, a Muslim honor student who did not attend his 2006 West Side High School graduation because it was held in the sanctuary of a Baptist church.

"I was forced to choose between honoring my education and my faith, and no one should be put in that position," said Shareef. "I'm proud that I stood up for my beliefs, and I'm proud that my experience will keep other students from having to face the choices I did."

In 2005 and 2006, West Side High School held graduation in the sanctuary of a Baptist Church. Then-Principal Fernard Williams also told students they would receive two extra tickets to graduation if they attended a separate religious baccalaureate ceremony at the Basilica of the Sacred Heart, a Catholic church.

Shareef, whose religion forbids him from entering buildings with religious iconography, including pictures of Allah or an image of the cross, did not attend the ceremonies.

"There is a reason the Constitution forbids preference of one religion over the other: Government, especially school officials, should not be in the position of making certain people feel favored, while making others feel like outsiders," said ACLU-NJ Legal Director Ed Barocas, who represented the Shareefs. "It is the right of parents, not school officials, to attempt to convey religious beliefs to our children."

As part of the settlement, Newark Public Schools has apologized to Bilal Shareef, his father Ahmad Shareef, and other students and members of the Newark community who felt forced to forego or uncomfortable attending the 2005 or 2006 graduations. Newark Public Schools also agreed to institute significant policy changes. It agreed not to sponsor or promote religious events, not to withhold or provide benefits to students based on whether they attend particular religious events, not to hold student events in places of worship and not to hold student events in other religious buildings unless religious images are covered.

The lawsuit on behalf of the Shareefs, filed in March 2007, claimed that Newark Public Schools had violated the New Jersey Constitution by showing a preference for one religion over others, and by compelling people to attend a place of worship contrary to their faith.

The ACLU-NJ initially contacted the Newark Public Schools in 2005 after receiving complaints about West Side High School's graduation being held at New Hope Baptist Church. Newark Public Schools wrote a letter to the ACLU-NJ assuring that the school's graduation would not be held in a religious location again and that the school district would conceal or remove religious images. The ACLU-NJ therefore agreed not to sue. However, in 2006, the ceremony was again in the same church and, after being contacted by the Shareefs, the ACLU-NJ took action.

Categories: Religious Freedom

Advocates Offer Election Day Monitoring and Voter Assistance

June 02, 2008

NEWARK - The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey and League of Women Voters New Jersey announced today that they will provide poll monitoring and voter advocacy services for tomorrow's primary election.

"Voting rights advocates play an important role at the polls when voters need vital information," said Deborah Jacobs, ACLU-NJ Executive Director. "Over the years we have assisted countless voters in securing the right to vote by providing information, advocacy and even representation in court."

The ACLU-NJ's Voter Protection efforts for the primary will include monitoring at polling sites in Middlesex, Essex and Hudson counties. Poll monitors will distribute voting rights information cards to interested voters and try to advise voters who have encountered obstacles about their rights. The ACLU-NJ will also have attorneys available to assist voters whose right to vote is denied.

Unfortunately, efforts to monitor elections continue to be hampered by the state's refusal to allow poll monitors access to poll entrances. This prohibition by the Attorney General keeps the ACLU-NJ's nonpartisan poll monitors from coming within 100 feet of the polls, which in many locations makes it difficult to access voters to help them with their voting rights AND answering their questions. The ACLU-NJ has sued the State over this violation of free speech and voting rights, and awaits a ruling.

In addition to the on-site monitoring, the League of Women Voters' VOTEline at 1-800-792-VOTE (8683) will be open all day for the purpose of answering inquiries from voters.

During past election monitoring efforts, some of the biggest concerns have been failures to offer provisional ballots to voters who believed that they had registered but whose names were missing from the registration lists, failures to provide emergency paper ballots and confusion or malfunction when operating voting machines. Read Voting Rights and Wrongs for details on the issues encountered during the February 2008 Presidential Primary.

The ACLU-NJ and LWVNJ are working closely with the Secretary of State's office in its new oversight of elections in hopes of improving poll worker training, voter education and tracking of Election Day problems. The Secretary of State recently assumed responsibility for elections and has pledged to address the problems of the past.

Voters in need of assistance on June 3 should contact the VOTEline at 1-800-792-VOTE or the ACLU-NJ at 973-642-2084.

Categories: Elections & Voting

Urban Mayors' Association Weighs in on School Funding Formula

April 30, 2008

Newark - The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey and the Seton Hall Center for Social Justice today submitted a brief on behalf of the New Jersey Urban Mayors' Association in a long-running school funding lawsuit before the New Jersey Supreme Court. The brief challenges the state's changes to its education funding formula, which now places the burden to fund education back on municipalities that cannot afford to adequately fund education on their own. The changes disproportionately harm minorities and poor families, who suffer most from these changes.

"The state is asking struggling municipalities to choose between the future of their communities and the future of their children," said Irvington Mayor Wayne Smith, President of the Urban Mayors' Association. "That is exactly the untenable choice the court sought to prohibit."

In the 1990 case Abbott v. Burke (Abbott II), the New Jersey Supreme Court held that the state had failed to provide all students with a "thorough and efficient" education required by the New Jersey Constitution. Because school funding was linked to property taxes, and because many municipalities suffered from "municipal overburden," requiring them to spend a much larger percentage of their taxes on municipal services than wealthier suburban districts, municipal taxes alone could not adequately fund education in those municipalities. The Court then required the state to supplement funding in the most overburdened districts.

However, the state is now trying to change the basic funding structure that has been in place since the Abbott II decision to make overburdened municipalities pay for more education costs themselves. The brief submitted today on behalf of the Urban Mayors' Association explains that the problem of "municipal overburden" still exists just as it did when Abbott II was decided. In fact, the current high rate of home foreclosures and tax abatements in cities has made the burden worse because these circumstances affect property values and property taxes disproportionately in urban areas.

"The communities that are already the most burdened are the ones who will suffer even more from the state's changes," said Emily Goldberg of the Seton Hall Center for Social Justice. "The Abbott districts must spend significantly more than other districts on municipal services like fire and police, while at the same time their property values are lower. Residents of the Abbott districts therefore already pay higher taxes than most other residents in New Jersey."

The ACLU-NJ and Urban Mayor's brief can be found here.

Categories: Student & Youth Rights Poverty Rights Discrimination

ACLU-NJ Ensures Bird Store Protest Can Take Flight

April 12, 2008

Burlington, NJ - The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey yesterday beat back a lawsuit from a Burlington bird store that sued three animal rights organizations in an effort to block them from gathering this Saturday, April 12, in front of the store. Bird Paradise also sued the City of Burlington, which had approved the gathering.

"We were surprised at the lengths Bird Paradise went to try to silence us," said Rachel Ogden, the founder of Reach Out for Animal Rights, one of the organizations protesting the store. "Fortunately, it won't be a silent spring, but springtime for the First Amendment."

Yesterday Bird Paradise agreed to have the case withdrawn or dismissed, and today the New Jersey Department of Transportation approved a permit for the demonstration. The gathering, to protest the practice of selling and keeping captive birds as pets, will take place as planned Saturday, from 2:30 to 4:30 p.m., in front of Bird Paradise on Route 130.

"The City makes the determination of whether to allow a demonstration, consistent with free speech policies," said ACLU-NJ Legal Director Ed Barocas, who represented Reach Out for Animal Rights, Mobilization for Animals and the New York Bird Club in the suit. "A company can't independently sue to squelch public speech simply because it doesn't like what people are saying."

The case was captioned Animals Etc., Inc. d/b/a Bird Paradise v. New York Bird Club, et al. The organizations will gather Saturday from 2:30 to 4:30 p.m. in front of the Bird Paradise store on 551 Route 130 South.

Categories: Free Speech

Evidence Shows DOC Engaged in Witness Tampering and Retaliation

March 26, 2008

TRENTON - The American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of New Jersey filed court papers today requesting that the New Jersey Superior Court impose sanctions against the New Jersey Department of Corrections (DOC) for witness tampering, official misconduct and violations of court rules. The ACLU's motion for sanctions charges that the DOC obtained false and misleading statements from women prisoners about conditions in the prison in an attempt to defend the prison against claims of inhumane treatment. A female prisoner who exposed the DOC's misconduct reports being beaten as a result.

"Witness tampering is a serious criminal act," said Ed Barocas, ACLU of New Jersey Legal Director. "The Mercer County Prosecutor should immediately investigate the allegations of abuse of power by DOC personnel and attempted fraud on the court."

The ACLU asserts that James Drumm, Assistant Administrator of the New Jersey State Prison, offered female prisoners reductions in their disciplinary sentences in exchange for making false statements describing women's prison conditions in the New Jersey State Prison (NJSP) - a men's supermax prison - as better than they were. The statements were obtained from women prisoners held in NJSP's women's disciplinary segregation unit but described conditions in a different part of the prison where these women did not even reside. DOC officials then introduced the women's statements in court. After one prisoner, Kareema Thomas, disclosed what had occurred to the ACLU, she was beaten by a prison guard, according to the sworn statements of Thomas and three other women prisoners.

This is the latest chapter in Jones v Hayman, an ACLU class action lawsuit against the DOC challenging the improper transfer of a group of women to the men's prison and subjecting them to inhumane and virtual lock-down conditions. On February 8, 2008, the Department of Corrections offered into evidence in that case a letter written by Thomas as proof that conditions for the transferred women prisoners were adequate, even though she had never seen the unit in which the transferred women are held.

Although most women prisoners in New Jersey are confined in the Edna Mahan Correctional Facility in Clinton, women subject to "disciplinary segregation" have for years been held in a section of New Jersey State Prison known as unit "1FF." The ACLU clients who were transferred to the men's prison, however, are being held in a separate unit called "1EE." Furthermore, none of the women in 1EE were transferred for violating prison rules - the usual criteria for disciplinary segregation - but were transferred arbitrarily to the men's prison without justification.

"Mr. Drumm made it sound like if I wrote him a letter saying certain things, my time in segregation would be cut," Thomas said in her sworn statement. Thomas' account was corroborated by another woman prisoner to whom Drumm made the same offer.

Thomas alleges she was brutally beaten by a prison guard the day after she met with ACLU attorneys to tell her story, raising questions about whether the beating was retaliatory. Thomas says that during the beating, the guard said, "You have a big mouth" and called her a "nigger with no home training." Thomas also alleges that, following the beating, Drumm told her, "You're causing problems in my institution," and that she should "stop causing trouble."

In addition to seeking sanctions against the Department of Corrections for witness tampering and retaliation, the ACLU also charges that prison officials violated court rules by conducting psychiatric examinations of the women the ACLU represents without first notifying their attorneys, and under the guise of the examinations, extracted information from the women about the case. The ACLU's request for sanctions also presents evidence of prison officials regularly reading confidential attorney-client correspondence and listening in on prisoners' phone calls to lawyers.

"The Department of Corrections is taking a scorched earth approach to the civil rights lawsuit brought by these women prisoners," said Mie Lewis, the ACLU's lead counsel in the case. "The women deserve a fair hearing of their claims, and that means the Department has to obey the law and court rules."

Sanctions sought by the ACLU include striking from the record all of the unlawfully obtained evidence; reassignment of the guard who allegedly beat Thomas; a ban on further evidence-gathering by James Drumm; and permission for the ACLU to further investigate the Department's misconduct.

A hearing in the New Jersey Superior Court is scheduled for April 11, 2008.

Attorneys on the case are Lewis and Lenora Lapidus from the ACLU Women's Rights Project and Barocas from the ACLU of New Jersey.

The sanctions brief and more information on the case are available online at:http://tinyurl.com/39kkfs

Categories: Prisons

ACLU-NJ Chides Konica for Stripping Relocated NJ Couple's Benefits

March 24, 2008

Newark, NJ - Seeking to maintain health insurance for a 9/11 survivor, the American Civil Liberties Union today sent a demand letter to the New Jersey offices of Konica Minolta Business Solutions U.S.A., Inc. (KMBS) urging the company to interpret its policy on domestic partner health insurance so that more employees will have access to the insurance. KMBS currently interprets its policy as requiring employees to re-register as domestic partners with the state every time that they move, even though many states have no way for same-sex partners to do so.

"I'm still working at the same company, doing the same job. Why shouldn't I be able to cover my partner in Idaho like I did in New Jersey? This would never happen to a married couple," said Ralph Martinelli. "Konica wants everyone to think they care about their gay employees, but the way Konica is interpreting its policy is so restrictive that many employees are shut out of the coverage."

Martinelli, a district sales manager for KMBS, where he has worked for five years, was told that he would not be able to continue covering his partner when the couple moved from New Jersey to Idaho last year because there is no domestic partner registry in Idaho. Martinelli and his partner, Robert Ryan, have been registered domestic partners in New Jersey since 2005, and KMBS allowed Martinelli to cover Ryan when the couple lived in New Jersey.

The couple has been paying for COBRA coverage for Ryan since his insurance was cut off in October, 2007, but that coverage is very expensive and ends after 18 months -- in March of 2009. Ryan is working as a seasonal tax preparer and is looking for a full-time position. While he has recovered mostly from the trauma of being in the World Trade Center on 9/11, he still has mental and physical health needs that require regular medical care and expensive medications. Due to the cost of medical insurance, he may have to go without the care he requires if Konica Minolta continues to prevent Martinelli from extending benefits to his partner.

Typically, companies that wish to offer domestic partnership benefits to employees living in states that do not recognize same-sex relationships either accept a marriage, civil union or domestic partnership certificate from another state, or have the employee submit an affidavit attesting to the partnership.

"Konica Minolta wants all the good will that comes with providing domestic partner insurance, but they clearly don't want to have to provide the benefits. Otherwise they would never be interpreting its policy in such a restrictive way," said Jack Van Valkenburgh, Executive Director of the ACLU of Idaho. "Companies have been providing domestic partner coverage for many years now. The only possible reason for interpreting the policy the way that Konica does is to make it harder for employees to be able to provide coverage for their partners."

Martinelli and Ryan moved to Idaho so that Ryan, who experienced mental health trauma as a survivor of the attacks of September 11th, 2001, could find some relief away from the New York metropolitan area. Before he met Martinelli, Ryan managed the insurance licensing division at Morgan Stanley, and was in his office on the 74th floor of the South Tower of the World Trade Center when the first airplane struck the North Tower. While he was evacuating, Ryan became separated from the employees he supervised, and later was trampled by a crowd after the second airplane hit his office building, only four floors above where he was working that morning. After the attack he was unable to work due to the trauma, went on disability for one year, and spent his retirement savings to stay afloat. He met Martinelli in 2004. The two lived in New Jersey and then moved to Idaho, which they enjoy because of its natural beauty and its distance from constant reminders of that traumatic day.

Ed Barocas, Legal Director the ACLU of New Jersey, said, "Underlying all of this is the confusion and mistrust engendered by terms like 'civil union' and 'domestic partnership' as opposed to 'marriage.' Same-sex couples are asked to prove that their relationships aren't imaginary every time they move, and employers take advantage of the lack of uniformity to treat people unfairly."

The couple is represented by Sharon McGowan, Staff Attorney for the ACLU Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Project, and Teresa Renaker of the firm Lewis, Feinberg, Lee, Renaker, & Jackson of Oakland, California.

Categories: Gay & Lesbian Rights

ACLU Sues Newark For Free Speech Violations

February 19, 2008

Photo by Jon Levine

Newark - Today the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey filed suit against the City of Newark for ongoing free speech violations relating to a requirement that people must buy liability insurance in order to hold free speech protests in Newark.

"We just want people to have the right to protest in Newark without facing unconstitutional barriers," says Bennet Zurofsky of Reitman Parsonnet, serving as cooperating attorney for the ACLU-NJ. "We're tired of going round and round on this; the city needs to take free speech rights seriously, fix their forms and train their staff."

The ACLU-NJ first brought the issue to court in 2004 when the City required the Peoples Organization for Progress (POP) and New Jersey Peace Action to obtain $1,000,000 in liability insurance in order to receive a permit to hold a demonstration. The Superior Court of New Jersey, Essex County, ruled in the ACLU-NJ's favor, with Newark signing a December 2004 Consent Order stating it would not enforce any insurance requirements.

Since then, Newark has continued to include an insurance requirement on its permit application form and failed to train personnel that insurance requirements don't apply to permits for free speech activities.

After three years of trying to persuade Newark to change its forms and train its personnel, and after having to intercede on numerous occasions to obtain approval for applicants who did not have insurance (and whose permit applications were delayed or denied because of lack of insurance), the ACLU-NJ has no option but to file in court to enforce the Consent Order.

"It's frustrating to see free speech rights disregarded by the city," says ACLU-NJ Legal Director Ed Barocas. "Instead of wasting time and money to keep an unconstitutional policy in place Newark should encourage free speech activities in the city."

Insurance requirements are a standard, albeit patently unconstitutional, government tactic for squelching unwelcome speech. Newark is one of many cities forced to abandon the requirement.

The case is captioned POP v. City of Newark.

This is the third First Amendment action the ACLU-NJ has taken against the City in the past month. On January 23, 2008 the ACLU-NJ filed suit against Newark for violating the free speech and press rights of Brazilian Voice editor Roberto Lima (Lima v. Newark Police Department). On January 30, 2008 the ACLU-NJ moved to join a federal lawsuit filed against the City of Newark for disciplining a police officer who anonymously posted a message on a website that was critical of the Newark Police Department (Wohltman v. The City of Newark).

Voting Irregularities Widespread in New Jersey

February 07, 2008

Newark - New Jerseyans from across the state headed to the polls to participate in New Jersey's first Super Tuesday presidential primary, but not all citizens were able to cast ballots; among the many who reportedly experienced failures of New Jersey's voting systems was Governor Corzine himself.

"New Jersey has a host of election system problems that have curtailed democratic rights today, and in other recent elections" said Anne Barron, coordinator of the ACLU-NJ's Election Protection efforts. "In the face of numerous irregularities and problems at the polls, the state and county election offices offered little. Our calls to their hotlines went unanswered."

The ACLU-NJ and the League of Women Voters of New Jersey established a voter protection hotline for voters to speak with trained poll monitors and to request volunteer lawyers that could help challenge an election judge's denial of voting rights at the poll. Citizens reported numerous irregularities through this hotline, including:

Voters not offered provisional ballots;
Difficulty physically accessing voting site;
Machines not operable;
Emergency ballots not provided;
Numerous people registered as Democrats but listed in the statewide database as Republicans and prohibited from voting as Democrats;
County elections offices and the State AG being unreachable by phone; and
Unhelpful and untrained poll workers.

The problem of inoperable machines apparently affected Governor Corzine who reportedly could not vote at his polling place, the Hoboken Fire Department Engine Company No. 2. Two voting machines didn't work for about 45 minutes, while he and other voters were turned away. By law, these voters should have been offered the opportunity to cast an emergency ballot, but they were not. The Governor was forced to go to another polling place.

When both advocates and members of the press called the Hudson County Superintendent of Elections to ask about Gov. Corzine's experience, staff members hung up on them.

"In light of these issues, it's even more appalling that the State has restricted groups like the ACLU, the League of Women Voters and the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund from providing non-partisan information and finding out if the voters had any difficulties at the polls" said Deborah Jacobs, ACLU-NJ Executive Director.

The ACLU-NJ is in court challenging Attorney General Anne Milgram's directive preventing advocates from distributing voters' rights cards within the 100-feet of the polling site.

"While we understand the need to restrict electioneering at the polls, our Voter Protection cards are well-intentioned and simply provide basic information, such as reminding citizens that they can immediately appeal to a judge if an election official does not allow them to vote," said Jacobs.

Advocates for voting rights and democracy have urged the State to address its elections failures since the passage of the Help America Vote Act. Concerns have consistently fallen on deaf ears, or been resolved in a manner that does not promote voting rights and democracy.

"Now that Governor Corzine himself has experienced the failures of New Jersey's election system, perhaps the state will take our concerns more seriously," said Jacobs. "After all, fair voting systems are like a seatbelt of democracy-they secure it."

Categories: Elections & Voting

Election Protection Effort Launched to Assist Voters in Presidential Primary

February 04, 2008

Newark, N.J. -- The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey and the League of Women Voters of New Jersey will provide assistance to voters as they go to the polls on February 5th to vote in New Jersey's presidential primary.

"New Jersey voters deserve an efficient and accessible election system," said Anne Barron, coordinator of the Election Protection effort. "In light of New Jersey's record of voting rights failures, poll monitoring and advocacy by outside groups is essential."

Trained poll monitors will be on hand to assist voters at many polls and provide volunteer lawyers to help voters who want to challenge denials of their voting rights in front of an election judge. Citizens experiencing problems can call VOTEline at 1-800-792-VOTE (8683).

Many citizens struggle to get even basic information about elections and voting in New Jersey. One resident recently contacted the Division of Elections to find out how an undeclared voter chooses a party at the polls, and was transferred from one official to another, receiving no answer to this simple factual question.

"The reluctance of election officials to answer questions even about voting procedures illustrates the need for advocacy on election day," said the League's President, Anne Maiese. "If we care about democracy, then we must document and analyze these problems and fight for better laws and systems to ensure integrity at the polls."

The League's VOTEline helps fill the void for the public, handling thousands of callers seeking information about voting, elections and the political process. Maiese also reports that voter interest in the Primary is high, noting that the VOTELine calls swelled appreciably after the Iowa caucuses last month, with many asking about voter registration and change of party procedures.

Unfortunately, efforts to monitor election problems continue to be hampered by the state's refusal to allow poll monitors access to poll entrances. The ACLU-NJ has sued the State over the State Attorney General's Prohibition on non-partisan, non-electioneering free speech activities within 100 feet of a polling place.

Since the 2004 elections, the ACLU-NJ has documented and analyzed a myriad of voting rights problems and provided this information and recommendations for improvement to the New Jersey Office of the Attorney General. Problems include incomplete voter rolls, denial of language assistance, lack of sufficient provisional and emergency ballots and electronic machine problems.

Categories: Elections & Voting

ACLU-NJ Seeks to Join Free Speech Lawsuit Against Newark

January 29, 2008

NEWARK, NJ -- The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey (ACLU-NJ) today moved to join a federal lawsuit filed against the City of Newark for disciplining a police officer who anonymously posted a message on a website that was critical of the Newark Police Department. The lawsuit also challenges the action of Newark police in improperly obtaining a subpoena to require an Internet Service Provider to turn over the identity of the then-anonymous web poster.

"Public employees have the right to speak openly about matters of public concern, and the right to do so anonymously on the web, if they choose" said ACLU-NJ Legal Director Ed Barocas. "In this case, the Newark Police Department violated both of those rights."

In February of 2006, the plaintiff in the case, Officer Louis Wohltman, anonymously posted messages about the integrity and competence of the Newark police department on http://www.newarkspeaks.com a website on which people engage in dialogue about local issues.

Due to the fact that Newark Police Department supervisors apparently disliked the content of the anonymous web messages they went to great -- and ultimately illegal -- lengths to uncover the identity of the web poster. Despite the fact that what Wohltman wrote did not amount to an illegal threat, the police department improperly used the criminal grand jury subpoena process to obtain Wohltman's identity. Then, the department suspended Wohltman for nine months without pay for making the critical statements.

This is the second time in as many weeks that the ACLU-NJ has become involved in a case in which the Newark Police Department allegedly tried to suppress citizens' First Amendment rights. Last week, the ACLU-NJ, along with the Seton Hall Center for Social Justice, filed a lawsuit (Lima v. Newark Police Department) against the Newark Police Department on behalf of newspaper editor Roberto Lima, whom police arrested and held in custody until he relinquished photos his staff took of a dead body found in a Newark alleyway.

The case involving Officer Louis Wohltman is captioned Wohltman v. The City of Newark, et al., and was filed in the United States District Court in Newark. The ACLU-NJ's filing today is to request permission to participate in the case as amicus curiae ("friend-of-the-court") and to provide the court with the legal context in which to analyze the facts of the case.

Louis Wohltman is directly represented by Frank Corrado of Barry, Corrado, Grassi & Gibson, as well as by Rubin Sinins of Javerbaum Wurgaft Hicks Kahn Wikstrom & Sinins.

Categories: Privacy Free Speech

Newark Police Sued for Unlawful Arrest of Newspaper Publisher

January 22, 2008

Roberto Lima and Cooperating Attorney Baher Azmy

NEWARK, N.J. -- The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey and the Seton Hall Center for Social Justice filed a lawsuit today against the Newark Police Department on behalf of newspaper editor Roberto Lima, whom police arrested and held in custody until he relinquished photos his staff took of a dead body found in a Newark alleyway.

"I offered Newark police the original photographs as long as I could keep copies, but they handcuffed me to a bench until I agreed to give them all copies and originals," said Lima, publisher of the Newark-based Brazilian Voice newspaper. "They ordered me not to publish the pictures, but freedom of the press means that it's my choice, not the Newark Police Department's."

On September 6, 2007, a Brazilian Voice photographer discovered a dead body in the Ironbound section of Newark. Lima and his photographer reported the body to the Newark Police and directed officers to the scene. In the course of conversations with the police, Lima offered to turn over copies of pictures his photographer took of the site.

However, Deputy Chief Samuel DeMaio arrived at the scene and ordered another officer to seize Lima's camera. He also ordered Lima to turn over all copies and the originals of his pictures. Deputy Chief DeMaio told Lima, "You're not printing any of this." Lima then voluntarily went to the police station to fill out a report. After finishing the report, Lima asked for his camera back. In response, Lima was told that he would be immediately arrested unless he turned over every copy and original of the pictures. Lima refused and was arrested.

While in custody, Lima, who has deep ties in the community, contacted Councilman Augusto Amador by phone for help. Amador apparently made inquiries on his behalf, including a conversation with Newark Police Director Garry McCarthy, to no avail.

Lima remained handcuffed to a bench until he finally agreed to turn over all copies of the photos. After removing Lima's handcuffs, Detective Lydell James followed Lima back to his office and seized additional pictures. "If freedom of the press means anything, it's that police cannot arrest innocent journalists to suppress stories embarrassing to them," said Professor Baher Azmy who, along with Scott Michelman, both of the Seton Hall Center for Social Justice, represent Lima as cooperating attorneys for the ACLU-NJ. "The American people are entitled to a press that is free to report the whole truth, without intimidation or censorship by the police.

In addition to constitutional claims, the lawsuit invokes a New Jersey law that specifically ensures the right of journalists to be free from improper searches and seizures of their documentary materials by local law enforcement.

"I'm standing up for my constitutional rights, as well as the rights of others," said Lima. "Small papers like mine need to be free from police intimidation in order to do their job and keep their communities informed. If the Newark Police feel they can bully me like they did, I fear what they might do to others."

On January 4, 2008, the ACLU-NJ and Seton Hall sent the City of Newark a letter setting forth their demands and requesting an amicable resolution to the matter. The City did not respond.

The case is captioned Roberto Lima v. Newark Police Department, et al. and was filed in the United States District Court in Newark.

The September 6, 2007, incident that gave rise to the current lawsuit also gave rise to a separate but related complaint against the Newark Police Department. Upon meeting Lima and the photographer at the scene, Deputy Chief DeMaio's first question was about the immigration status of the Brazilian Voice photographer. Less than three weeks earlier, Attorney General Anne Milgram issued a directive that officers should not ask about the immigration status of victims or witnesses to crimes, only of persons arrested for crimes. One reason for this decision was that "public safety suffers if individuals believe they cannot come forward to report crime or cooperate with law enforcement" as the photographer did here. The Attorney General's Office investigated the photographer's complaint and found that Deputy Chief DeMaio's conduct violated the Directive. The Attorney General called for Newark Police Department to "evaluate appropriate disciplinary action as well as the training that will be required for the Newark Police on this issue."

Category: Uncategorized

ACLU-NJ Challenges Election Day Free Speech Ban

December 26, 2007

NEWARK, N.J. -- The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey today Filed a Motion (1.2mb PDF) seeking to stop the State Attorney General from enforcing her prohibition on free speech activities within 100 feet of a polling place, including handing out voter rights cards.

"Free speech and voting rights are core American values," said ACLU-NJ Executive Director Deborah Jacobs. "The Attorney General's decision to restrict such democratic activities on Election Day goes against everything this country stands for and aspires to."

In a July 18, 2007 letter, Attorney General Anne Milgram banned all contact with voters entering polling sites and all contact, except "exit polling," with people leaving polling sites. The Attorney General's Directive (282k PDF) also requires media representatives or representatives of a public interest groups to obtain advance approval from their county Board of Elections to conduct exit polling, and also provide the Board with two weeks notice of the exact locations where exit polling will take place, and the names of each person conducting the polls.

"The Attorney General's Directive (282k PDF) goes far beyond any restriction contemplated by our state legislature, and violates citizens' freedom of speech," said Frank Corrado of Barry, Corrado, Grassi & Gibson in Wildwood, NJ, who represents the ACLU-NJ in the case. "Our state laws restrict 'electioneering' for a candidate or public question, and prohibit actions that would obstruct or interfere with voters entering or exiting polling sites, but handing out voter rights cards does not fall into any of those categories. The Attorney General has clearly exceeded her authority."

In previous elections, the ACLU-NJ, in conjunction with other public interest organizations, organized volunteers to hand out voter rights cards on election days to inform individuals of their rights at the polls. The voter rights cards provide general information and contain no mention of any individual running for office or any public question to be voted upon. Since 2005, ACLU-NJ volunteers who sought to hand out voter rights cards within 100 feet of polling sites were threatened with arrest and were forced to move over 100 feet away, where they had little access to voters. At the times these threats were made, there was no official Attorney General rule that banned the volunteers' activity.

The ACLU-NJ seeks to monitor the polls and hand out voter rights cards to voters during the February 5, 2008, primary election.

The ACLU-NJ initially challenged the Attorney General's decision by filing an appeal in court on October 1, 2007. The lawsuit claims that the Attorney General has exceeded her authority by banning activity that the legislature allows; that her directive conflicts with state laws; and that the ban on handing out voter rights cards and engaging in other non-electioneering speech activities violates the free speech protections of the New Jersey Constitution. Today's action seeks to suspend The Attorney General's Directive (282k PDF) so that free speech activities may take place on primary day.

The case is captioned In re: Attorney General Directive on Exit Polling Issued July 18, 2007.

Categories: Free Speech Elections & Voting

New Jersey Rejects Inhumane and Ineffective Death Penalty

December 17, 2007

Newark, NJ - The ACLU-NJ praised lawmakers today as Governor Jon Corzine signed a measure to end capital punishment in the state of New Jersey. The bill, which passed the state legislature last week with bipartisan majorities, replaces the death penalty with life imprisonment without possibility of parole. New Jersey is the first state since 1965 to legislatively repeal the death penalty.

"The death penalty is an archaic, inhumane and ineffective practice that most nations abandoned long ago" says ACLU-NJ Executive Director Deborah Jacobs. "It has proven fundamentally unfair and discriminatory, too often resulting in the execution of innocent people."

The bill was introduced in November after the New Jersey Death Penalty Study Commission concluded that capital punishment does not deter crime. The Commission found that capital punishment is "inconsistent with evolving standards of decency."

In addition to lawmakers, Jacobs acknowledged the tireless work of death penalty opponents, including the remarkable leadership of the New Jersey Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty, and ACLU members from across New Jersey who lobbied their representatives in support of abolishment.

Gov. Corzine specifically thanked the ACLU for its dedication to this important issue. "I also want to thank advocacy groups, particularly . . . the ACLU and there are many other groups that joined in this process and I am eternally grateful," said Corzine.

According to the Death Penalty Information Center, which opposes capital punishment, New Jersey joins 13 states and the District of Columbia that do not use execution as a means of punishment.

"This is historic progress towards the end this cruel and futile punishment," says Jacobs. "We hope it will generate momentum in the campaign to end capital punishment nationwide."

The legislation (S171/A3716) was sponsored in the Senate by Senator Raymond J. Lesniak (D-Union), Senator Robert J. Martin (R-Morris/Passaic), Senator Shirley K. Turner (D-Mercer) and Senator Nia H. Gill (D-Essex/Passaic). It was sponsored in the Assembly by Assemblyman Wilfredo Caraballo (D-Essex/Union), Assemblyman Christopher Bateman (R-Morris/Somerset), Assemblyman Gordon M. Johnson (D-Bergen), Assemblywoman Valerie Vainieri Huttle (D-Bergen) and Assemblywoman Nilsa Cruz-Perez (D-Camden/Gloucester).

Categories: Poverty Rights Police Practices Discrimination Criminal Justice

ACLU Challenges Placement of Women in Men's Prison

December 11, 2007

NEWARK - In dual actions challenging the incarceration of 40 women in a men's maximum security prison, the American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of New Jersey filed a civil rights lawsuit and joined more than a dozen other advocacy organizations in support of the women at a demonstration in front of the prison.

"For over half a year these women have been subjected to cruel and inhumane conditions," said Ed Barocas, ACLU of New Jersey Legal Director. "This is yet another consequence of the over-incarceration in our state that we desperately need to address."

In March 2007, the Department of Corrections arbitrarily pulled 40 women out of the Edna Mahan Correctional Facility, New Jersey's only women's prison, and put them in lock-down conditions in New Jersey State Prison, the highest-security men's prison in the state. Unlike other prisoners incarcerated for similar crimes at Edna Mahan and the New Jersey State Prison, the 40 women are confined in their cells for up to 22 hours a day and denied basic movement within the prison. They are also deprived of access to the prison law library and the prison school. When given time outdoors, the women are barred from the prison's main yard and placed instead in a small pen overlooked by the men's yard, where they are subjected to catcalls and harassment. The women prisoners are also denied access to basic hygiene, including sufficient toilet paper and sanitary napkins, and cannot send their undergarments to be washed because they will be stolen by the male prisoners who do the laundry.

The ACLU's lawsuit charges, that by subjecting the women prisoners to more repressive conditions than male prisoners in the same prison, the Department of Corrections is violating the state constitution's guarantee of equal protection and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination. The lawsuit also alleges that in several ways the department's treatment of the women prisoners is so atrocious that it violates the Constitution's ban against cruel and unusual punishment.

"The women prisoners are getting a raw deal just because they're women," said Mie Lewis, a staff attorney with the ACLU Women's Rights Project and lead counsel in the case. "The Department of Corrections has a moral and legal duty to provide these women with humane conditions and a chance at rehabilitation."

The ACLU has attempted since October to negotiate with the Department of Corrections for relief for the women prisoners but the department has refused even to discuss transferring the women to an appropriate custodial environment or to discuss its overall plan for women in the system.

"The failure of the state to plan for the number of women being imprisoned and ensure their health, safety and appropriate level of confinement has caused great suffering and harm," said Jean Ross, a member of the People's Organization for Progress, the group that brought the issue to the attention of the ACLU on behalf of the women prisoners.

New Jersey, like many other states, incarcerates an ever growing proportion of women with grossly inadequate planning. Between 1977 and 2004, the number of women in prison in New Jersey grew by 717 percent to a total of 1,470.

Today's demonstration was organized in partnership with the Women's Committee of the New Jersey Prison Justice Coalition, the People's Organization for Progress, National Organization for Women, American Friends Service Committee Prison Watch Project, Women Who Never Give Up, Women in Support of the Million Man March, Elizabeth Branch NAACP, Sagewriters, the Anti-Lynching Campaign, Black Cops Against Police Brutality, Redeem-Her, Doorway to Hope, the Million Women March of Essex County, United Muslim Inc. Prison Ministry, Newark Pride Alliance, the Center for Family, Community and Social Justice, and Lutheran Office of Governmental Ministry in New Jersey.

Attorneys on the case are Lewis and Lenora Lapidus from the ACLU Women's Rights Project and Barocas from the ACLU of New Jersey.

Categories: Prisons Discrimination Criminal Justice

ACLU-NJ Seeks Dismissal of Suit to Suppress Public Records

November 25, 2007

NEWARK, N.J. -- The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey filed a motion to dismiss today in an action brought against it by the Evesham Township School District in response to the ACLU-NJ's request for public records relating to a controversy over whether the district should include as part of its curriculum a film that acknowledges gay family life.

"A public agency suing community members for exercising their right to obtain public information is antithetical to the spirit of transparent democracy and letter of the law." said Jeanne LoCicero, ACLU-NJ Staff Attorney. "Evesham School District has no business hauling us into court over a public records request; they are attempting heavy-handed tactics to avoid accountability under the state's open public records laws."

On August 30, 2007, the ACLU-NJ requested public records, including e-mails to and from Evesham Board of Education members regarding the Board's consideration of the video "That's A Family!" The Board Members use private e-mail accounts to conduct board business. The District provided some of the documents, but took the position that e-mails on private e-mail accounts are not public records and refused to turn them over.

In its papers to the court, the ACLU-NJ argues that the state's open public records law, known as "OPRA", gives the public records requestor - and not the government entity - the right to choose if and how to challenge the denial of documents.

Simultaneous with its court filing, the ACLU has filed a Denial of Access Complaint with New Jersey's Government Records Council, the administrative agency authorized by statute to hear complaints against government entities who withhold documents.

"Open government is a central principle of democracy and lawsuits like this are used to intimidate people from seeking information that they have a right to," said LoCicero. "Taxpayers in Evesham pay an additional price - resources from their school budget are being wasted with this meritless litigation."

The case is captioned Evesham Towship Board of Education v. American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey and was filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey in Burlington County. Information about the ACLU-NJ's work on open government is available online at: http://www.aclu-nj.org/theissues/opengovernment/

Categories: Open Government

ACLU-NJ Bestowing Highest Honor to Poritz

November 06, 2007

Chief Justice Poritz

New Brunswick, N.J. -- The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey will award its highest honor to Chief Justice Deborah Poritz tonight at its annual U.S. Supreme Court Briefing.

"Chief Justice Poritz has demonstrated a commitment to equality through her opinions on abortion rights and same sex marriage," said ACLU-NJ Executive Director Deborah Jacobs. "Although the ACLU has not always agreed with her positions, we recognize her thoughtful approach to constitutional rights."

Named after the founder of the ACLU, the Roger N. Baldwin award recognizes outstanding contributions to the preservation and promotion of civil liberties. In years past it has been awarded to national luminaries such as Justice William Brennan, Gloria Steinem and Cornel West, and New Jersey legal achievers such as Frank Askin, Ronald Chen and Larry Lustberg.

Poritz, nominated by former Governor Christine Todd Whitman, served as Attorney General of New Jersey from 1994 to 1996. Whitman appointed her Chief Justice for the New Jersey Supreme Court in 1996, a position she held until retirement in 2006. Poritz was the first woman to serve in both positions.

"I am honored to receive the Roger Baldwin Award from an organization I respect and admire." Said Poritz. "By raising issues that involve fundamental constitutional rights, the ACLU performs a critical function in our legal system."

In Planned Parenthood v. Farmer, brought by the ACLU, Poritz held that the Parental Notification for Abortion Act was an unconstitutional violation of equal protection because the state did not provide adequate justification for distinguishing between minors seeking an abortion and minors seeking other pregnancy related medical care.

In Lewis v. Harris, Poritz dissented from the majority of justices who ruled that the state could preclude same-sex couples from marriage so long as the state provides a parallel structure of rights. Poritz wrote: "We must not underestimate the power of language. Labels set people apart as surely as physical separation on a bus or in school facilities. Labels are used to perpetuate prejudice about differences that, in this case, are embedded in the law. By excluding same-sex couples from civil marriage, the State declares that it is legitimate to differentiate between their commitments and the commitments of heterosexual couples. Ultimately, the message is that what same-sex couples have is not as important or as significant as 'real' marriage, that such lesser relationships cannot have the name of marriage."

In addition to the presentation of the award to Poritz, the event will feature Steven Shapiro, Legal Director for the National ACLU, who will highlight critical civil liberties issues before the U.S. Supreme Court this term. The ACLU appears before the U.S. Supreme Court more than any other individual or organization aside from the U.S. government itself. With such a relationship, the ACLU has a unique perspective on the inner workings and the broad implications of the Court's actions.

Following Shapiro's presentation, both he and Poritz will field questions on the courts.

Categories: Additional Issues

ACLU Applauds Governor Corzine's Signing of Pharmacy Bill

November 02, 2007

TRENTON, N.J. -- The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey today applauded Governor Jon Corzine's decision to sign a bill into law that will help ensure women's ability to access birth control at the pharmacy. The bill, sponsored by Senator Fred Madden and Assemblywoman Linda Stender, makes New Jersey one of a handful of states to protect patient's ability to access prescriptions at the pharmacy.

"Today's law strikes an important balance between protecting patient's health and religious freedom," said Deborah Jacobs, executive director of the ACLU-NJ.

The pharmacy access law requires pharmacies to fill prescriptions for in-stock drugs or devices without undue delay, despite the sincerely held moral, philosophical or religious beliefs of an individual pharmacist. Pharmacies employing pharmacists who object to filling prescriptions can accommodate the objection so long as the pharmacy ensures that customers receive their prescriptions, including birth control, at the pharmacy without undue delay.

"Access to safe and effective contraception is a central component of basic health care for women," said Jacobs. "This law will go a long way toward ending sex discrimination at the pharmacy."

The ACLU's long-held advocacy for both reproductive rights and religious liberty uniquely positions the organization to address this issue. In April, the ACLU released a report, "Religious Refusals and Reproductive Rights: Accessing Birth Control at the Pharmacy," which examines legal questions raised when a pharmacist or pharmacy refuses to provide contraception based on a religious objection.

The report is available online at: http://tinyurl.com/2pms2q

Categories: Reproductive Freedom Religious Freedom Privacy

ACLU-NJ and Bar Foundation Release New Students' Rights Handbook

October 12, 2007

New Brunswick - The American Civil Liberties Union and New Jersey State Bar Foundation announced today the release of a revised and expanded version of their publication, Students' Rights Handbook: A Guide for Public School Students in New Jersey. The handbook, a copy of which is being mailed to every school district in New Jersey, describes student rights when it comes to discipline, religious freedom, privacy, and freedom of expression, among other topics.

"More than thirty years ago, the Supreme Court ruled that students do not 'shed their rights at the schoolhouse gates,'" said Bar Foundation President Mary Ellen Tully. "We've published this guide so that students and their families can better understand what those rights are. As our world changes and the law evolves, we want to keep students and parents current on their constitutional rights in the school environment."

Keeping students and the adults that deal with them informed of students' rights is the goal of the Students' Rights Handbook. Created and written by the ACLU-NJ, the booklet is geared to high school students. The revised copy adds new topics that have developed in New Jersey in recent years, such as bullying and military recruiting. It also updates sections on student drug testing and free speech on the Internet.

"It is critical that students know their rights so that they may fully exercise them and stand up for themselves," said Deborah Jacobs, Executive Director of the ACLU-NJ. "We've found this guide to be an important resource for people - including teachers and administrators - who are concerned about students' rights."

Free copies of the Students' Rights Handbook are available through the New Jersey State Bar Foundation in single copies and bulk orders and can be ordered at http://www.njsbf.org or by calling 1-800-FREE LAW.

Categories: Student & Youth Rights

ACLU Welcomes Representative Holt's Stand on the Fourth Amendment

October 12, 2007

Washington, DC - Today the American Civil Liberties Union welcomed proposed legislation from Representative Rush Holt (D-NJ) that would protect vital constitutional rights. The bill, "The FISA Modernization Bill of 2007," counters the Democratic leadership's "RESTORE Act," also introduced today. Both bills are attempting to fix the disastrous "Protect America Act" that was rushed through Congress in August and rubberstamped the administration's warrantless wiretapping program. The ACLU believes that Rep. Holt's bill is constitutional because, unlike the RESTORE Act, it does not include so-called basket warrants for American communications. Blanket warrants do not require individualized suspicion and are tantamount to no warrant at all.

The following can be attributed to Caroline Fredrickson, director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office:

"Representative Holt's bill addresses the administration's intelligence concerns without giving up any ground on civil liberties. It protects privacy rights by limiting the scope of surveillance to foreigners communicating with other foreigners and also demanding the destruction of any American information inadvertently obtained during intelligence gathering.

"This bill does nothing to impede government agencies working to keep us safe and does everything to restore the rights that were disregarded by the Protect America Act. In fact, it is a direct and constitutional answer to the Protect America Act. This bill ultimately proves that we can protect our country from threat and keep the Fourth Amendment intact. If it must pass something, Congress should use Representative Holt's bill as it moves forward on fixing the mistake of the Protect America Act."

To read more about the ACLU's work on FISA, go to: http://www.aclu.org/fisa

Categories: Police Practices Privacy

ACLU-NJ Praises Court Decision Protecting Reproductive Freedom, Free Speech

September 12, 2007

TRENTON, NJ - The American Civil Liberties Union today applauded a decision by the New Jersey Supreme Court dismissing a medical malpractice lawsuit that could have improperly forced physicians to give a non-medical, value-laden speech to their patients before performing an abortion. The ACLU called the decision a victory for reproductive rights and free speech in New Jersey.

"We are pleased that the court dismissed this frivolous lawsuit, which had no basis in law or medicine," said Brigitte Amiri, a staff attorney with the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project. "This case was nothing more than an underhanded attempt to turn doctors into ideological mouthpieces and subject women to non-medical moral judgments."

In 1998, Rosa Acuna brought a medical malpractice lawsuit against a doctor in New Jersey, claiming that he had failed to properly inform her at the time of her abortion that the embryo was a "complete, separate, unique and irreplaceable human being" with whom she had "an existing relationship," and his failure to do so caused her emotional distress. According to court papers, Acuna, who had two children prior to her abortion, stated that at the time of her abortion she understood that she was pregnant and signed a form consenting to the procedure.

"Today's victory sends a message that New Jersey will not tolerate backdoor efforts to curtail reproductive rights or free speech," said Ed Barocas, Legal Director of the ACLU of New Jersey. "We will not allow the anti-choice lobby to force its moral or theological beliefs upon others and to intimidate doctors or women with lawsuits that are without merit."

In its unanimous decision, the court noted, "we know of no common law duty requiring a physician to instruct the woman that the embryo is an 'existing human being,' and suggesting that an abortion is tantamount to murder. There is not even remotely a consensus among New Jersey's medical community or citizenry that plaintiff's assertions are medical facts, as opposed to firmly held, moral philosophical, and religious beliefs."

Acuna's lawsuit is one of three instances where anti-choice foes have insisted that doctors must read a similar script to their patients prior to performing an abortion. A class-action medical malpractice lawsuit with similar claims was recently brought in Illinois, and in South Dakota, reproductive rights advocates are currently challenging a law that may require doctors to read language identical to that found in this case.

Today's decision by the New Jersey Supreme Court only reaches the issue of whether Acuna's malpractice case should go to a jury trial. Later this month, the U.S. Supreme Court will decide if it will consider a separate issue in the case regarding the legitimacy of a federal equal protection challenge involving New Jersey's wrongful death statute.

Today's case is Acuna v. Turkish (Docket No. 59, 525). Lawyers on the ACLU's friend-of-the-court brief include Amiri and Talcott Camp of the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project and Barocas of the ACLU of New Jersey.

Categories: Reproductive Freedom Free Speech

Morris County Court Rules in Favor of Tenants' Privacy

August 06, 2007

NEWARK, N.J. -- The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey today praised a decision issued Friday by Morris County Superior Court Judge B. Theodore Bozenelis that protects the privacy rights of tenants.

In the case, captioned Powder Mill Heights, et al., v. Township of Parsippany-Troy Hills, Judge Bozenelis struck down a Parsippany-Troy Hills ordinance that required landlords to turn over the names, Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers, places of employment and phone numbers of all tenants.

"The right to privacy in your home and control over your personal information are core principles enshrined in our federal and state constitutions," said Grayson Barber, a Princeton attorney who submitted the legal brief on behalf of the ACLU-NJ. "This is an especially important principle given significant concerns in recent years over identity theft."

Judge Bozenelis ruled that the ordinance violated tenants' privacy and due process rights and that, if the town was concerned about overcrowding, all that was necessary for town officials to obtain was the number of residents in each unit. This was the position advocated by the ACLU-NJ in a "friend-of-the-court" brief submitted in June 2007.

In its brief, the ACLU-NJ cited to a prior Appellate Division decision that struck down a similar measure in Belmar, N.J. In that decision, the court held that the town "does not need to know the names of tenants or their addresses or other personal information to enforce an occupancy limit."

Categories: Privacy

Bridgeton Settles Free Speech Lawsuit with ACLU-NJ

July 19, 2007

NEWARK, N.J. -- The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey and the Farmworkers' Support Committee announced today that the City of Bridgeton has agreed to settle a federal lawsuit brought by the groups.

The ACLU-NJ and the Farmworkers' Support Committee, also known as El Comité de Apoyo a los Trabajadores Agricolas, or CATA, filed a lawsuit on July 9, 2007, against Bridgeton for charging a fee of more than $1,500 for an immigrants rights march held on May 1.

In the settlement, Bridgeton agreed not to collect any fees for the May 1 march or impose any fees for marches or other free speech activities in the city's public forums under its existing ordinances and policies.

"We're pleased that the city backed off of its unjustifiable position," said Frank Corrado, who on behalf of the ACLU-NJ is the volunteer attorney for CATA. "It clearly didn't have the authority to impose such fees on free speech activities."

The city retained the right to adopt new ordinances that regulated such activities. CATA retained the right to challenge such an ordinance if they believe it to be unconstitutional or otherwise invalid.

"We will closely monitor any proposed ordinances to ensure that the city does not unfairly burden the rights of immigrants - or anyone - to engage in free speech activities," said Nelson Carrasquillo, CATA Executive Director.

The lawsuit, CATA v. Bridgeton, was filed in U.S. District Court in Camden.

More information on CATA is available at http://www.cata-farmworkers.org

Categories: Poverty Rights Immigrant Rights Free Speech

ACLU-NJ Tackles Racial Profiling in Turnpike Case

July 10, 2007

NEWARK, N.J. -- The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey today filed a lawsuit on behalf of Willie Nevius, an African American driver who was improperly stopped and searched on the New Jersey Turnpike.

"I felt humiliated by this experience," said Nevius, a 38-year-old man who currently resides in North Carolina. "I didn't do anything wrong, and there was nothing wrong with my car, so the police stopped me for only one reason: I am a black man."

As explained in the ACLU-NJ complaint, on the afternoon of December 9, 2006, Nevius was driving south on the New Jersey Turnpike from Middlesex County in his work van when he was stopped by state troopers.

When Nevius asked why he was stopped, a trooper told him he had an inoperative tail light, but would not then let Nevius examine the light. Numerous officers arrived and interrogated Nevius at length on issues unrelated to the stop -- such as questions about his van and his destination.

Without justification, the officers asked for consent to search his vehicle and, after the search began, they ignored Nevius' requests to stop the search. The officers then took apart the carpeting and interior of his van, riffled through his possessions and left them in disarray.

The search did not reveal contraband or evidence of any crime. After the search, Nevius checked the back of his car and saw that his tail lights were both working. When he mentioned this to the police officer, the officer laughed. He then issued Nevius a "warning" ticket for the alleged inoperative tail light.

"The rate of stops of African American drivers on portions of the New Jersey Turnpike are as high now as they were when New Jersey's attorney general first admitted that racial profiling was 'real, not imagined,'" said noted civil rights lawyer William Buckman of Moorestown, who represents Nevius pro bono for the ACLU-NJ.

"Despite the fact that the state police are already subject to a consent decree requiring federal monitoring, racial profiling continues in New Jersey," Buckman said. "This behavior will persist until we address the culture within the state police that allows these discriminatory actions to take place -- and until we have transparency so the public is getting all the facts."

The ACLU-NJ lawsuit challenges the stop itself, as well as other factors regarding the stop, including the alleged consent to search. Police officers cannot request consent to search unless they have a reasonable suspicion that there is evidence of a crime in the car. The ACLU-NJ also challenges the police officers' refusal to stop searching when Nevius asked them to, and how the search was conducted. These claims are based on the right under the federal and state constitutions of all people to equal treatment and to be free from unreasonable searches by the police, as well as rights under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination and the New Jersey Civil Rights Act.

Governor Jon Corzine in August 2006 established an Advisory Committee on Police Standards, which has held numerous hearings over the past year to address racial profiling and make recommendations. Buckman, as well as ACLU-NJ staff and clients, testified before the committee regarding the need for professional licensing and external oversight of both the State Police and local police departments.

The ACLU-NJ has been at the forefront of fighting against racial discrimination and in 2003 successfully represented 12 individuals who had been targeted based on skin color while driving on the New Jersey Turnpike.

The most recent lawsuit, Nevius v. New Jersey State Police, was filed in U.S. District Court in Camden.

Categories: Police Practices Discrimination

ACLU-NJ y CATA Demandan para Defender los Derechos a la Libre Expresión

July 10, 2007

Los oficiales locales impusieron una multa inconstitucional de mas
de $1.500 a CATA, los organizadores de esta marcha que ocurrió
el 1 de mayo del 2007 en Bridgeton, NJ. Foto de David Bacon

NEWARK, N.J. -- La Unión Americana de Libertades Civiles de Nueva Jersey (ACLU-NJ) y el Comité de Apoyo a los Trabajadores Agrícolas (CATA) y demandaron en el corte distrito federal a la ciudad de Bridgeton para cobrarles una tarifa de mas que $1,500 por una marcha por los derechos de los inmigrantes realizado el 1ero de mayo.

Esta tarifa se aproxima a un impuesto de usuario por la libertad de expresión y eso es inconstitucional," dijo Frank Corrado quien, de parte del ACLU-NJ, es el abogado voluntario para CATA. "Bridgeton es responsable para proveer policía y otros servicios gubernamentales para todo uso de sus calles publicas, incluyendo para marchas y desfiles. Imposición de estas tarifas significará que solo los ricos tendrán el derecho a expresarse, y nuestro Constitución agraciadamente lo prohíbe."

Este año, como el año pasado, CATA organizó una Marcha de Derechos de los Inmigrantes en Bridgeton para expresar apoyo para la reforma migratoria.

En 2006, la marcha de CATA no fue cobrada ninguna tarifa para policía o limpieza. Como el año pasado, CATA aplico por un permiso y trabajo con la policía y la ciudad para determinar la ruta. Ambos años, la marcha se realizo sin incidente alguno.

Pero, este año, Bridgeton demando una tarifa de $1,800 para la policía y un depósito de $200 para limpieza. Después de negociaciones entre CATA, la ACLU-NJ, y Bridgeton, la ciudad se acordó no requerir que las tarifas sean pagadas antes de la marcha, pero agrego que enviaría la cuenta a CATA después de la marcha.

Varias semanas después de la marcha del 1 de mayo, CATA recibió una carta de la ciudad solicitando pago para gastos "adicionales" de policía para la actividad, sumando a más de $1,500. CATA solicito que se retirara la cuenta, pero en una carta recibida el 12 de junio, 2007, la ciudad dijo que perseguiría exigencia de pago y más que continuaría a buscar tal reembolso en el futuro.

"No le encuentro el valor que lo usa para prohibir los derechos que tenemos todos los que vivimos en este gran país a la libre expresión." dijo Mariza Ibarra, miembro de la Junta Directiva de CATA y residente de Bridgeton, "...somos una parte vulnerable de la población y solo estamos luchando para obtener la dignidad de vivir en este mundo como Dios quiere y esta Nación pregona."

En su demanda legal, el ACLU-NJ, en representación de CATA, dijo que oficiales de Bridgeton practicaron "discreción arbitraria y ilimitada" en facturar a CATA para los gastos de la policía dado que la ciudad no tiene una ordenanza que autorice imponer tarifas para marchas o desfiles.

CATA origino en 1975 como un proyecto de Trabajadores Agrícolas de ACLU-NJ. Después, CATA se re-organizo independientemente como una organización propia de membresía de trabajadores migrantes que lucha para los derechos humanos de trabajadores migrantes y inmigrantes. Actualmente CATA tiene membresía extensa por el sur de New Jersey y un comité de líderes activos en Bridgeton que organizaron ambas marchas y otras actividades en la comunidad.

La demanda, CATA v. Bridgeton, fue sometida en la Corte Federal en Camden.

La queja esta disponible en línea a: http://www.aclu-nj.org

Más información de CATA esta disponible a: http://www.cata-farmworkers.org

Categories: Free Speech Poverty Rights Immigrant Rights

ACLU-NJ Challenges Arbitrary Police Fees for March

July 09, 2007

Local officials imposed an unconstitutional police fee of more than $1,500
on CATA, the organizers of this May 1, 2007 march in Bridgeton, N.J.
Photo by David Bacon

En Español

NEWARK, N.J. -- The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey and the Farmworkers' Support Committee today filed a lawsuit in federal district court against the City of Bridgeton for charging a fee of more than $1,500 for an immigrant rights March held on May 1.

"This fee amounts to a user's tax on free speech and that is unconstitutional," said Frank Corrado, who on behalf of the ACLU-NJ is the volunteer attorney for the Farmworkers' Support Committee, also known as El Comité de Apoyo a los Trabajadores Agricolas or CATA. "Bridgeton is responsible for providing police and other government services for all forms of use of its public streets, including marches or parades. Imposition of these fees will mean that only the wealthy will be afforded the right to speak out on issues, and our Constitution thankfully forbids that."

This year, as last year, CATA held an immigrant rights March on May 1 in Bridgeton to express support for immigration reform.

In 2006, CATA's march was not charged any police or cleanup fees. As it did last year, CATA this year applied for a permit and worked with the police and the city to determine the route. Both years, the march occurred without incident.

However, this year Bridgeton demanded a $1,800 police fee and a $200 cleanup deposit. After negotiations between CATA and Bridgeton, the city agreed to drop its requirement that fees be paid prior to the march but added that it would bill CATA after the march.

Several weeks after the May 1 march, CATA received a letter from the city requesting payment for "additional" police expenses for the event, amounting to more than $1,500. CATA requested that the fees be withdrawn, but in a June 12, 2007 letter responding to the group, the city said that it would pursue its demand for the payment and, moreover, would continue to seek such reimbursement in the future.

"I don't see the logic the city of Bridgeton is using in prohibiting our rights to free expression that we all have living in this great country," said Mariza Ibarra, CATA board member and Bridgeton resident. "We are a vulnerable part of the population and we are only struggling to obtain dignity in this community and country."

In its legal complaint, the ACLU-NJ said Bridgeton officials exercised "unfettered, arbitrary discretion" in billing CATA for police expenses, since the city does not have an ordinance that authorizes it to impose fees for marches or parades.

CATA originated in 1975 as the ACLU-NJ Farmworkers' Project. CATA later reorganized independently as a migrant worker-organized membership organization that advocates for the human rights of migrant and immigrant workers. CATA has extensive membership throughout South Jersey and a committee of active leaders in Bridgeton that has organized both May 1 marches, as well as other activities in the community.

The lawsuit, CATA v. Bridgeton, was filed in U.S. District Court in Camden.

More information on CATA is available at http://www.cata-farmworkers.org

Categories: Poverty Rights Immigrant Rights Free Speech

Thousands Gather in D.C. to Demand Due Process Rights

June 26, 2007

NEWARK, N.J. -- Dozens of members and supporters of the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey today traveled to Washington, D.C. for a Day of Action to Restore Law and Justice. They are joining with thousands of Americans from across the country to attend a rally and then call on Congress to restore habeas corpus, fix the Military Commissions Act, end torture and rendition, and restore our constitutional rights.

"New Jerseyans can no longer stand idly by while our constitutional rights and freedoms are stripped away," said ACLU-NJ Executive Director Deborah Jacobs. "We are taking our fight straight to Capitol Hill to hold New Jersey's representatives in Congress accountable and demand that they restore due process, defend the Constitution and protect what makes us Americans."

The ACLU has chartered buses to take participants to Washington, D.C. In New Jersey, buses left from Elizabeth and Princeton, transporting people from all over the state.

Today's action represents an overwhelming grassroots repudiation of the Military Commissions Act -- an act that denies detainees the right of habeas corpus, allows testimony coerced via torture to be used as evidence against them, ignores the Geneva Conventions and gives the president the power to declare anyone an "unlawful enemy combatant" and to detain them indefinitely.

What You Can Do

On the day after the June 26 rally in Washington, D.C., the ACLU and other social justice organizations will be organizing a national call-in day to Congress.

To reach your representatives on the June 27 national call-in, call the Capitol switchboard at (202) 224-3121 (24 hours) and ask the operator to connect you.

Call both of your senators and your representative, and tell the person who answers the phone that you urge Senator or Representative to:

Restore habeas corpus and due process for all human beings.
Support the Restoring the Constitution Act of (S. 576 in the Senate and HR 1415 in the House)
End torture and secret prisons.
Stop so-called "extraordinary rendition" flights where people are secretly kidnapped and sent to countries that torture. (Support HR 1352 in the House)
Close the Guantanamo Bay detention center and provide all detainees with access to lawyers and speedy trials. (Support S. 1249 and 1469 in the Senate, and HR 2212 in the House)
Investigate wrongdoing and ensure those who broke the law are held accountable. Activists from all 50 states will deliver tens of thousands of signatures to Congress, urging for rights to be restored.

June 26 marks the first time in the ACLU's 87-year history that the organization has convened a national event of this type.

For more information on the Day of Action, visit http://www.juneaction.org

Categories: Open Government National Security

Censorship of Gay Student Is Discriminatory Free Speech Violation

June 25, 2007

NEWARK, N.J. -- The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey In A Letter Sent Today (237k PDF) called on the Newark Public Schools to rescind last week's decision to censor hundreds of East Side High School yearbooks that included a photo of a male student kissing his boyfriend. The ACLU-NJ advised the school district that its censorship of this photo violates free speech and New Jersey's Law Against Discrimination.

"With so many challenges the Newark Public Schools face in educating their students, what a waste that they took the time to teach a lesson in discrimination and censorship instead of equality and free speech," said ACLU-NJ Executive Director Deborah Jacobs.

At the direction of Newark Public Schools Superintendent Marion Bolden, school personnel used markers to block out the image of student Andre Jackson and his boyfriend, while allowing photos of heterosexual students kissing to remain. The photo was on a tribute page paid for by Jackson; tribute pages make up about 20 percent of the yearbook, and several others showed heterosexual couples kissing.

The ACLU-NJ called on the school district to immediately re-issue the yearbook to all students with the original photograph in place.

The ACLU-NJ's letter to Superintendent Bolden, sent by Legal Director Ed Barocas, cited numerous cases and grounds on which the schools actions could be challenged, including a recent New Jersey Supreme Court ruling that specifically addressed discrimination against LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) students. The court ruled that students, including LGBT students, have as much a right to be free from discrimination in their schools as adults have to be free from discrimination in the workplace. The ACLU-NJ had filed a friend-of-the-court brief in that case.

"Treating same-sex couples differently from heterosexual couples not only disregards the fundamental guarantees of the Constitution and the laws of the State of New Jersey but also sends a dangerous message to the student body," Barocas said in the letter. "The message that LGBT students are unacceptable and undeserving serves to justify peer harassment, one of the most serious concerns schools face today."

The ACLU-NJ has addressed similar issues before, including its successful defense of the free speech and equal protection rights of an 11th Grade Student at Bridgeton High School who had been disciplined for wearing a T-shirt that expressed affection for lesbians.

Categories: Student & Youth Rights Gay & Lesbian Rights Discrimination

ACLU-NJ Opposes Release of Tenants' SSN to Government Officials

June 21, 2007

NEWARK, N.J. -- The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey today announced that it has joined a lawsuit in the role of "friend-of-the-court" in a case concerning the privacy rights of tenants.

The lawsuit, captioned Powder Mill Heights, et al., v. Township of Parsippany-Troy Hills, challenges a township ordinance requiring landlords to turn over the names and Social Security numbers of all tenants. The ordinance also requires that landlords provide the town with the driver's license numbers, places of employment and phone numbers of all tenants.

"One of the core principles of our democracy, enshrined in our federal and state constitutions, is the right to privacy in your own home and control over your personal information," said Grayson Barber, a Princeton attorney who submitted the legal brief on behalf of the ACLU-NJ. "This ordinance subjects anyone who rents a home in Parsippany-Troy Hills to a profound invasion of privacy."

In its brief, the ACLU-NJ argued that the forced disclosure of Social Security numbers violates both federal and state statutes protecting the confidentiality of those numbers. In response to the town's stated need to adopt the ordinance to address overcrowding, the ACLU-NJ asserted that government should only be allowed to obtain the number of tenants in each apartment, not the names or Social Security numbers of those tenants.

"Every person in New Jersey has a right to refuse the unnecessary, forced disclosure of private information to the government," added Barber. "This is especially true given significant concerns in recent years over identity theft."

The ACLU-NJ, in its brief, noted an Appellate Division decision that struck down a similar measure in Belmar, N.J. In that decision, the court held that the town "does not need to know the names of tenants or their addresses or other personal information to enforce an occupancy limit."

Morris County Superior Court Judge B. Theodore Bozonelis accepted the ACLU-NJ as a friend-of-the-court on June 20, allowing the organization to participate in the lawsuit.

The brief is available on the ACLU-NJ Web site at Powder Mill v. Parsippany-Troy Hills Brief (38k PDF).

Categories: Privacy Immigrant Rights

Election Day Report Calls for Reform of Voting Systems

June 05, 2007

NEWARK, N.J. -- With citizens headed to the polls for primary elections, the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey and the League of Women Voters of New Jersey today released a report highlighting significant concerns about New Jersey's voting systems based on problems reported during the November 2006 general election, and made recommendations for changes to improve voting rights in New Jersey.

"Election Day is a time to remember that voting is the most basic right in our democratic system and one that our state government should do the utmost to protect," said Danzey Burnham, executive director for the League of Women Voters of New Jersey. "As citizens in a democracy we ought to expect a transparent and efficient election system, yet our state has much work to do to achieve that goal."

The report, "Snapshot of November 2006 Election Day Problems and Recommendations for Reform," asserts that to ensure the effective administration of elections in New Jersey, the state needs to establish systems for individual voters to complain or appeal when they encounter obstacles to exercising their voting rights. The state also needs to proactively monitor overall voting systems to assess and correct problems before they threaten the integrity and fairness of elections.

"We believe New Jerseyans deserve an election system that serves the voter," said Deborah Jacobs, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey. "We need to make up for lost time in voting rights reform in New Jersey, and call on our state and county election officials to address the problems identified by voting rights advocates."

Regrettably, as the report points out, New Jersey neither maintains public records of voter complaints nor provides post-election analysis to identify ongoing problems with the administration of elections. The state has no system to gather the information needed to monitor elections. Without systems for monitoring and analysis of election voter complaints, any state or county efforts to identify and address the most pressing voting problems becomes mere guesswork.

Advocacy groups have tried to fill the void. In connection with the November 2006 general election, the ACLU-NJ and LWVNJ, organizations with long histories of voting rights advocacy, organized a nonpartisan Voter Protection Hotline to provide immediate assistance to voters needing help.

Unlike anything offered by the state Division of Elections, the organizations had trained volunteers available to answer toll free calls from voters from 6 a.m. until after the polls closed at 8 p.m., as well as to provide support at some polling places and courts. Through this effort, coordinated with the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights, these nonprofit organizations responded to more than 200 calls for help and information.

Such efforts provide a snapshot of obstacles that voters encounter in New Jersey. One of the central problems identified in the ACLU-NJ/LWVNJ report is inconsistent implementation from county-to-county of existing rules. Due to the state's failure to fully implement provisions of the Help America Vote Act (passed with the intention of preventing another situation like the 2000 Florida election debacle), New Jersey voters' experiences vary widely, depending on where they are trying to vote. More than 33 percent of voters who called in or were interviewed at the polls experienced problems with the voter registration process.

Voters reported continuous and intimidating police presence at New Brunswick and Monmouth County polling sites. Unfortunately, this problem was exacerbated by the state's failure to clarify its policies on "electioneering." At some sites, police kept nonpartisan poll monitors and members of the press 100 feet from polling places, a restriction that should apply only to electioneers (campaign workers trying to influence voters' decisions before they vote). This problem was brought to Attorney General Stuart Rabner prior to the election, in September 2006, and still has not been rectified by the state.

Because New Jersey does not document and publicly report on election problems, there is no way of knowing whether the state is adequately addressing the issues identified as part of Voter Protection 2006. As with past elections, the ACLU-NJ and the LWVNJ will release their report, including suggestions for improvements to voting systems in New Jersey, to the attorney general, New Jersey's chief elections officer.

On the Net

For the report visit: Voter Protection Project 2006 Report & Recommendations

Categories: Elections & Voting

MVC Comments Highlight Cost, Privacy Concerns with Real ID

May 24, 2007

NEWARK, N.J. — The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey today praised the New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission for its substantive comments to the Department of Homeland Security about privacy and other concerns on a proposed national identity card, known as Real ID.

In early March, the Department of Homeland Security released draft regulations for the Real ID Act, which is federal legislation that aims to create a national ID card. The New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission provided 63 pages of comments, raising concerns about security, cost, privacy and other implications of Real ID to New Jersey residents.

"With these comments, the Motor Vehicle Commission has demonstrated that it is a strong advocate for the rights and interests of New Jerseyans," said ACLU-NJ Executive Director Deborah Jacobs. "The MVC's analysis shows that Real ID would be a real nightmare of more red tape, longer lines, more identity theft and higher fees for New Jersey."

The New Jersey MVC's comments reflect a growing rebellion among the states against Real ID. Twelve states have passed legislation or resolutions opposing Real ID and several states have passed statutory bans on participating in Real ID as it is currently constituted.

In light of the MVC's substantive concerns, the ACLU-NJ calls on Governor Corzine to join this national movement and take action to reject Real ID. "Our own MVC has identified countless problems with Real ID, demonstrating that if implemented, Real ID will waste New Jerseyans' money, jeopardize our privacy and replace our driver's license system with a new scheme that will cost billions and fail to provide real security," said Jacobs. "It is time for us to say 'no' to Real ID."

The Real ID Act creates a national ID card system that federalizes and standardizes state driver's licenses. After being rejected as a stand-alone bill, it was forced through Congress in 2005 as part of a must-pass Iraq War appropriations measure. It requires every person in the country to have a Real ID-compliant identification document in order to fly on commercial airlines or enter government buildings. The Department of Homeland Security has said that some day Real ID will be required for other purposes, like getting a passport. Interested parties had until May 8 to submit comments on the regulations.

New Jersey's MVC clearly identifies the problems that the proposed Real ID regulations present for the state, which through its 6-point ID system already has one of the most secure licenses in the country. The MVC's comments state that "[w]hile substantial changes were made to update the State's previously archaic system, the present process, though extremely secure, will fall short of meeting the requirements … Therefore to become compliant, New Jersey would need to utilize significant resources that the State can ill-afford at this time."

DHS estimates that Real ID will cost $23 billion to implement nationally over the next 10 years. The New Jersey MVC states that the cost DHS suggested for the state to implement Real ID — $210 million over 10 years — is underestimated by at least 36 percent. The comments also note the failure of the federal government to provide grants and other funding sources for Real ID implementation.

The MVC said that the Real ID system would alter the agency's core mission from driver safety to a business that emphasizes identification. In its comments on Real ID, the MVC questioned "whether sufficient thought has been given to the impact this change could have on driver safety nationwide."

Finally, in addressing privacy issues, the MVC notes it has "some concern about the increased risk of identity theft and the potential erosion of personal privacy. Whenever additional personal information is collected and systems are created to retrieve that personal information or databases are established to house such information, the threat of improper access and use of that information is heightened."

On the Net

For more information on state opposition to Real ID, visit http://tinyurl.com/23l92n

Categories: Privacy National Security

ACLU Fights for Release of Gulf War Vet

May 22, 2007

Warren Joseph, while
on duty in Iraq

NEWARK, N.J. — The American Civil Liberties Union today filed a habeas petition seeking the release of Warren Joseph, a Gulf War veteran and immigrant from Trinidad who is a permanent resident of the United States. Joseph has been illegally locked up for more than three years in immigration custody in a New Jersey prison.

"This is no way to treat a man who placed his life on the line for our country," said ACLU-NJ Legal Director Ed Barocas. "He must be released or else given a hearing where the government must justify its decision to imprison him for so long."

Joseph served in the U.S. Army for eight years, including a tour in Iraq during the first Gulf War, where he received multiple commendations. Upon his return, Joseph suffered physical and psychological symptoms similar to those experienced by other Gulf War veterans, including post-traumatic stress disorder and depression. In 2001, he was convicted after pleading guilty to transporting or receiving firearms without a license. After cooperating fully with authorities, Joseph was sentenced to probation. He later served six months for violating his probation.

Upon his release in 2004, Joseph was taken into custody by Immigration Customs Enforcement (ICE) pending removal proceedings and has been at Hudson County Correctional Center in South Kearny, N.J., ever since. Joseph has been detained for three years while the government has pursued his removal based on his single 2001 conviction — six times the amount of his six-month sentence for violating his probation.

"I joined the Army because I love the United States," said Joseph, who moved to the United States nearly 20 years ago and joined the Army at the age of 21. "I am very disappointed that I have been treated this way, but I still love this country. When I am released, I will do my best to see to it that this does not happen to another veteran."

Eight months ago, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals granted Joseph's petition for review, agreeing with his argument that his firearms conviction was not an "aggravated felony" that triggers mandatory removal from the United States.

In light of his war veteran status and his strong family ties in the United States, the ACLU said Joseph has a good chance of remaining in the United States either through naturalization (becoming a U.S. citizen) or cancellation of removal (which would halt his deportation). Despite this, the government has refused to release Joseph into supervised custody.

"Unfortunately, there are thousands of immigrants like Mr. Joseph who have been unlawfully detained, many for years at a time, in immigration custody across the United States," said Judy Rabinovitz, senior staff attorney at the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project. "Such detention goes against the fundamental notions of due process to which citizens and non-citizens alike are entitled in this country."

Joseph has never been allowed a full hearing to decide whether his detention is lawful. The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly held that immigrant detention violates due process unless it is reasonably related to a valid government purpose. The U.S. Supreme Court has also held that when detention is prolonged, it must be accompanied by a sufficiently strong justification. BIA and ICE have provided no such justification.

The ACLU and the ACLU-NJ filed the petition today in U.S. District Court in Newark, N.J. The petition calls for Joseph to be released under conditions of supervision or to have an immediate hearing where officials must prove that his detention is justified. In addition to Rabinovitz and Barocas, other attorneys in Joseph's case are ACLU Staff Attorney Amrit Singh, ACLU-NJ Staff Attorney Jeanne LoCicero, and Claudia Slovinsky and Grace Meng of the Law Offices of Claudia Slovinsky.

Case Documents

Categories: Prisons Immigrant Rights Discrimination

Immigration Detention Report Outlines Concerns of Abuse

May 15, 2007

NEWARK, N.J. -- The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey today provided the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights of Migrants with a report on immigration detention conditions in New Jersey to help inform him of conditions affecting immigrants during his fact-finding mission in the United States.

The U.N. Special Rapporteur, Jorge Bustamante, is conducting a three-week fact-finding mission at the invitation of the U.S. government and has been traveling across the country since April 30 to meet with dozens of human rights and immigrants groups. His visit is the first broad-based international inquiry of its kind into allegations of human rights abuses in the United States.

Between March and July 2006, in response to numerous complaints about conditions of detention, the ACLU-NJ undertook a series of interviews with detainees in the county jails in an effort to shed light on the conditions of confinement. The project resulted in a report, Behind Bars (194k PDF): The Failure of the Department of Homeland Security to Ensure Adequate Treatment of Immigration Detainees.

In New Jersey, five counties currently hold immigrant detainees: Hudson, Middlesex, Monmouth, Bergen and Sussex. The Passaic County Jail discontinued its contract with ICE at the end of 2005, a few months after the Department of Homeland Security began auditing the facility. In addition, a private contractor, the Corrections Corporation of America, operates the Elizabeth Detention Center in Union County.

Approximately, 1,000 immigrant detainees are confined in New Jersey facilities. They come from a range of countries, including Egypt, Albania, the former Soviet Union, Ghana, Pakistan, Haiti, Gambia, Trinidad, Jordan, the Dominican Republic, Peru, Jamaica, Guyana, Afghanistan, Belize, Sudan and Mauritania.

The ACLU-NJ interviewed detainees ranging in age from a 58-year-old man in a wheelchair to a 17-year-old youth who reported being confined to his cell for 16 hours a day. One detainee interviewed by the ACLU-NJ has been in immigration detention for five years.

Most detainees are men, though the ACLU-NJ did interview women, including a 23-year-old, who was a Rutgers University honor student, detained for a visa error made by her mother when she arrived in this country as a toddler. Another woman, a 36-year-old confined to the Middlesex County Jail, reported that detainees are subject to frequent lockdown, including a lockdown that lasted for more than five days.

The ACLU-NJ also has received letters from detainees, including a June 2006 petition signed by 103 immigrant detainees in the Monmouth County Correctional Institution, which the Special Rapporteur was scheduled to visit on May 14. Detainees there outlined numerous problems, including reports of physical abuse by jail officers.

The ACLU-NJ's report describes a range of consistent and pervasive concerns in detention facilities throughout the state. Among these problems are: physical and verbal abuse, aggravated by racial and ethnic slurs; inadequate and delayed medical care; frequent and sudden transfers between detention facilities in the state and sometimes to other states, which makes visits by lawyers and family difficult if not altogether impossible; restricted or limited phone and library access; frequent use of lockdown, which confines detainees to their cells; improper limitations on or denial of ability to practice religion; and commingling of immigrant detainees (who are civil detainees) with the general (criminal) inmate population.

To begin to address these problems, the ACLU-NJ makes the following recommendations, which it urged the Special Rapporteur to discuss with federal officials with whom he will meet this week:

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security's Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) standards regarding immigration detention are now only guidelines. These standards must be strengthened to meet human rights principles and become enforceable regulations so that breaches and violations of these standards may be legally challenged by detainees themselves or through their representatives.
To ensure compliance with the standards, the ICE district offices in New York and New Jersey must exercise greater oversight of detention conditions and treatment of detainees. At a minimum, they should conduct inspections of all county jails and other facilities holding immigration detainees once every six months.
Every effort should be made to prevent the commingling of immigration detainees, particularly asylum seekers and women, with the general inmate population.
Given the human and financial costs of detention, ICE should explore noncustodial alternatives such as parole, supervised release to family members, regular reporting requirements or bond options.
International law unequivocally mandates the humane treatment of all detainees, regardless of the reason for their detention. In particular, the detention of asylum seekers violates the laws and conventions -- such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights -- to which the United States is a signatory. Consequently, asylum seekers should be detained only to the extent necessary to verify an asylum seeker's identity and to determine whether the individual is asserting a legitimate claim for asylum.

The Special Rapporteur is an independent expert appointed by the U.N. Human Rights Council with the mandate to monitor, advise and publicly report on human rights situations in specific countries, including the United States, and on human rights violations worldwide.

Special Rapporteur Bustamante will conclude the fact-finding mission in Washington, D.C. from May 15 to May 18, when he will meet with nongovernmental organizations and federal officials. He will use the information gathered during this fact-finding mission to issue an official report to the Human Rights Council. The conclusions and recommendations provided by the Special Rapporteur may be used to apply pressure on the U.S. government to rectify any human rights violations.

Additional information

The ACLU-NJ Letter to the U.N. Special Rapporteur (310k PDF) on the Human Rights of Migrants
The ACLU-NJ report on immigration detention conditions: Behind Bars (194k PDF): The Failure of the Department of Homeland Security to Ensure Adequate Treatment of Immigration Detainees.

Categories: Prisons Immigrant Rights Discrimination

Fact-Based Sex-Ed Needed In Schools

May 09, 2007

NEWARK, N.J. -- The American Civil Liberties Union today announced a multi-state action calling on the federal government to fix medical inaccuracies in federally funded abstinence-only-until-marriage curricula. Eleven ACLU affiliates sent letters to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services alerting the agency to problematic curricula in their states and asking HHS to take steps to remedy the situation.

"States all across the country, including New Jersey are telling the government enough is enough," said ACLU-NJ Executive Director Deborah Jacobs. "It is time for the federal government to start properly monitoring the content of the abstinence-only-until-marriage programs that it funds."

In New Jersey, the Peer Challenge program is of particular concern. The Peer Challenge curriculum inaccurately states that condoms fail to prevent pregnancy one-sixth of the time, and that the failure rate for preventing sexually transmitted disease is "far worse" because both sexes can get sexually transmitted diseases. It falsely states that "[s]ome of the latest findings are revealing up to a 45% condom failure rate in preventing the transmission of the deadly AIDS virus," and that condoms provide "little or no protection" against herpes and HPV. It claims that the "term safe sex is actually a myth" and that "condoms have a 16% failure rate for preventing pregnancy during the first year of use and in some groups of teenagers this failure rate rises to 36%. So the odds are good that pregnancy will eventually result even while using condoms."

In 2005, the most recent year for which information could be obtained, Peer Challenge was offered in the North Wildwood School District, Middle Township School District, Ocean City School District, Lower Cape May School District, Upper Township School District and Wildwood City School District.

Today's action comes on the heels of an April letter the ACLU sent to HHS, which said three federally funded abstinence-only-until-marriage curricula, Me, My World, My Future; Sexuality, Commitment & Family; and Why kNOw, along with HHS' own 4parents.gov Web site and pamphlet, Parents, Speak Up!, all violate a federal law requiring certain educational materials to contain medically accurate information about condom effectiveness. In that letter, the ACLU called on HHS to immediately remedy the violations or face a legal challenge.

"It is clear from today's action that federally funded abstinence-only-until-marriage curricula across the country contain medically inaccurate information about the importance of condoms in preventing pregnancy and the spread of sexually transmitted disease," said Julie Sternberg, senior staff attorney with the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project. "Spreading misinformation about condoms in many abstinence-only-until-marriage programs violates federal law and endangers teens' health."

The ACLU affiliates participating in today's action include: Alaska Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of Arizona, ACLU of Florida, ACLU of Illinois, ACLU of Kansas and Western Missouri, ACLU of Kentucky, ACLU of Louisiana, ACLU of New Jersey, Rhode Island ACLU, ACLU of Tennessee, and ACLU of Texas.

Last week, the ACLU asked HHS and the Oregon Department of Human Services to investigate evidence of misuse of taxpayer dollars to promote one faith over others in an abstinence-only-until-marriage program Stop and Think. The ACLU threatened to pursue legal action if sufficient measures are not taken to correct any problems.

In early April, a federally commissioned study by a Princeton, N.J., think tank was released showing that, notwithstanding the more than a billion dollars that the federal government has poured into the programs since 1996, abstinence-only-until-marriage programs don't work. The study looked at several federally funded programs and found that teens who participated in them were just as likely to have sex as teens who did not participate. Furthermore, these students had first intercourse at the same age and the same number of sexual partners as students who did not participate.

Currently, no federal funds are dedicated to supporting sexuality education programs that both teach abstinence and include complete and medically accurate information about how to use contraceptives effectively, despite evidence that these programs can delay sexual activity and increase contraceptive use among teens.

On the Net

ACLU letter to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services:
http://www.aclu.org/reproductiverights/sexed/29485lgl20070426.html
Study showing the failure of abstinence-only-until-marriage programs:
http://www.mathematica-mpr.com/publications/PDFs/impactabstinence.pdf

Categories: Student & Youth Rights Reproductive Freedom

Legacy of Racial Profiling Requires Systemic Change

April 27, 2007

NEWARK, N.J. -- At a public hearing today before the state Advisory Committee on Police Standards, the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey and criminal justice experts called on officials to adopt crucial reforms of state and local police departments as a means of curbing racial profiling and racially discriminatory law enforcement practices.

ACLU-NJ Executive Director Deborah Jacobs urged the committee to consider two key recommendations: formation of an independent state office of police oversight and establishment of a system of professional police licensing.

Appointed by Governor Jon Corzine, the Advisory Committee on Police Standards is considering whether New Jersey should end participation in a federal consent decree, which it entered into with the U.S. Department of Justice to resolve numerous complaints of racial profiling, including the police shootings in 1998 of two African American men and one Latino man on the New Jersey Turnpike.

"New Jersey still wears the stain of racial profiling, and we know that it is an ongoing practice in both state and local police departments," Jacobs told the committee. "The consent decree simply does not do what the citizens of New Jersey need it to do in the interest of public safety."

Law enforcement experts testifying on behalf of the ACLU-NJ noted that racial profiling continues unabated on the New Jersey Turnpike. The government's own statistics show that on the southern portion of the Turnpike, African Americans make up a higher percentage of stops than they did before the consent decree began. In addition, a study commissioned by the ACLU-NJ and shared with the committee found that the stops of African Americans on the southern end of the Turnpike were greatly disproportionate from the percentage of African American drivers or speeders there (18.5 percent versus 30.8 percent).

Observing that the consent decree has not accomplished one of its key purposes -- eradication of racial profiling -- the ACLU-NJ urged the committee to establish a strong, well-funded permanent office of police oversight. This office would be located within state government, but established as an independent office, similar to the state's Public Employment Relations Commission or Election Law Enforcement Commission.

One great benefit of having such a department, the ACLU-NJ said, is that it could review the actions of both the State Police and the 560-plus local police departments in the state. The ACLU-NJ receives many complaints each year about police misconduct from local police departments.

For example, the organization recently settled litigation against the Manalapan Police Department on behalf of three African American boys who were stopped and harassed by the police while their white friends were told to go home.

Randal Yorker, one of the litigants in the case and the father of one of the boys, also testified at today's public hearing. "I learned very early in this legal process that an individual's right to obtain justice is costly and can be discouraging and intimidating," Yorker told the committee. 'Part of the process requires that you complain to the very same entity that you have an issue with and they perform the investigation. This conflict of interest has a chilling effect on the person filing a complaint and compromises any notion of fairness."

Additionally, Jacobs of the ACLU urged the committee to start licensing police. New Jersey is one of only seven states that do not require that police be licensed. "As incredible as it sounds, in New Jersey the public is better protected against reckless manicurists and dentists than rogue police officers," Jacobs said.

The ACLU-NJ maintains that by licensing police officers, the state would protect the public, promote standards of professionalism and address the all-too-common problem of police officers who are terminated from one department for misconduct getting a job in another town in the same state, only to commit misdeeds against another community.

The state Advisory Committee on Police Standards is expected to produce its final recommendation several weeks after the next report by federal monitors, which is scheduled for release in May.

The testimony of ACLU-NJ Executive Director Deborah Jacobs, ACLU-NJ Legal Director Ed Barocas and ACLU-NJ plaintiff Sean Anderson is available below.

Categories: Police Practices Discrimination

Police Searched and Harassed African American Youths

March 29, 2007

Sean Anderson, Randy Reina,
Diamond Yorker

NEWARK, N.J. -- The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey today announced that the Township of Manalapan has paid $275,000 to settle a discrimination lawsuit the organization filed on behalf of three African American teenagers who said that officers searched them without justification and berated them while their three white friends were told to go home.

"We hope that this settlement will send a message to all towns and police forces that discrimination is not only wrong and illegal, but also very costly," said John O'Connor of Anderson, Kill & Olick, who represented the plaintiffs as volunteer attorney for the ACLU-NJ. "The evidence here indicated discrimination in searching the teenagers, disrespectful treatment of the parents' complaint and then a woefully inadequate investigation undertaken by the Manalapan Police. I'm sure this treatment does not represent the wishes of the people of Manalapan, and we would like to know what the town plans to do to prevent something like this from happening again."

"New Jersey needs to address racial discrimination in policing," said ACLU-NJ Executive Director Deborah Jacobs. "Incidents like this are evidence that we need greater oversight at the state and local levels."

The case stemmed from an incident on a June evening in 2003. The three plaintiffs, in sworn testimony, gave the following description of events: Diamond Yorker (then 16), Randy Reina (then 17) and Yorker's cousin, Sean Anderson (then 11), were standing with three white friends on a sidewalk that runs along Buck's Head Park Playground in Manalapan. Two police cars pulled up, apparently responding to a noise complaint elsewhere in the area.

The two white police officers singled out the two black teenagers, Yorker and Reina. One officer told Yorker to take his hands out of his pockets. Yorker asked why he had to do so, since he was doing nothing wrong, but nevertheless complied. The officer pulled Yorker over to his police car, kicked his legs apart and searched his pockets. When Reina objected, he also was pulled over and searched. Nothing illegal was found on either youth. The police asked Reina where he lived, and when he responded "Edison," the officer told him, "I don't want to see you around Manalapan anymore."

When confronted by the police, a frightened Anderson, who was 11 at the time, cried. The police responded by calling him "punk" and said, "What's your story, tough guy." During the incident, one of the officers told the three white teenagers that they could go home and said they "don't have to see this."

But the white youths stayed. In their sworn testimony, they corroborated the description of the incident related by the African American youths.

"The police harassed these kids based on their skin color," said ACLU-NJ Legal Director Ed Barocas. "We receive lots of complaints about discrimination, and in this case the officers' discriminatory actions were blatant and brazen."

The lawsuit also challenged the Manalapan police department's response to the formal complaint lodged by the African American parents on behalf of their children.

Accompanied by their parents, Yorker and Reina went to the police station immediately following the incident to file a complaint against the police officers. The Andersons filed a complaint within a few days. The parents said that they were treated with disrespect and racial prejudice. For example, the Yorkers' complaint was curled up into a funnel shape by a sergeant who then stuffed it in his back pocket, and while Anderson's complaint was taken, the lieutenant filled out Anderson's race as "Negro."

O'Connor described the subsequent investigation by the Manalapan Police Internal Affairs Department as inadequate. "The police officers themselves testified that interviewing all witnesses to an incident is 'Investigation 101.' Yet, the Manalapan Police closed their so-called investigation without ever even interviewing any of the white witnesses," said O'Connor. The testimony of the white youths was part of the ACLU-NJ lawsuit.

"Manalapan needs to be more careful about hiring and training their officers, since the job of the police is to protect and serve, not to harass and discriminate," said Diamond Yorker, now 20, a plaintiff in the suit.

The ACLU-NJ will dedicate its legal fees to fund the organization's Racial Justice Program, a new initiative that will focus on racial discrimination, including improper police practices.

The lawsuit was captioned Yorker, et al. v. Township of Manalapan, et al. The case was filed in Superior Court in Monmouth County and was transferred to Middlesex County (because Yorker's father worked for the Monmouth County court system). The lawsuit, filed in 2004, charged discriminatory treatment and improper searches by the police. The plaintiffs' attorneys, O'Connor, Marisa Steel, and their law firm Anderson Kill & Olick, provided their legal representation pro bono.

Categories: Police Practices Discrimination

Charges Dismissed Against Peace Activist

March 20, 2007

NEWARK, N.J. -- A New Jersey Superior Court judge today dismissedcharges against Bob Flisser, who was arrested in Flemington forparticipating in a public vigil for fallen soldiers without obtaining apermit. The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey, representingFlisser, argued that Flemington's "parade" permit ordinance violatednumerous free speech protections and was applied discriminatorily. TheBorough of Flemington agreed to the dismissal.

"I am pleased that the Borough of Flemington finally realized that itmakes more sense to stand up for free speech than to stand against it,"said Flisser. "I am hopeful that the town will now take prompt action tochange the ordinance so that the same problems do not arise again."

When Flisser received word that peace groups around the country wereholding vigils on August 17, 2005 for fallen soldiers, he went to theFlemington police station to inform officers that he would be holding avigil. The vigil was to be held at the sidewalk plaza in front of thecourthouse on Main Street in Flemington, a location where such freespeech activities have traditionally taken place in town. He anticipatedthat fewer than two dozen people would show up and that the plaza waslarge enough to accommodate his group without blocking any right of wayfor pedestrians, which it was. The police refused to even consider hisapplication on short notice -- as the town ordinance allows them to do-- let alone decide whether to grant him a permit. Nevertheless, thevigil took place as planned, about 24 people showed up, and Flisser wassubsequently arrested and charged with violating Flemington's paradeordinance. No other vigil participant was arrested.

Flisser was found guilty in Flemington Municipal Court on November 27,2006. The court imposed a $100 fine, which it suspended, and $33 incourt costs. The ACLU-NJ appealed on Flisser's behalf to the SuperiorCourt. Today, the Borough of Flemington, citing fiscal reasons and theuncertainty of the outcome of Flisser's appeal, agreed to dismiss thecharges against Flisser.

"This is more than a personal victory for Mr. Flisser and for what hehas had to go through. This is a victory for freedom of speech and foreveryone in Flemington who participates in it," said Fernando M.Pinguelo of Norris, McLaughlin & Marcus, P.A. in Bridgewater, who, alongwith Richard A. Norris and Jignesh J. Shah, are the ACLU-NJ cooperatingattorneys representing Flisser.

Flisser's attorneys noted that the parade ordinance threatens freespeech because it covers much more activity than is constitutionallypermissible and makes no accommodation for spontaneous speech. It covers"any parade, march, ceremony, show, exhibition, pageant or procession ofany kind, or any similar display in or upon any street, park or otherpublic place." To be eligible for a permit, an application must besubmitted at least six days before an event. The chief of police hasunfettered discretion to waive these requirements, as the paradeordinance provides no guidelines for deciding whether to grant or notgrant exemptions.

The ACLU-NJ has successfully challenged similar municipal parade ordinances in the past.

The case was captioned Borough of Flemington v. Flisser.

Categories: Free Speech

School Violates Religious Freedom of Student

March 06, 2007

NEWARK, N.J. -- The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey filed a lawsuit today against the Newark Public Schools for violating a Muslim student's religious freedom by holding West Side High School's 2006 graduation ceremony in the sanctuary of a Baptist church.

Bilal Shareef, a 2006 graduating senior and honor student who is Muslim, was unable to attend his graduation because the school's decision to hold graduation in a church forced him to choose between missing graduation or violating his religious proscription against entering buildings with religious iconography, such as pictures of God or the cross.

"I worked hard throughout high school to reach the point of graduation, and the school -- by holding graduation in the sanctuary of a church -- denied me the chance to be there with my friends and family for what should have been a happy, once-in-a-lifetime experience," said Shareef.

Prior to 2004, West Side High School held its graduations in secular locations. However, in 2005, the school scheduled graduation in New Hope Baptist Church. At that time, the ACLU-NJ received a complaint from a Muslim parent and contacted the attorney for Newark Public Schools. Upon receiving a letter from the school attorney providing assurances that graduation would not be held in a religious location again, the ACLU-NJ agreed not to sue. The school district attorney, in his letter, stated that "based [on] the legitimate concerns of our student and parent, I will advise District administration to refrain from scheduling events in church locations and make every effort to work with the church to remove or conceal religious symbols for the duration of the ceremony."

However, in 2006, despite this written promise, West Side High School again scheduled its graduation ceremony in New Hope Baptist Church. Moreover, then-Principal Fernard Williams informed students that if they attended a separate religious baccalaureate ceremony at the Basilica of the Sacred Heart (a Catholic church), they would receive two additional tickets for family or friends to attend the graduation ceremony.

"Although he tried not to show it, I knew Bilal took it hard," said Ahmad Shareef, Bilal's father. "I am an involved parent and would have been proud to see Bilal walk up to receive his diploma, but I am even more proud that he stood up for our beliefs. Insha'Allah [God-willing], this lawsuit will ensure that students from all religious backgrounds will have their rights and religious beliefs respected."

The lawsuit alleges that the school's actions of awarding benefits to students for attending the Catholic religious ceremony and holding the graduation ceremony in a Baptist church violated the New Jersey Constitution's prohibitions against: showing a preference for certain religious sects over others, compelling people to "attend any place of worship contrary to his faith and judgment" and segregating or discriminating against students "in the public schools, because of [their] religious principles."

"This case is a living example of why the New Jersey Constitution makes it clear that government should neither favor nor discriminate against religious practice," said ACLU-NJ Legal Director Ed Barocas, who represents the Shareefs. "Schools should not sponsor activities that exclude some students from participation on the basis of religious belief."

The ACLU-NJ has a long track record of supporting the right of individuals to express their religious beliefs and engage in religious practices free from government interference, including recently defending a second-grade student's right to sing a Christian religious song at an after-school talent show, ensuring that jurors who wear religious garb are not removed from jury pools and supporting a student whose public school teacher told the class that they belonged in hell if they did not believe that Jesus died for their sins.

The latest case is captioned Bilal Shareef and Ahmad Shareef v. Newark Public Schools, et al. The case was filed in New Jersey Superior Court in Essex County.

Categories: Religious Freedom Student & Youth Rights

Court Ruling a Victory for Open Government

March 06, 2007

NEWARK, N.J. -- The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey praised a New Jersey Supreme Court decision released today that protects an individual's right to videotape public meetings.

"Videotaping is an invaluable method of documenting government activities or misconduct," said ACLU-NJ Legal Director Ed Barocas. "We are pleased that the Supreme Court recognized that American freedom and democracy depend on the people having a right to access government information."

In this case, Robert Wayne Tarus was denied the right to videotape the audience and certain speakers at a borough council meeting in Pine Hill, Camden County, New Jersey.

The New Jersey Supreme Court unanimously held that videotaping public meetings is part of the common law right to obtain public information. Chief Justice James R. Zazzali, writing for the court, explained: "Openness is a hallmark of democracy -- a sacred maxim of our government -- and video is but a modern instrument in that evolving pursuit. . . . The use of modern technology to record and review the activities of public bodies should marshal pride in our open system of government, not muster suspicion against citizens who conduct the recording."

The ACLU-NJ submitted a friend-of-the-court brief in the case, explaining that videotaping falls within the umbrella of the right to free speech, subject only to legitimate "time, place and manner" restrictions, and that videotaping provides a uniquely valuable source of information that may not be obtained through handwritten notes or audio recording.

"In no arena is the idea of open government as important as during government functions," said Jennifer Klear of Drinker, Biddle & Reath, who wrote the brief on behalf of the ACLU-NJ. "The Borough of Pine Hill inappropriately restricted that right."

Pine Hill argued that the public had no right to videotape and that, if it did, the restriction the town placed on videotaping was justified. The New Jersey Supreme Court held that the town had not formulated any guidelines, which towns must do if they wish to restrict the right. Further, the court found that the ad hoc restrictions Pine Hill did impose were unreasonable.

The case was captioned Tarus v. Borough of Pine Hill, et al.

Categories: Open Government

ACLU Calls on Court to Protect Reproductive Freedom

February 25, 2007

NEWARK, N.J. -- The American Civil Liberties Union today called on the New Jersey Supreme Court to protect women's reproductive rights and physicians' free speech rights. The ACLU urged the court to overturn a lower court medical malpractice decision that would have the effect of improperly forcing physicians to give a non-medical, value-laden speech to their patients before performing an abortion.

"Forcing women to listen to non-medical, moral judgments from their doctors prior to an abortion violates both state and federal constitutions," said Talcott Camp, a deputy director with the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project, who argued the ACLU's position before the court today. "Doctors should not be compelled to act as an ideological mouthpiece when caring for their patients."

According to court papers, Acuna, who had two children prior to her abortion, stated that at the time of her abortion she understood that she was pregnant and signed a form consenting to the procedure.

"This case is nothing more than a backdoor attempt to enact an extreme biased-counseling law -- something our legislature and governor have refused to do," said ACLU-NJ Executive Director Deborah Jacobs.

Today's argument before the New Jersey Supreme Court focused on whether Acuna's case should go to a jury trial.

The ACLU argued that an unfavorable decision in this case could extend far beyond abortion, including interfering with physicians prescribing certain birth control methods, pharmacists dispensing birth control pills and emergency contraception, and emergency room personnel treating sexual assault survivors.

Today's case is Acuna v. Turkish. Lawyers on the friend-of-the-court brief include Camp and Brigitte Amiri of the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project and Ed Barocas, legal director of the ACLU-NJ.

Categories: Reproductive Freedom Free Speech

Victory for Gay and Other Students Who Face Harassment

February 20, 2007

NEWARK, N.J. -- In a major victory for student rights, the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey praised a decision released today by the New Jersey Supreme Court that extends anti-discrimination protections to school children subjected to bias-based bullying and harassment.

"Bullying can be enormously destructive to students emotionally and psychologically," said ACLU-NJ Executive Director Deborah Jacobs. "This decision requires schools to take necessary steps to ensure that students are protected from bias-based harassment, and makes clear that schools must address the entire school environment instead of merely viewing specific incidents of bullying as isolated events."

The ACLU-NJ and several other child advocacy organizations filed a joint friend-of-the-court brief in L.W. v. Toms River Regional Schools Board of Education supporting the student L.W.'s claim under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination and describing the negative impact that peer harassment and bullying have on students and the school environment. The New Jersey Supreme Court sided with L.W. and firmly stated that schools may be liable under the Law Against Discrimination for permitting student-on-student biased-based harassment.

"Students in the classroom are entitled to no less protection from unlawful discrimination and harassment than their adult counterparts in the workplace," wrote Chief Justice James R. Zazzali in a unanimous opinion. "[R]easonable measures are required to protect our youth, a duty that schools are more than capable of performing. . . . [W]e require school districts to implement effective preventive and remedial measures to curb severe or pervasive discriminatory mistreatment. Appropriate and reasonable measures will reinforce the basic principle that student-on-student sexual harassment is unacceptable."

As described in the decision, L.W., a student in the Toms River schools, was subjected to anti-gay peer harassment and bullying based on his perceived sexual orientation. As he progressed through school, the harassment increased in frequency and severity and, consequently, he transferred to another school district. In July 2004, the Director of the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights issued an order holding that the Law Against Discrimination protected L.W. from the harassment, using the same standard that applies to employment discrimination. The Toms River Regional Schools Board of Education appealed the decision to the Appellate Division, which decided in L.W.'s favor. It then appealed that decision to the New Jersey Supreme Court.

ACLU-NJ cooperating attorneys Emily Goldberg and Larry Lustberg of Gibbons P.C. filed the brief on behalf of the ACLU-NJ and the Association for Children of New Jersey, the Education Law Center, the Gay Lesbian and Straight Education Network of Northern New Jersey, the National Conference for Community and Justice (NJ), New Jersey Family Voices, Roxbury Parents for Exceptional Children and Statewide Parents Advocacy Network of New Jersey.

The case is captioned L.W. v. Toms River Regional Schools Board of Education, A-111-05.

Anti-bullying brochure and other Students' Rights Publications

Categories: Student & Youth Rights Gay & Lesbian Rights

ACLU Supports Student Challenge to Preaching Teacher

February 18, 2007

Matthew LaClair

The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey and People For theAmerican Way Foundation stood in support of attorneys with Willkie Farr& Gallagher of New York and Riker, Danzig, Scherer, Hyland & Perretti ofMorristown, N.J., at a news conference today as they announced thefiling of legal papers on behalf of the parents of a Kearny public highschool student whose history teacher preached his religious beliefs inclass.

The teacher, David Paszkiewicz, made statements in his 11th grade classthat included telling students that those who did not believe that Jesusdied for their sins belonged in hell, that evolution was less fact-basedthan the Bible, that there were dinosaurs on Noah's Ark, that the BigBang is unscientific, and that the Bible has been proven to be literallytrue by the fulfillment of Biblical prophecies.

Rather than constructively addressing the teacher's violation of law andduty, the school found ways to penalize the student for exposing theteacher's inappropriate conduct and took actions that encouragedharassment of the student by his peers.

"I believe it is important to stand up for our constitutional rights andto make sure that these violations of the First Amendment, whichapparently have been going on for years, are stopped once and for all,"said 16-year-old Kearny High School student Matthew LaClair, a junior,who objected to his history teacher's proselytizing in class. "I alsobelieve that students should be made aware of their rights and know thatthey can do something to see they are respected."

Starting in September 2006, Matthew raised objections with the school'sadministration regarding his history teacher's repeated proselytizing inclass. He observed that his teacher not only presented his own personalreligious views and beliefs, but also denigrated differing viewpoints.The teacher went as far as to imply to Matthew personally and in openclass that Matthew and his parents were not sincere in their religiousbeliefs.

During a meeting with Matthew, the school principal and the departmenthead, the teacher denied making many of these statements or suggestedthat in his view they were part of a legitimate in-class discussion.However, knowing he might not be believed, Matthew had recorded theteacher's statements during class and provided those recordings to theprincipal. After that, school officials ended the meeting and declinedto further discuss with Matthew or his parents what actions would betaken to correct the problem. After numerous attempts to speak with theschool were rebuffed, and as Matthew was being subjected to harassmentby other students which the school failed to curb, his family soughtlegal help.

The ACLU-NJ and the People for the American Way Foundation havesteadfastly supported Matthew since the incident came to light and haveexpressed their astonishment and disappointment about the way the schooldistrict has chosen to handle the matter.

"This incident created a true teaching moment, but the school decided toteach the wrong lesson," said ACLU-NJ Executive Director Deborah Jacobs."Instead of recognizing and reinforcing the student for his courage andunderstanding that it is not the job of school officials to usurpparents' role in teaching religious belief, at every turn, the schoolhas taken action to protect itself and the teacher who violated one ofour most fundamental American principles, freedom of religion."

Attorneys from Willkie Farr & Gallagher and Riker, Danzig, Scherer,Hyland & Perretti, who are representing the LaClair family, sought toresolve the matter amicably. The LaClair family and their attorneys, forexample, have proposed to the Kearny High School administration andschool board that the school conduct an assembly or panel presentationto specifically discuss and explain to students the role of religion inpublic schools and to correct the erroneous scientific statementsespoused by the history teacher.

School officials rejected this proposal and instead chose to adoptpolicies and engage in practices that subjected Matthew to furtherhostility and harassment in school. Most notably, the school prohibitedthe recording of classes without obtaining permission from teachers and notifying students, ensuring that if the teacher or another teacher engaged in a serious constitutional violation in the future, it would not be easily proven by students. The school also switched all the students in the two level-one 11th grade history classes mid-year, provoking hostility toward Matthew for having prompted this mid-yearchange in history teachers.

"Because the school has failed to stand up for Matthew and support hisstance against the imposition of a particular religious viewpoint in theclassroom, he has endured taunts and profanity by other students, aswell as threats to his physical safety that required intervention by thepolice," said Richard Mancino, partner with Willkie Farr & Gallagher.Worse yet, Mancino added, is the school's failure to protect Matthewfrom continued harassment and retaliation by students and employees atKearny High School.

The attorneys, therefore, determined it was necessary for the LaClairsto file a tort claims notice, which was filed on February 13, 2007. Thefiling protects the LaClairs' right to institute certain types oflawsuits against the Kearny school district under New Jersey law.

"This episode was a test for Kearny school officials, one which they did not pass," said Andrew Stengel, Director of the Northeast Regional Office of People For the American Way Foundation. "For failing to uphold religious freedom and tolerance, and for failing to support a student who took a principled stand, we give the school board an F."

All who support Matthew note that the teacher, who is also a Baptist minister, is entitled to his personal religious views and opinions, but that his advocacy of a particular religious faith as a school official in a public school classroom is improper and unlawful.

"In public schools, it is essential to religious liberty that all religious viewpoints are given the absolute protection the Constitution guarantees," said the Reverend Bruce Davidson, Director of the Lutheran Office of Governmental Ministry in New Jersey. "As a person of faith, I share with the LaClair family the view that everyone's liberty is best protected when government stays neutral in religious matters."

"As a parent, I am disturbed that Kearny High School fails to protect my son from harassment and harm," said Paul LaClair, Matthew's father. "I am equally concerned as someone who values my son's education that the school lost an opportunity to offer meaningful instruction about the civic values that make our country great."

Categories: Student & Youth Rights Religious Freedom

A.G. Recognizes Same-Sex Marriages from Canada and Massachusetts

February 15, 2007

NEWARK, N.J. -- In response to a formal request by the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey, the state Attorney General issued an opinion today stating that New Jersey must recognize the marriage licenses of same-sex couples who were lawfully wed in Canada, Massachusetts and other jurisdictions. Although the opinion states that these relationships should be treated as civil unions, same-sex couples married in those jurisdictions need not apply for a civil union license. The marriage license they obtained will suffice to provide them with all rights and privileges New Jersey affords to married and civil unioned couples.

"This is a momentous day in the fight for equality and respect for all New Jersey families," said ACLU-NJ Legal Director Ed Barocas. "It is a decision that recognizes our state's honored traditions of fairness, decency and equality. However, there still exists a two-tiered system of rights, and separate is never equal."

While New Jersey will still not offer marriage licenses for same-sex couples, the attorney general's decision ensures that same-sex couples who were lawfully married in other jurisdictions have the full rights and protections enjoyed under state law by heterosexual couples who also were married elsewhere and now reside in the state.

"New Jersey should not be in the business of stripping individuals and couples of rights they already lawfully obtained," said Barocas. "The attorney general recognized that our state constitution and recent New Jersey Supreme Court decision mandate that the state cannot create a system that burdens same-sex couples with requirements that married couples do not have."

The ACLU-NJ inquiry, delivered to Attorney General Stuart Rabner and Governor Corzine's Chief Counsel Kenneth Zimmerman on December 21, 2006, requested "an official determination as to whether the State of New Jersey and its executive departments recognize [same-sex marriages entered into in Massachusetts or Canada] or whether, unlike heterosexual couples married in those jurisdictions, same-sex couples must take affirmative action (such as filing civil union forms) to have their rights recognized."

In its inquiry, the ACLU-NJ, citing the recent New Jersey Supreme Court decision on the rights of same-sex couples, explained that the state of New Jersey is not permitted to "place any disability on, or require any affirmative action of, same-sex couples that is not required of similarly-situated heterosexual couples" -- meaning the state cannot impose burdens or requirements on same-sex couples that are not also imposed on heterosexual couples.

The ACLU-NJ's letter to state Attorney General Rabner and Chief Counsel Zimmerman
Attorney General Rabner's Response to the ACLU-NJ
ACLU-NJ Makes Case for Marriage Equality Over Civil Unions
Get Busy, Get Equal: ACLU-NJ Advances LGBT Rights

Categories: Gay & Lesbian Rights

Racial Justice Program Launched

January 18, 2007

As we reflect on the birthday of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., the ACLU-NJ is proud to reaffirm our commitment to racial equality by announcing the launch of our new Racial Justice Program.

Through this program, we will bring together New Jerseyans across the state to conduct targeted advocacy in the interest of eliminating long-standing practices of discrimination and barriers to participation for racial minorities. Our racial justice priorities include issues concerning criminal justice, police practices, voting rights, education and prison conditions.

The ACLU-NJ's first step was to hire a dynamic Racial Justice Organizer, Jeremiah Grace, who has a successful track record as a social justice activist and campaign worker in northern New Jersey. Grace has served as Political Action Chair for the Elizabeth NAACP branch and as a member of the Economic Development Corporation for the Metropolitan Baptist Church in Newark. He also has been active with the People's Organization for Progress, the MLK Commemorative Committee and AmeriCorps.

"Since the early beginnings of the civil rights movement, the ACLU helped lead the fight for racial justice," said Grace. "However, more than 40 years after the passage of the Civil Rights Act, in New Jersey we're still fighting racial profiling by police, disparities in the criminal justice system and barriers to voting for minorities."

The time has come to invest in change and the ACLU-NJ is launching a long-term strategic effort to eliminate racially discriminatory practices in New Jersey. The ACLU-NJ has a strong history in the racial justice arena, leading the state in litigation and advocacy on behalf of victims of discrimination. Some highlights of this work include:

Racial Profiling	The ACLU-NJ sued the state of New Jersey on behalf of 12 individuals who had been targeted based on skin color while driving on the New Jersey Turnpike. The case was successfully settled in 2003. We also work against racial profiling by advocating for the passage of bills in the state Legislature that address police practices issues, such as data collection policies, protection for police whistleblowers and improved systems for police accountability.
Discriminatory Policing	The ACLU-NJ has sued the Manalapan Police Department for its discriminatory treatment of three African American youths who were harassed by the police while their white friends were told by the officers to go home. This case is ongoing.
Whites-Only Swim Club	The ACLU-NJ settled a lawsuit in 2004 against the Le Terrace Swim Club, a privately owned swimming pool in Nutley that would not allow non-whites to become members or use the facilities as guests. The pool owners paid $1 million to settle the case.
De Facto School Segregation	The ACLU-NJ filed an amicus brief in a case concerning the expansion of the Red Bank Charter School, arguing that expansion of the charter school would significantly contribute to de facto segregation.
Voter Disenfranchisement	The ACLU-NJ sued the State of New Jersey to challenge the Denial of the Right to Vote for people on probation and parole. We argued that because of the vast overrepresentation of minorities in the criminal justice system -- with more than 70 percent of our prison population being racial minorities -- denying people not incarcerated the right to vote violates the New Jersey Constitution's guarantee of Equal Protection under the law. The court ruled against us in this case, and we are now seeking a legislative change to address the issue. In addition, the ACLU-NJ conducts public education and outreach to educate former prisoners about their right to vote and why it is important.

Categories: Prisons Police Practices Immigrant Rights Discrimination

ACLU Praises Week of Civil Rights Firsts in N.J.

December 21, 2006

NEWARK, N.J. - The ACLU of New Jersey praised the actions of state legislators and the governor for passing critical civil rights protections in a sweep of legislation advanced over the past week. The governor's December 21 signing of the civil union bill topped off a week of legislative successes that included advancement of a bill to protect transgender people from discrimination and the signing of a bill to allow for the provision of clean needles in several cities.

"New Jersey has once again proven itself one of the most progressive states in the nation," said Deborah Jacobs, ACLU-NJ Executive Director. "Our leaders have made tremendous steps toward equality in our great state this week."

New Jersey overcame decades-long resistance, based on unfounded fears, and adopted needle exchange programs in as many as six cities, becoming the very last state in the nation to allow drug users access to clean needles without a prescription.

Atlantic City and Camden are expected to start the state's first legal needle-exchange programs sometime within the next three months. Health advocates have lobbied for needle exchange for 15 years. They support needle exchange as a major tool in combating the spread of the AIDS, HIV and hepatitis C viruses. In New Jersey, unlike almost all other states, the sharing of needles among drug addicts is the leading cause for the spread of AIDS.

In another first, on December 14, the New Jersey Assembly followed the Senate's lead to pass a bill to outlaw discrimination against New Jersey's transgender citizens. The new law will add a citizen's "gender identity or expression" as a basis for protection under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination. With overwhelming support, the combined vote in the two chambers was an historic 100-to-10, a 10-to-1 margin that is the largest margin in American history by which a state legislature has passed a transgender equality law. It now awaits the governor's signature to become law.

Finally, New Jersey became the third state in the nation to establish a civil union system designed to afford gay and lesbian couples the full rights and responsibilities that heterosexual married people enjoy.

The civil union bill signed by Governor Corzine is as a major step toward ensuring that gay and lesbian couples receive equal treatment. Gay and lesbian couples will now have access to hundreds of critical family protections. However, the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey, and the gay community of New Jersey, will continue to press Trenton to allow gays and lesbians access to the same system that heterosexual people have access to: marriage.

"Civil unions are a temporary fix," said Deborah Jacobs, Executive Director of the ACLU-NJ. "We are going to keep pressing until same-sex couples and their families have access to the dignity and respect that only comes through marriage."Governor Corzine said, "Many gay and lesbian couples in New Jersey are in committed relationships and deserve the same benefits and rights as every other family in the state."

The civil union legislation follows a unanimous decision by the New Jersey Supreme Court holding that it is unconstitutional for the state to bar same-sex couples from the hundreds of family protections the state provides through marriage. The court gave the Legislature 180 days to either amend existing marriage laws or create some other system to give same-sex couples the same marriage protections under the law.

The legislation signed today also will create a three-year study commission to decide whether the state should allow gay marriage. New Jersey joins Vermont and Connecticut in establishing civil unions for same-sex couples. California provides for comprehensive domestic partnerships, which are similar to civil unions. Same-sex couples are able to marry in Massachusetts, Canada, Spain, the Netherlands and South Africa.

Categories: Gay & Lesbian Rights Discrimination

NJ Civil Union Bill A Significant Step Forward

December 14, 2006

NEWARK, N.J - The American Civil Liberties Union expressed support for a civil union bill passed today by the New Jersey Legislature as a significant step toward ensuring that gay and lesbian couples are afforded equal treatment. Although pleased that same-sex couples will now have access to hundreds of family protections, the ACLU will continue to press the state legislature for marriage.

"While we continue to push the New Jersey Legislature to do the right thing by the many same-sex couples in New Jersey and pass a marriage bill, civil unions are a giant step toward greater fairness for same-sex couples," said Deborah Jacobs, Executive Director of the ACLU-NJ. "Same-sex couples throughout the state will now have access to hundreds of family protections that were previously available only to straight couples."

"But civil unions are a temporary fix," continued Jacobs. "We are going to keep pressing until same-sex couples and their families have access to the dignity and respect that only comes through marriage."

The bill passed today by sweeping margins in both bodies of the New Jersey Legislature. The governor is expected to sign the bill soon.

"I hope that the New Jersey legislators who pushed for civil unions rather than marriage will think hard about their motives," said Matt Coles, Director of the ACLU Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Project. "If their goal truly was to put same-sex couples on equal footing with married couples, why did they take the much more complicated step of creating civil unions when they could have simply amended the state's marriage laws? The only possible explanation is to send a clear message that the commitments and families of lesbians and gay men in New Jersey are less worthy."

The ACLU-NJ submitted testimony to the Legislature explaining the implications of creating civil unions rather than granting same-sex couples the ability to marry. The civil unions law will cause great confusion for same-sex couples who live in New Jersey but were married elsewhere. It is not clear at this point how the state will treat those marriages. Similarly, same-sex couples who receive civil unions in New Jersey will be in legal limbo if they move to a state that recognizes the marriages of same-sex couples. This would be a problem for same-sex couples who move to Massachusetts as well as states like New York, which have indicated that they intend to recognize the marriages of same-sex couples.

With today's vote, New Jersey joins Vermont and Connecticut in establishing civil unions for same-sex couples. California provides for comprehensive domestic partnerships, which are similar to civil unions. Same-sex couples are able to marry in Massachusetts, Canada, Spain, the Netherlands and South Africa.

A copy of the testimony submitted to the New Jersey Legislature is available here:

Testimony of Edward Barocas on behalf of the ACLU-NJ (31k PDF)

Categories: Gay & Lesbian Rights Discrimination

ACLU-NJ Defends Religious Expression

December 11, 2006

NEWARK, N.J. - The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey today praised a decision by U.S. District Court Judge Freda L. Wolfson protecting the religious expression rights of students. The court held that a Frenchtown Elementary School student had the right to sing the song "Awesome God" at a school talent show. The ACLU-NJ submitted a friend-of-the-court brief in support of the student.

"We're pleased that today's decision helps ensure that a student's constitutional right to freely express her religious views is protected," said volunteer attorney Jennifer Klear of Drinker, Biddle & Reath who took the case on behalf of the ACLU-NJ. "The court upheld an important distinction between religious expression that is initiated or expressed by school officials and speech that is initiated by individual students. Schools cannot censor student-initiated speech at after- school talent shows and other public forums."

The Frenchtown Elementary School student wanted to sing the song "Awesome God" in a voluntary, after-school talent show. School officials refused to allow her to sing the song, saying it would give the impression that the school favored religion.

In its brief, the ACLU-NJ argued that no reasonable observer would have believed that the school endorsed the religious message behind the student's song, and that the school therefore had no right to deny

her choice of song. The talent show was open for anyone from kindergarten through 8th grade who wished to play a solo instrument, dance, perform a skit or sing to karaoke. Students were permitted to select their own songs or skits.

Consistent with ACLU-NJ arguments, the court held that because the school allowed students to choose their own songs, they could not reject the student's choice of song because of its religious content.

"The ACLU has a long-standing dedication to defending religious freedom," said ACLU-NJ Executive Director Deborah Jacobs. "We are proud to help secure this child's right to sing a religious song at the talent show."

The ACLU-NJ has participated in other cases involving the right of individual religious expression, including recently helping to ensure that jurors are not removed from jury pools for wearing religious clothing and that prisoners are able to obtain religious literature.

Categories: Student & Youth Rights Religious Freedom

Town's 'Parade' Law Violates Free Speech

November 26, 2006

FLEMINGTON, N.J. -- The ACLU-NJ announced that it will appeal the decision of Flemington Municipal Court Judge John Petronko Jr., who earlier today found peace advocate Robert Flisser guilty for organizing a "Fallen Solder Vigil" without a permit on August 17, 2005. The ACLU-NJ and Flisser contend that Flemington's permit requirements violate freedom of speech and are applied discriminatorily.

The court imposed a fine of $100, which will be suspended, and $33 in court costs.

"We shouldn't require government permission every time we want to speak out peacefully in public," said Flisser. "Our soldiers take an oath to defend the Constitution when they enlist, so it's sad to realize that the government is taking away the very rights they risk their lives to uphold."

When Flisser received word that peace groups around the country were holding vigils on August 17, 2005 for fallen soldiers and their families, he went to the Flemington police station to inform officers, as a courtesy, that he would be holding a vigil on municipal property in front of the Hunterdon County Courthouse on Main Street in Flemington. He anticipated that the vigil would draw fewer than two dozen people and that the chosen space was large enough to accommodate his group. Flemington police refused to decide or even consider whether to grant Flisser a permit. Nevertheless, Flisser carried out the vigil, which drew about 25 participants. He was then arrested, handcuffed, hauled away in a police cruiser with lights ablaze, and charged with violating Flemington's parade ordinance.

"Flemington's ordinance is written so broadly that Christmas carolers, trick-or-treaters, people tossing a Frisbee in the park, or even two kids skateboarding together would have to obtain permission from the government to do so," said Fernando M. Pinguelo of the Bridgewater law firm Norris McLaughlin & Marcus, P.A., who, along with Richard A. Norris and Jignesh J. Shah, are the ACLU-NJ pro bono attorneys representing Flisser. Pinguelo added: "Mr. Flisser attempted to honor America's sons and daughters who paid the ultimate price defending our freedom. But the police crushed that very freedom -- an action that dishonors the sacrifice our soldiers make."

The ACLU-NJ's lawyers argued that the Flemington "parade" ordinance is vague and violates numerous free speech protections. It threatens free speech because it covers much more activity than is constitutionally permissible and makes no accommodation for spontaneous speech. The ordinance is so broad that people would need permits -- obtained six days in advance -- for almost any form of activity or speech, even if engaged in by a single person.

During the trial, Flemington police officials defended the arrest of Flisser, citing public safety concerns. Flisser explained that the event was a silent vigil in front of the Hunterdon County Courthouse in Flemington, a location where such free speech activities have traditionally taken place.

The Flemington ordinance covers "any parade, march, ceremony, show, exhibition, pageant or procession of any kind, or any similar display in or upon any street, park or other public place." An application must be submitted at least six days before an event to be eligible for a permit. The Flemington chief of police may waive the notice requirement at his discretion, as the ordinance provides no guidelines for deciding whether or not to grant an exemption.

The case is captioned Borough of Flemington v. Flisser.

Categories: Open Government Free Speech

ACLU-NJ Bestows Highest Civil Liberties Honor

November 19, 2006

NEWARK, N.J. -- The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey has awarded its highest honor to Steve Latimer, a partner in the firm of Loughlin & Latimer in Hackensack. The award was announced on November 16 during the ACLU-NJ's annual U.S. Supreme Court briefing.

"As recipient of our 2006 Roger N. Baldwin Award, Steve Latimer exemplifies the kind of commitment to social justice and has the legal acumen that we need now more than ever to confront government abuses of power," said ACLU-NJ Executive Director Deborah Jacobs. "Steve has worked selflessly for decades to help everyday people whose fundamental American rights were violated." Named after the founder of the ACLU, the Roger N. Baldwin award recognizes outstanding contributions to the preservation and promotion of civil liberties.

Latimer specializes in police misconduct, employment discrimination and First Amendment cases. His work in the First Amendment area includes a successful defense of the Indian community in Edison, where the town tried to prevent the community from holding its annual Navratri religious and cultural festival. He also has won the right of a community group in Monmouth County to leaflet in the county welfare center. He successfully defended a student when the student was prosecuted for terroristic threats for putting "this school sucks" on his Web site. Currently, he represents a person who believes that she and her family are on the government's "no-fly" list. As an ACLU cooperating attorney, he recently represented a prisoner in New Jersey who was barred from practicing his religion.

A graduate of Tufts University and New York University School of Law, Latimer was admitted to practice in New York in 1968 and New Jersey in 1979 and also is admitted to practice in the U.S. Supreme Court and several federal courts of appeals and district courts. As an experienced federal trial and appellate litigator, he has spent his career in the defense of constitutional rights and civil liberties.

Latimer has specialized in representation of people in federal civil rights actions, employment discrimination and school discipline cases, as well as condemned persons in Texas, Mississippi and Louisiana. Because of his defense of condemned persons, in 1998, he was awarded the Thurgood Marshall Award of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York. He has been active in the efforts of the American Bar Association to achieve a nationwide moratorium on executions and also has worked toward that end with the New Jerseyans for a Death Penalty Moratorium and the New Jersey State Bar Association. "I took an oath when I was in the Navy to defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic," Latimer said. "Sadly, some of the greatest threats to the Constitution are coming from our own leaders. It's up to us to remind them of what this country stands for -- that no one is above the law, that we are made stronger, not weaker, when we uphold our rights."

Categories: Police Practices Free Speech Discrimination

Voter Protection Project for November Election Launched

October 30, 2006

NEWARK, N.J. -- The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey and the League of Women Voters of New Jersey announced their joint Voter Protection hotline today for citizens who encounter difficulties exercising their right to vote in the November 7 general election. Anyone experiencing difficulty voting can call the league's VOTEline, 1-800-792-VOTE (8683), to receive immediate assistance with their voting problem.

"New Jersey voters deserve to have a fair and open process for casting their votes," said Anne Barron, Director of the ACLU-NJ Voting Rights for All Project. "Ensuring fundamental fairness in the voting process is essential to our democracy."

The ACLU-NJ and the League of Women Voter are working together to expand the resources available through the league's VOTEline, which receives thousands of calls each year from New Jerseyans seeking information about voting, elections and the political process. For the November 7 general election, the VOTEline will be available not just for questions about voting and elections but also will have trained volunteers available to assist with election-day voting problems. Volunteer lawyers also will stand ready to help voters who want to challenge denials of their voting rights in front of an election judge.

The ACLU-NJ participated in election protection efforts in both the 2004 and 2005 general elections with a number of other state and national voting rights groups. Complaints ranged from long-time voters whose names were missing from the poll books to improper denials of voter registration to people with prior convictions. In addition, recently enacted changes in the absentee ballot and provisional ballot procedures may cause confusion at the polls this year.

Organizers of previous election protection efforts collected and analyzed the complaints and submitted the results with recommendations for improvement to the New Jersey Office of the Attorney General. Numerous voting problems were documented, including incomplete voter rolls, denial of language assistance, lack of sufficient provisional and emergency ballots and machine problems. The ACLU-NJ and the League of Women Voters of New Jersey will provide a similar report and recommendations for state election officials based on an analysis of the calls received during the 2006 elections.

Categories: Elections & Voting Discrimination

ACLU-NJ Applauds Marriage Ruling, Promises Rights Fight in Legislature

October 25, 2006

NEWARK -- The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey today cheered a unanimous decision by the New Jersey Supreme Court holding that it is unconstitutional for the state to bar same-sex couples from the hundreds of family protections the state provides through marriage. The court referred the matter to the state Legislature, which has 180 days to either amend existing marriage laws or create some other system to give same-sex couples the same marriage protections under the law.

"Today's court decision is a giant step toward ending the unfairness that same-sex couples face in marriage. Same-sex couples fall in love, make commitments and build families just like opposite-sex couples. And as the court ruled today, same-sex couples shouldn't be denied the important family protections that come with marriage. We now call on the New Jersey legislature to make sure that same-sex couples are not denied the dignity that comes only through marriage," said Deborah Jacobs, ACLU-NJ Executive Director.

Public support for marriage for same-sex couples in New Jersey is strong and growing. New Jersey favors marriage for lesbian and gay couples 56 to 39 percent, according to a Garden State Equality-Zogby poll of New Jersey voters surveyed earlier this year.

The ACLU believes that the only way to guarantee full equal treatment for same-sex couples is for the Legislature to enact a law granting lesbian and gay couples the ability to marry. As New Jersey Supreme Court Justice Deborah Poritz noted in her dissent, which was joined by two other justices: "We must not underestimate the power of language. Labels set people apart as surely as physical separation on a bus or in school facilities. Labels are used to perpetuate prejudice about differences that, in this case, are embedded in the law. By excluding same-sex couples from civil marriage, the State declares that it is legitimate to differentiate between their commitments and the commitments of heterosexual couples. Ultimately, the message is that what same-sex couples have is not as important or as significant as "real" marriage, that such lesser relationships cannot have the same meaning of marriage."

The plaintiffs, seven gay and lesbian couples who applied for and were denied marriage licenses, argue that the state violated their rights to privacy and equal protection under the New Jersey Constitution.

The ACLU-NJ submitted a friend-of-the-court brief to the New Jersey Supreme Court supporting the right to marriage for these seven same-sex couples. The ACLU-NJ filed its brief on behalf of numerous civil rights organizations -- including the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, Hispanic Bar Association and the National Organization for Women of New Jersey -- in calling for an end to this discrimination.

Categories: Gay & Lesbian Rights Discrimination

A Victory for Truth: N.J. Drops Abstinence-Only Sex Ed

October 25, 2006

TRENTON, N.J. -- Advocates for comprehensive sex education praised Governor Corzine's decision today to reject onerous and overly restrictive federal funding to provide abstinence-only-until-marriage programs in New Jersey. The federally designed abstinence-only-until-marriage program violates students' rights, embraces sexist stereotypes, isolates GLBT youth, promulgates religious views and contradicts New Jersey's core curriculum for stress-abstinence comprehensive sex education.

"All students have a right to accurate and honest sexuality education and Governor Corzine's actions speak to the heart of the matter: we must not mislead and misinform our young people when it comes to sexuality education, because to do so leaves them at great risk" said C. Danene Sorace, Director of Answer at Rutgers University, a leading national organization dedicated to providing and promoting comprehensive adolescent sexuality education. "The mandates that come with the federal funding are simply not right for New Jersey. We refuse to leave our young people in the dark about their sexual health," continued Sorace.

In an October 24 letter from Fred M. Jacobs, Commissioner for the New Jersey Department of Health and Senior Services, and Lucille Davy, Commissioner for the New Jersey Department of Education, to U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Michael Leavitt, the state of New Jersey informed the federal government of its decision, explaining that the abstinence-only-until-marriage guidelines contradict the core curriculum content standard in comprehensive sex education that New Jersey has had in place for more than 25 years. Moreover, the governor's office cautioned that accepting federal abstinence-only dollars may in fact cost the state money because students may require additional sex education to clarify the partial and misinformation that is taught in abstinence-only-until-marriage programs.

New Jersey has received abstinence-only-until-marriage funding since 1997. In past years, the federal government allowed states the flexibility to run programs in a way that was consistent with its core curriculum content standards. This year, however, the federal government is requiring strict adherence to all the elements of the abstinence program.

"We are pleased that New Jersey has put the health and well-being of our teenagers first," said Deborah Jacobs, Executive Director of the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey, which urged the governor's office to reject the abstinence-only funding. "We need to put resources into programs that work, include medically accurate information and protect teens from discrimination."

Recently, the Society for Adolescent Medicine, in one of the most exhaustive reviews to date of government-funded abstinence-only programs, rejected the current administration's policy that promotes abstinence as the only sexual health prevention strategy for young people.

Reports show that many abstinence-only-until-marriage curricula used by federally funded programs contain false and misleading information and perpetuate harmful stereotypes. Alarmingly, these curricula also misrepresent the effectiveness of contraceptives by vastly understating the effectiveness of condoms at protecting against sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) and preventing unintended pregnancy. Such misinformation is particularly alarming given that each year in the United States, nearly 9.1 million 15- to 24-year olds are infected with an STD and more than 800,000 15- to 19-year olds become pregnant.

"New Jersey's decision to reject the dictates of Washington ideologues in favor of its own state's laws sends a clear message that Washington should stop playing politics and give states the flexibility to craft and fund programs that meet their own needs in helping youth make good decisions," said William Smith, vice president for public policy at SIECUS, the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the US, a leading sexuality education advocacy group. "New Jersey is not alone, joining other states like Maine, Pennsylvania and California, in taking a principled stand in turning back funds tied to these policies of extremism," Smith continued.

Categories: Student & Youth Rights Reproductive Freedom

ACLU-NJ Calls for Improved Voting Access

October 19, 2006

NEWARK, N.J. -- In an effort to increase voter participation in the Garden State, the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey and other high-profile voter rights' advocates, during a public forum today, will urge New Jersey to reform state election law to allow residents in future elections to register to vote up to and including Election Day. This proposal, if adopted, would replacing the current system under which anyone who registers less than 21 days before an election is barred from voting until the following election. Six of the seven states that allow Election Day registration have the nation's highest voter turnout rates.

Speakers from the Eagleton New Jersey Project, New Jersey Policy Perspective, Rutgers Constitutional Litigation Clinic and Demos will discuss how Election Day registration -- also known as same day registration -- works in other states and how to bring it to New Jersey.

"Election Day registration is one of the most effective things we can do to increase voter participation," said Deborah Jacobs, Executive Director of the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey, a co-sponsor of the "Help NJ Vote" forum.

Seven states now use Election Day registration: Maine, Minnesota, Idaho, New Hampshire, Wisconsin, Wyoming and North Dakota. In a 2003 study of the six states that had Election Day registration (one more state has adopted it since then), voter participation averaged 9.7 percent higher than in New Jersey. The 2004 elections showed an overall increase on average in voter turnout of 13.6 percent in states using Election Day registration over states that didn't.

"So wide is the disparity between who votes and who could vote that there is probably not a single elected official around today who has ever received a vote from the true majority of his or her constituents," said Jon Shure, president of New Jersey Policy Perspective, which has produced several reports on voting reform.

Regina Eaton, Deputy Director of the Democracy Project at Demos, reports higher voter turnout in tight races in states that practice Election Day registration. Eaton said, "Election Day registration offers voters -- who are motivated and engaged during the last month of campaigning, when there are often debates, heightened awareness of issues and mobilization efforts in competitive races -- a chance to exercise their most fundamental right and responsibility as citizens. Election Day registration makes it easier for eligible voters to participate, when many would otherwise have been denied the opportunity to vote, including new voters or people who have recently moved."

The ACLU-NJ Voting Rights for All Project works with other advocacy organizations in voter protection during New Jersey elections as part of its long-term mission to secure and enhance the rights of all citizens to vote. The ACLU-NJ's Election Day hotline typically receives complaints ranging from long-time voters whose names are missing from poll books to improper denials of voter registration to people with prior convictions. The ACLU-NJ, anticipating more registration problems when the new statewide database system becomes active, advocates for Election Day registration as a way to help voters and election officials overcome voter registration problems that implementation of the new statewide database may cause.

Legislation (S162) has been introduced in New Jersey that would establish Election Day registration. Sponsored by Senators Raymond Lesniak and Barbara Buono, the bill would permit voter registration at polling place on days of municipal primary and general elections.

The Constitutional Litigation Clinic at Rutgers School of Law-Newark has analyzed the mobility patterns of New Jerseyans over the past few years, documenting the extent of the transient lifestyles we experience today. Frequent moves and lack of information concerning voter registration rules increasingly disenfranchise eligible voters. Election Day registration is one proven response to our new demographics. "There is a time disconnect with elections and registration in New Jersey," said Professor Frank Askin, Director of the Constitutional Law Clinic. "Just as the campaigns begin to heat up, people are cut off from voter registration."

Less than 50 percent of eligible voters in New Jersey voted in the 2005 general elections. But turnout figures mask a deeper chasm between those who vote and those who do not. Not counted at all in turnout figures are people who are old enough to vote but have not registered to do so, as well as those who are old enough to vote but are deemed ineligible.

Sponsors of the "Help NJ Vote" forum chose the campus location to highlight the problems students face with voter registration. "Students who live on or near campus often find registration confusing and not successful, resulting in being turned away at the polls," said Eagleton New Jersey Project Director Ingrid Reed. "Election Day registration will help ensure that students -- and young people more broadly -- have a stronger voice in our democracy."

On the Net

American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey
http://www.aclu-nj.org/theissues/electionsvoting/
New Jersey Policy Perspective, "Get 'Em In and Let 'Em In"
http://www.njpp.org/rpt_askin.html
Demos, "Securing the Vote: An Analysis of Election Fraud"
http://www.demos.org/page52.cfm
Eagleton New Jersey Project
http://www.eagleton.rutgers.edu/NJProject.html

Categories: Student & Youth Rights Elections & Voting Discrimination

ACLU-NJ Joins Local Coalition to Fight Anti-Immigrant Law

October 18, 2006

A coalition of Riverside business owners, landlords and residents will File a Lawsuit (85k PDF) today against the Township of Riverside in state court, contending that the recently adopted Illegal Immigration Relief Act oversteps the city's authority, is too vague, unfairly puts businesses at risk and violates civil rights under state law.

The plaintiffs are represented by attorneys from the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey, American Civil Liberties Union Immigrants' Rights Project, Spear Wilderman, P.C., the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, People For the American Way Foundation and Ragonese Albano & Viola.

The ordinance is one of the most restrictive of the recent wave of anti-immigrant legislation passed by local governments across the nation. It attempts to ban immigrants from renting, residing, using property or being employed in Riverside. The ordinance, in very broad terms, applies to actions that "aid or abet" undocumented immigrants anywhere in the United States.

The Lawsuit Explains (228k PDF) that the ordinance goes far beyond the authority of Riverside under state law.

"State law simply does not permit Riverside to exclude immigrants from the Township," said James Katz of Spear Wilderman, P.C., who is cooperating counsel for the ACLU-NJ and ACLU-IRP in the case. "Nor can they regulate the rental or hiring decisions of Riverside businesses and landlords."

"This ordinance is so vague and overbroad that it's virtually impossible to obey and appears to ban a large amount of innocent conduct," said Elliot Mincberg, vice president and legal director for People For the American Way Foundation. "Even a hospital or church that allows an immigrant on its premises could be charged with a violation."

Business owners and landlords decided to sue because they felt the law is difficult to comply with and exposes them to enormous risk. It could require them to take unreasonable and expensive measures and possibly invade the privacy of their clients in order to comply, all at great detriment to their businesses. They are also concerned that the divisive ordinance is fomenting ugly sentiments against immigrants, and destroying the community's business climate and its spirit of tolerance and cooperation.

"The ordinance almost authorizes a vigilante-type of attitude," said David Verduin, a Riverside business owner and a plaintiff. "Everyone lives in fear." He added, "Immigration is too complicated an issue for us to make a judgment on. Even federal agents need a court's help in deciding who is here illegally."

The ordinance is not currently being enforced, but has had a profound impact on the town, Verduin said. He estimated the ordinance has "scared off" about one-third of Riverside's immigrant population causing some businesses to close, while others have seen sales decline by as much as 50 percent.

"All this ordinance does is create tension and hatred between neighbors," said Cesar Perales, President and General Counsel of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund. "The city will also face major litigation costs."

The lawsuit is being filed today with the Superior Court of New Jersey, Burlington County. The case is captioned Riverside Coalition of Business Persons, et al. v. Township of Riverside.

In support of this lawsuit, New Jersey Appleseed and Seton Hall Law School Center for Social Justice will file an amicus brief on behalf of the Latino Leadership Alliance of New Jersey and a broad coalition of nonprofit organizations working with immigrants.

Categories: Immigrant Rights Discrimination

ACLU and Rutgers Champion Basic Rights, Citing Racial Discrimination

September 14, 2006

NEWARK, N.J. -- The American Civil Liberties Union and the Rutgers Law School Constitutional Litigation Clinic filed a petition today urging the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to rule that denying New Jersey citizens on parole and probation the right to vote violates universal human rights principles.

"The premise of a participatory democracy is simple -- that citizens are able and encouraged to participate. The cornerstone of participating in our democracy is the right to vote," said Laleh Ispahani, Senior Policy Counsel at the ACLU. "Ignoring the racial implications of denying blocks of people the right to vote violates basic democracy, fairness and human rights principles."

Of the approximately 100,000 parolees and probationers subject to the state's felon-disfranchisement law, more than 60 percent are African American or Latino, which the ACLU and Rutgers say is in large measure a consequence of racial profiling in the criminal justice system. As a result, the political power of the African American and Latino communities in New Jersey is diluted because they are disproportionately excluded from voting.

The problem of disfranchisement is widespread across the nation, the ACLU said. According to the petition 19 other states and the District of Columbia have disfranchisement policies that are less sweeping than New Jersey's; 19 have the exact same policies; and another 12 exclude even more categories of people than New Jersey. Only two out of the 50 states permit voting in prison, a practice embraced by nearly one-half of European nations. Notably, those states, Maine and Vermont, are far more racially homogeneous than most of the country.

The organizations are requesting that the Inter-American Commission investigate the claims made in their petition, declare the federal government and New Jersey and other states with similar post-incarceration voting restrictions in violation of universally accepted human rights standards, and most importantly, to urge all U.S. states to bring their felon disfranchisement laws into line with these standards.

"Although it is true that the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights cannot compel action by the state of New Jersey, we believe that the moral suasion of such an eminent hemispheric body would be taken very seriously by New Jersey officials," said Professor Frank Askin of Rutgers Law School Constitutional Litigation Clinic.

Earlier this year, the ACLU released "Out of Step with the World," the first comprehensive international comparative study of felon disfranchisement policies. It examines other western democracies' policies, practices and legal precedents and the result is clear: the United States lags far behind the rest of the democratic world.

Established by the United States and Latin American countries in 1959 under the auspices of the Organization of American States (OAS), the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, which sits in Washington, D.C., is expressly authorized to examine allegations of human rights violations by members of the OAS. The Commission is also authorized to conduct on-site visits to observe the general human rights situations in all 35 member states of the OAS and to investigate specific allegations of violations of Inter-American human rights treaties and other instruments. Its overall responsibility is to promote the observance and the defense of human rights in the Americas.

In order to petition the body, all domestic judicial avenues of redress must be exhausted. In this case, a challenge under the New Jersey Constitution to the state's disfranchisement law was rejected by the Superior Court Appellate Division and review was denied in March of this year by the New Jersey Supreme Court. The United States takes its international responsibilities seriously and specifically in relation to proceedings before the Commission. Recently, the United States has vigorously defended its position when challenged on such issues as the juvenile death penalty and the detention of detainees at Guantánamo.

The ACLU's new Human Rights Program is dedicated to holding the U.S. government accountable to universally recognized human rights principles. The Human Rights Program is charged with incorporating international human rights strategies into ACLU advocacy on issues relating to national security, immigrants' rights, women's rights and racial justice.

The petition is brought by Ispahani, Steven Watt and Ann Beeson of the ACLU Human Rights Program and Askin and Penny Venetis of the Rutgers Law School Constitutional Litigation Clinic. The lead petitioners are the New Jersey State Conference of the NAACP and the Latino Leadership Alliance of New Jersey.

"Out of Step with the World" is available online at:
http://www.aclu.org/votingrights/exoffenders/25663pub20060525.html

The petition to the IACHR is available online at:
http://www.aclu.org/intlhumanrights/gen/26731lgl20060913.html

Categories: Prisons Elections & Voting Discrimination

ACLU-NJ, Seton Hall Challenge TSA Suspension of Arab American

September 14, 2006

NEWARK, N.J. -- The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey and the Seton Hall Law School Center for Social Justice today filed an employment discrimination lawsuit on behalf of Dr. Wagih H. Makky, a world-renowned aviation security expert and engineer suspended from the Transportation Security Administration on account of his Arab and Muslim heritage.

"Suspending one of the government's most talented security engineers just because he's an Arab and a Muslim compromises our country's security as well as its values," said Seton Hall Law School Center for Social Justice Professor Baher Azmy, who is representing Dr. Makky in cooperation with the ACLU-NJ. "After September 11, we cannot allow petty prejudice to prevent one of our most talented citizens from doing his job to keep our airlines safe."

Dr. Makky was suspended from his job on the day the United States invaded Iraq, for reasons that have always been kept secret from him.

Following the bombing of the Pan Am airliner over Lockerbie, Scotland, Dr. Makky was specifically tapped by the U.S. government to help create the program within the Federal Aviation Administration responsible for developing machines to detect and prevent explosives from being brought aboard various modes of transportation, particularly commercial airplanes and passenger trains. He is of undisputed expertise and renown in this area.

Even before he was finally suspended, Dr. Makky faced persistent prejudice at work. One supervisor told him that it had been a mistake to hire an Arab; another opined to him that "Muslims have no brains." In 2002, when a new supervisor took over Dr. Makky's division, he wanted to know just one thing about Dr. Makky: his national origin.

The reasons for his suspension have never been revealed to Dr. Makky.

Instead, a classified FBI file that was kept in the private safe of his supervisor and that supposedly formed the basis for his determination has been withheld from Dr. Makky during administrative proceedings initiated by his lawyers to uncover it.

"Dr. Makky has devoted his career as an aviation safety engineer to protecting the American people from terrorist attacks," Professor Azmy said. "America should operate with transparency and fairness, not reactionary prejudice, when dealing with life-long civil servants."

Born in Egypt, Dr. Makky came to this country nearly 30 years ago. He received his Ph.D., became an American citizen and held several prestigious research positions before beginning his career in government.

Today's lawsuit, filed in federal court in Newark, raises employment discrimination and civil service protection claims for back wages, as well as Freedom of Information Act claims in order to allow Dr. Makky to see the classified file supposedly containing the reasons for his suspension that have been withheld from him.

In addition to Professor Azmy, attorneys on the case include Scott Michelman, also of the Seton Hall Law School Center for Social Justice, and Edward Barocas, Legal Director of the ACLU-NJ, and Arthur B. Spitzer, Legal Director of the ACLU National Capital Area.

The case is captioned Wagih Makky v. Michael Chertoff, et al. (86k PDF)

Categories: Discrimination Open Government National Security Immigrant Rights

Survey: Immigrants Risk Exclusion in 1 of 4 NJ Schools

August 29, 2006

NEWARK, N.J. -- The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey today called on the state Department of Education to put an end to school practices that violate state and federal laws by requiring that parents who wish to enroll their children in public school provide private information about them, such as their Social Security numbers. This practice has the most chilling effect on immigrant students seeking to register for school.

The ACLU-NJ in a nine-month survey project found that one in four New Jersey public schools illegally requested Social Security numbers or asked about other information that would reveal the immigration status of children seeking to enroll in school. New Jersey law and a 1982 U.S. Supreme Court ruling prohibit these practices.

"The fact that one-quarter of schools in our survey illegally require such information is particularly disconcerting given that the law is so clear," said ACLU-NJ Legal Director Ed Barocas.

Based on the pervasiveness of the problem, the ACLU-NJ sent a letter today to the New Jersey Department of Education to apprise the agency of this illegal practice and demand corrective action.

Specifically, the ACLU-NJ called on the state Department of Education to:

Issue a formal, written directive to all school superintendents in New Jersey reminding them of the law;
monitor compliance;
require school districts to train frontline school personnel who handle such inquiries from parents of prospective students; and
require school districts to revise all registration forms, including information posted on Web sites, so they comply with the law.

As the high percentage of noncompliant schools became apparent, the ACLU-NJ also reached out to the Department of the Public Advocate for assistance. "We are hopeful that with the support of the Public Advocate and the Department of Education, this matter will be rectified shortly," Barocas said.

Because families turned away from schools are often unaware of their rights or how to assert them, the ACLU-NJ also requested that the Department of Education require that school districts by no later than the next school year (2007-2008) provide parents with a bilingual (English/Spanish) fact sheet, which would inform parents of their legal rights; specifically point out that the demand for Social Security numbers is illegal; and note that immigration status has no bearing on a child's ability to enroll in school.

"Every child in New Jersey has a right to public education," said Barocas, "and it is in our society's best interest to ensure that they go to school and get an education."

Prompted by complaints from concerned parents, the ACLU-NJ launched an investigation that took place from December 2005 to August 2006, surveying a sample of schools across the state to determine whether they request such information from parents who seek to register their children for school.

The ACLU-NJ project team, made up of volunteers and staff members, called and made contact with 224 school districts in 16 counties throughout New Jersey and found that 57 school districts -- one in four -- illegally required Social Security numbers or asked about the immigration status of students seeking to enroll.

The ACLU-NJ sent letters to these noncompliant school districts in February 2006 and April 2006 to remind them of the law and ask that they no longer require Social Security numbers or other proof of immigration status for children seeking to enroll in school.

In its letters to school districts, the ACLU-NJ also requested that the districts' demands for Social Security numbers or information about immigration status be removed from enrollment forms and that administrative staff who handle such inquiries be trained about the law.

Of the 57 noncompliant schools, nearly two-thirds responded by saying they would amend their forms or retrain staff. Thirteen schools (23 percent) denied ever asking for Social Security numbers and another eight (14 percent) schools did not respond to ACLU-NJ letters.

In addition, the ACLU-NJ found repeated instances in which school districts posted erroneous information on their Web sites. A few schools that denied ever requesting Social Security numbers or said they had corrected their forms still have such illegal requests posted on enrollment forms on their Web sites.

The ACLU-NJ will continue to monitor any complaints from parents who report being required to produce Social Security numbers or other information that reveals immigration status in order to enroll their children in public school.

Resources

Categories: Student & Youth Rights Privacy Immigrant Rights Discrimination

ACLU-NJ Reclama al DOE que Acesso Igual a las Escuelas

August 29, 2006

NEWARK, N.J. -- La Unión Americana de Libertades Civiles de Nuevo Jersey reclamó hoy al Departamento Estatal de Educación para que ponga fin a las prácticas escolares que violan leyes estatales y federales por requerir que los padres provean información privada sobre sus niños, tal como el número de Seguro Social. Esta práctica constituye un factor más asustador para los inmigrantes que tratan de matricularse en la escuela.

La ACLU-NJ hizo un estudio de 9 meses y concluyó que una de cuatro escuelas públicas investigadas en Nuevo Jersey pidieron ilegalmente los números de Seguro Social o preguntaron por otra información que revelaría el estatus inmigratorio de niños intentando matricularse en la escuela. La ley de Nuevo Jersey y una decisión de la Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos en 1982 prohíben estas prácticas.

"El hecho que veinticinco por ciento de las escuelas en nuestra investigación pidieron tal información ilegalmente es particularmente desconcertante considerando que la ley es tan clara," dijo el Director Legal de ACLU-NJ Ed Barocas.

Debido a la inmensidad del problema, la ACLU-NJ mandó hoy una carta al Departamento de Educación de Nuevo Jersey avisando a la agencia de esta práctica ilegal y exigiendo que corrija esta situación.

Específicamente, la ACLU-NJ llamó al Departamento Estatal de Educación para que:

promulgue una directiva formal y escrita que recuerde la ley a todos los directores escolares ("superintendents") en Nuevo Jersey;
haga cumplir la ley;
requiera a los distritos escolares que eduquen al personal escolar que tiene la responsabilidad de responder a las preguntas de los padres de estudiantes anticipados; y
requiera a los distritos escolares que modifiquen todos los formularios de matriculación, incluyendo información sobre sitios de Internet para que cumplan con la ley.

Puesto que era obvio que existe un porcentaje elevado de escuelas que no cumplen con la ley, la ACLU-NJ también se puso en contacto con el Departamento del Bien Estar Público ("Public Advocate") para pedir ayuda. "Estamos optimistas que con el apoyo de los Departamentos del Bien Estar Público y de Educación, este asunto será rectificado en corto tiempo," dijo Barocas.

Como las familias rechazadas por las escuelas frecuentemente no conocen sus derechos o no saben cómo hacer valerlos, la ACLU-NJ también pidió al Departamento de Educación que exija que los distritos escolares provean a los padres no más tarde que el próximo año escolar (2007-2008) un folleto de información en español e inglés, informando a los padres de sus derechos legales, señalando en particular que es ilegal solicitar el número de Seguro Social, e indicando que el estatus de inmigración no tiene nada que ver con la capacidad de un niño para matricularse en la escuela.

"Cada niño en Nuevo Jersey tiene derecho a una educación pública," dijo Barocas, "y es en el bien estar de nuestra sociedad de asegurar que ellos asistan a la escuela y obtengan una educación."

A causa de quejas de padres inquietos, la ACLU-NJ hizo un estudio entre diciembre 2005 y agosto 2006 investigando una muestra de escuelas en el estado para determinar si ellas piden tal información a padres que quieren matricular sus hijos en la escuela.

Voluntarios de ACLU-NJ contactaron 224 distritos escolares en 16 condados en Nuevo Jersey y descubrieron que 57 distritos escolares - uno de cuatro - ilegalmente pedían números de Seguro Social o hacían preguntas sobre el estatus inmigratorio de niños intentando matricularse.

En febrero 2006, la ACLU-NJ mandó cartas a esos distritos escolares que no cumplían con la ley y, en abril 2006, una segunda carta para recordarles de la ley y pedir que cesen de requerir números de Seguro Social o otra prueba del estatus de inmigración de los niños tratando de matricularse en la escuela.

En sus cartas a los distritos escolares, la ACLU-NJ también pidió que los requerimientos de números de Seguro Social o información sobre el estatus de inmigración sean borrados de los formularios de matriculación y que el personal administrativo encargado de esos formularios sea educado sobre la ley.

De las 57 escuelas que no cumplían con la ley, casi dos terceras respondieron diciendo que modificarían sus formularios o darían una nueva formación a sus empleados. Trece escuelas (23 por ciento) negaron jamás haber pedido números de Seguro Social y ocho escuelas (14 por ciento) no respondieron a las cartas o llamadas telefónicas de ACLU-NJ.

Además, la ACLU-NJ descubrió reiterados casos en los cuales los distritos escolares tenían información errónea en sus sitios Web. Algunas escuelas que negaron jamás haber pedido números de Seguro Social o dijeron que habían corregido sus formularios todavía tienen tal requerimientos ilegales en los formularios que aparecen en sus sitios Web.

La ACLU-NJ seguirá prestando toda su atención a cualquier queja de padres diciendo que están requeridos en proveer números de Seguro Social o otra información que revela el estatus de inmigración para matricular sus hijos en escuelas públicas.

Sobre el Internet

Categories: Student & Youth Rights Privacy Immigrant Rights Discrimination

ACLU-NJ Defends Right to Videotape Public Meetings

August 21, 2006

NEWARK, N.J. -- The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey today submitted a friend-of-the-court brief to the New Jersey Supreme Court supporting a citizen's right to videotape public meetings.

"The right to freedom of speech and of the press includes the right to obtain and document public information," said Jennifer Klear of Drinker, Biddle & Reath, who wrote the brief on behalf of the ACLU-NJ. "In no arena is that right as important as during meetings of elected officials."

In this case, Robert Wayne Tarus was denied the right to videotape the audience and certain speakers at a borough council meeting in Pine Hill, Camden County, New Jersey.

"On numerous occasions over the past 15 years, and most famously during the incident involving Rodney King and Los Angeles police, video has proved an invaluable method of documenting government activities or misconduct," said ACLU-NJ Legal Director Ed Barocas.

The case was appealed from the Appellate Division, which held that there is no right under the New Jersey Constitution to videotape public meetings. The ACLU-NJ brief to the New Jersey Supreme Court explains that the Appellate Division erred in its analysis. The ACLU-NJ maintains that videotaping falls within the umbrella of the right to free speech, subject only to legitimate "time, place and manner" restrictions.

Pine Hill argued that the restriction on videotaping was justified because people attending the public meeting didn't want to be videotaped. However, as explained in the ACLU-NJ's brief, people do not have a right to privacy when they attend a public government function.

The case is captioned Tarus v. Borough of Pine Hill, et al.

Categories: Open Government Free Speech

ACLU-NJ, Garden State Equality Demand Investigation of Sting Operations

August 15, 2006

ISELIN/NEWARK, N.J. -- Garden State Equality and the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey today Sent a Joint Letter (254k PDF) to Governor Jon Corzine and Attorney General Zulima Farber urging the administration to conduct a formal investigation of the Palisades Interstate Park Police Department's sting operations that target gay men.

The organizations' request for a formal investigation follows a Recent Appeals Court Decision (82k PDF) that cast doubt on the credibility of the Palisades Park police and questioned the legal analysis of the judge involved in arrests and sentencing of alleged lewdness cases. "An abiding sense of wrongness pervades this conviction," the appellate court said in its decision last week to overturn a gay man's conviction for lewdness. The court also found that the actions of the defendant did not constitute a crime because the defendant believed he was with a consenting adult, not an undercover police officer, in a location in which they were unlikely to be viewed by others.

Garden State Equality and the ACLU-NJ in a July 2005 Letter to Governor Codey (95k PDF) requested that the Codey administration conduct an investigation to end the sting operations in which undercover park police try to bait gay men into having sex. The organizations received no response.

"We renew this call for an investigation not to condone public lewdness," said Jeanne LoCicero, staff attorney at the ACLU-NJ, "but to stop the disparate treatment of gays and straights that may well be a violation of the New Jersey's Law Against Discrimination."

"With last week's appellate court decision, we have yet another sign that the prosecution of gay men for lewdness in Palisades Interstate Park has been an anti-gay witch-hunt culminating in anti-gay, kangaroo court proceedings," said Steven Goldstein, Chair of Garden State Equality. "This travesty of justice requires not only a formal investigation, but also Governor Corzine's consideration of a new municipal judge for Palisades Park."

In their letter to Governor Corzine and Attorney General Farber, the organizations noted that the sting operations in Palisades Park involved more than just one police officer, and that Judge Stephen Zaben, the trial judge with jurisdiction over Palisades Park, has given gay defendants in lewdness cases disproportionately tougher sentences than he has given straight defendants.

Because of last week's appellate decision, in which the court wrote that "significant questions about the officer's credibility were not sufficiently considered," Garden State Equality and the ACLU-NJ now ask the Corzine administration to take immediate steps to investigate Judge Zaben's rulings on arrests for lewdness, as well as any continued sting operations.

Judge Zaben, whose term formally expired in 2001, remains on the bench as a holdover appointment, able to be replaced at any time. According to news reports, park police made more than 100 undercover arrests for lewdness in 2004 and 2005. Detective Thomas Rossi, the police officer involved in last week's appeals court decision, testified that he has personally made more than 100 undercover arrests since joining the park police force in 2002.

As reported in the Gay City News, Judge Zaben's sentences in lewdness cases with gay defendants have included suspended jail sentences, one or two years on probation, a two-year ban from the park and court-supervised psychiatric counseling. In contrast, Judge Zaben reportedly sentenced a heterosexual couple -- who were violating the same lewdness statute -- to fines and a ban from the park, but not to a jail sentence, probation or court-supervised psychiatric counseling. And unlike many of the gay men, the heterosexual couple engaged in lewd behavior without being lured into it by police.

In their letter to Governor Corzine and Attorney General Farber, Garden State Equality and the ACLU-NJ wrote: "The sting operation by the Palisades Interstate Park police, combined with Judge Zaben's disproportionate sentencing of gay defendants and disregard for the officer's lack of credibility, appears to be systematic, legally condoned gay-bashing, as well as a misuse and waste of public funds. It concerns our organizations, and in light of this week's state appeals court ruling, should concern every citizen of our fair-minded state."

Palisades Interstate Park extends from Fort Lee in New Jersey north to Bear Mountain in New York. The New Jersey and New York governors each appoint five of the 10 commissioners. Separate police forces on each side of the border patrol each state's portion of the park.

Categories: Police Practices Gay & Lesbian Rights Discrimination

ACLU-NJ Delivers Petition to Demand Officials Investigate Phone Snooping

June 15, 2006

NEWARK, N.J. -- The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey today delivered a petition containing the names of 1,300 New Jerseyans from across the state who support the organization's call to investigate whether local telecommunications companies allowed the National Security Agency to spy on New Jersey customers.

The ACLU-NJ sent the petition to New Jersey Board of Public Utilities President Jeanne Fox, urging the regulatory agency to investigate whether Verizon and AT&T cooperated with the NSA's warrantless surveillance and data mining of Americans.

"Today, the people of New Jersey have stepped forward to demand that their government investigate this massive, illegal and fundamentally un-American invasion of our privacy," said ACLU-NJ Executive Director Deborah Jacobs. "We join with thousands of concerned citizens in calling on our state officials to demand investigations into this troubling breach of public trust. The people of New Jersey—and all Americans—want the truth."

The ACLU-NJ also learned today that the federal government is seeking to block state Attorney General Zulima Farber from seeking information about the phone companies' cooperation with the NSA. "We applaud Attorney General Farber for taking such an active role," added Jacobs. "However, the federal government is trying to suppress the public's right to know. This a slap in the face to the people of New Jersey who have stood up to demand that state officials investigate whether the phone companies have violated any of the state's consumer protection laws."

Last month, the ACLU-NJ and affiliates in 19 other states filed complaints with public utility commissions or sent letters to state Attorneys General and other officials demanding investigations into the unlawful sharing of billions of consumers' call records with the NSA.

In addition to the 1,300 signatures delivered to the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities today, the ACLU has collected tens of thousands of signatures nationwide that have been delivered to state public utilities commissions.

"The rule of law has been broken, and it must be restored," said Jacobs. "The people of New Jersey are proud to stand against this abuse of power. We urge our state officials to bring the truth to light."

Online Resources:

The ACLU-NJ's May 24 Letter to the Board of Public Utilities (2mb PDF)
The ACLU's concerns with NSA spying: http://www.aclu.org/nsaspying
Letters from ACLU affiliates and other information regarding the domestic surveillance program: http://www.aclu.org/dontspy

Categories: Privacy National Security

Chinese Restaurant Settles Waitress Exploitation Lawsuit Brought by ACLU

June 05, 2006

NEWARK, N.J. -- The American Civil Liberties Union announced today that it has settled a federal lawsuit against the Rainbow Buffet restaurant brought by two immigrant waitresses who say they were exploited and subjected to physical and emotional abuse.

"Low-wage, immigrant women workers are often vulnerable to exploitation, abuse and sexual harassment at the hands of their employers," said Claudia Flores, a staff attorney with the ACLU Women's Rights Project, and a lead attorney in this case. "We hope this settlement encourages women in oppressive situations to stand up for their rights."

The ACLU Women's Rights Project and the ACLU of New Jersey brought the lawsuit on behalf of two Fujianese women, Mei Fang Li and Li Ping Wang. In legal papers, the women recounted disturbing incidents of exploitation that took place during their employment at Rainbow Buffet between November 2003 and August 2004. During that time, the waitresses said they worked for more than 60 hours per week for far less than minimum wage. Each woman was paid only $120 per month in wages for nearly 300 monthly work hours. The Rainbow Buffet management also systematically confiscated portions of the tips the waitresses received from customers, according to the lawsuit.

The ACLU charged that the restaurant's practices violated federal and state labor laws as well as state tort law. The ACLU also filed charges of sexual harassment and wrongful discharge on the women's behalf with the Newark Area Office of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Li and Wang said that busboys and other employees at Rainbow Buffet intentionally hit them, touched them against their will, made humiliating and menacing sexual comments and threatened them, all with the full knowledge of management, who did nothing to stop the acts.

"Too often immigrant women stay in illegal and dangerous working conditions because they are not aware of their rights," said Nancy Eng, Program Director of the Chinese Staff and Workers Association. "These women have the right to be treated with dignity and deserve to work in an environment where their work is valued."

The case is captioned Li v. Rainbow Group.

The ACLU Women's Rights Project, which regularly advocates on behalf of low-income immigrant women, is representing two other women in a similar case filed against King Chef Buffet in Wayne, New Jersey. That case was filed in June 2003 on behalf of waitresses Mei Ying Liu and Shu Fang Chen, who charged that they faced gender and ethnicity discrimination, were paid no wages for their work, had to pay a daily kickback out of their tips to the restaurant owners, were housed in an overcrowded, vermin-filled apartment and were threatened with death when they stopped working at the restaurant. The case is currently pending before the district court.

"Labor exploitation is a serious problem that plagues many immigrant workers, especially women," said Lenora Lapidus, Director of the ACLU Women's Rights Project. "Sexual discrimination and economic exploitation is illegal and employers need to know that they cannot take advantage of immigrant women with impunity."

The legal agreement between Rainbow Buffet and the waitresses does not allow either party to disclose the settlement amount. In addition to Flores and Lapidus, other attorneys in the case are Edward Barocas, Legal Director of the ACLU of New Jersey, and ACLU cooperating attorney Jean-David Barnea. Flores, Lapidus and Barocas are also co-counsel in the King Chef case, Liu v. Oriental Buffet Inc.

Categories: Immigrant Rights

ACLU-NJ Supports Student's Right to Religious Expression

June 05, 2006

NEWARK, N.J. -- The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey today filed a friend-of-the-court brief in a case seeking to uphold an elementary school student's right to religious expression.

The Frenchtown Elementary School student, whose initials are O.T., wanted to sing the song "Awesome God" in a voluntary, after-school talent show. School officials refused to allow the student to sing her song, saying it would give the impression that the school favored religion.

"There is a distinction between religious expression initiated or endorsed by school personnel, and speech initiated by individual students," said ACLU-NJ cooperating attorney Jennifer Klear of Drinker, Biddle & Reath in New York City. "The Constitution protects a student's individual right to express herself, including religious expression."

The talent show was open for anyone from kindergarten through 8th grades who wished to play a solo instrument, dance, perform a skit or sing to karaoke. Students were permitted to select their own songs or skits.

"We are dedicated to protecting the right of individual religious expression," said ACLU-NJ Legal Director Ed Barocas. "O.T. has our full support in defense of her right to sing a religious song in the talent show."

The case is captioned O.T., et al. v. Frenchtown Elementary School, et al. and was filed in federal court in Trenton, N.J.

Categories: Religious Freedom Student & Youth Rights

ACLU-NJ Seeks to Protect Privacy of Workers' Financial Information

June 01, 2006

NEWARK, N.J. -- The American Civil Liberties of Union of New Jersey today filed a friend-of-the-court brief seeking to protect the privacy rights of government employees whose personal financial information is being made publicly available under a new law.

At issue is the extent to which the government can require employees to release sensitive, private financial information about themselves and their families, and post that information on the Internet.

"The government has a right to collect information about employees to determine whether conflicts of interest exist, and the public should have access to most government-held information," said ACLU-NJ Legal Director Ed Barocas. "However, the government should not publicly disclose highly sensitive personal information that does not serve the public interest. We live in a time when disclosure of financial information -- particularly on the Internet -- makes people easy prey to identity thieves and others who seek to misuse this personal information."

Employees in the Casino Control Commission filed suit after the Legislature passed a statute, in accordance with Governor Corzine's Executive Order #1, which required the financial disclosure forms of all employees of the commission to be disclosed to the public via the Internet, with the exception of secretarial or clerical employees. Previously, the financial disclosure statements were not public and were obtained by the State Ethics Commission to ensure against conflicts of interests and to preserve integrity in government.

The information at issue may include whether employees owe money to relatives, how much or how little is in their bank account, where their children and spouse work, credit card debts, how much life insurance they have, any businesses a spouse has an ownership interest in, what stocks or bonds an employee owns and how much they owe on their mortgages.

The ACLU-NJ does not challenge the government's right to obtain the information. Rather, its brief addresses the extent of public disclosure of financial information that: 1) includes employees who are not decision-makers; 2) includes information unrelated to employees' jobs; and 3) is unlikely to be related to conflicts or impropriety. In New York State, for example, certain employees can be exempt from disclosing personal financial information that has "no material bearing on the discharge of the reporting person's official duties." New Jersey does not currently afford that protection.

The ACLU-NJ believes that, in general, government records should be public except when dealing with: 1) social security numbers; 2) medical information; 3) financial information; and 4) home addresses. This sensitive personal information should be made public only if the disclosure is necessary to shed light on the functioning of government -- such as the inclusion of home addresses in voting records (to ensure that the person voting lives in that district) or salaries paid to government employees.

The case is captioned Price, et al. v. Corzine, et al. It was filed in federal court in Trenton.

Categories: Privacy

DOE Confirms ACLU-NJ Complaint Regarding Racial Discrimination

May 31, 2006

NEWARK, N.J. -- The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey today applauded a state Department of Education report confirming ACLU-NJ allegations that the Lakewood School District discriminated on the basis of race in its preschool special education program.

The ACLU-NJ uncovered disparities in Lakewood's special education program after reviewing enrollment statistics for the 2002-2003 and 2003-2004 school years. For example, even though white students made up only 55 percent of the overall preschool special education population in Lakewood, they received 98 percent of the more expensive, out-of-district placements, according to enrollment statistics obtained by the ACLU-NJ.

"The numbers showed a clear pattern of discrimination on the basis of race," said ACLU-NJ Legal Director Ed Barocas. During at least two consecutive school years, only one of 94 nonwhite preschool special education students was sent to an out-of-district placement while more than half of the 123 white preschool special education students were sent to the more expensive out-of-district placements. "It was as if they were being treated as two different classes of students," Barocas said.

Further, the evidence showed that most of the white students were sent to one particular school -- the School for Children with Hidden Intelligence -- that appeared to have enrolled only white students.

On June 16, 2005, the ACLU-NJ filed an official complaint with the New Jersey Department of Education (DOE) in order to give the agency an opportunity to help resolve the matter without having to go to court.

The ACLU-NJ complaint to the state Commissioner of Education stated that, as the statistics made clear, "whether done intentionally or de facto, Lakewood School District is segregating its special education students" by taking race into account in determining placements.

In response to the ACLU-NJ complaint, the DOE launched an investigation that included a review of statistics, interviews with Lakewood special education employees, visits to Lakewood schools and the School for Children with Hidden Intelligence, and a review of student records.

The DOE investigation resulted in a 31-Page Report (2.5mb PDF), issued May 24, 2006, confirming the ACLU-NJ's allegations.

In a letter accompanying the 31-Page Report (2.5mb PDF), the DOE said it found that for the 2003-2004 and 2004-2005 school years "the Lakewood School District failed to consistently make decisions based upon the individual needs of preschool students with disabilities. Rather, program and placement decisions can be directly correlated with a student's race. Therefore, the Lakewood School District is ordered to undertake correction action . . ."

The report also found that Lakewood discriminated not only in selecting in-district versus out-of-district placements, but also discriminated about whether students received full-time rather than part-time programs and whether students received regular school-year or extended school-year services.

The DOE has directed Lakewood to develop a proposed corrective action plan that must include a review of Lakewood School District's policies, education of staff and administrators, monitoring by the DOE's Office of Special Education programs, submission of monthly reports to the Bureau of Program Accountability, review of placements of all white preschool students and a review to determine whether compensatory services for individual black or Hispanic students is appropriate. The proposed plan must be submitted by July 31, 2006.

Categories: Student & Youth Rights Discrimination

ACLU-NJ to Local Officials: Investigate Phone Companies' Cooperation with NSA

May 24, 2006

NEWARK, N.J. -- Responding to reports that phone companies are turning over private details about Americans' telephone calls to the National Security Agency, the American Civil Liberties Union today launched a nationwide initiative to end illegal government spying.

The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey and affiliates in 19 other states today filed complaints with public utility commissions or sent letters to state Attorneys General and other officials demanding investigations into whether local telecommunications companies allowed the National Security Agency (NSA) to spy on their customers.

"Government spying on everyday Americans is an illegal and unAmerican privacy violation and Americans need to know the truth," said Deborah Jacobs, Executive Director of the ACLU-NJ, which today called on the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities to open an investigation to determine whether AT&T or Verizon has violated any New Jersey law or any rule of the Board of Public Utilities.

"We're not talking about obstructing legitimate law enforcement activities; this is about standing up for the fundamental privacy and due process rights of people whose telephone records have been released to the government without a warrant, notice or consent," Jacobs said. "People who have nothing to hide -- who may only have made calls to a psychiatrist, an AIDS testing center, a suicide hotline or an old boyfriend -- don't want government listening in on their personal business."

In its Letter to the Board of Public Utilities (2mb PDF), the ACLU-NJ noted that the New Jersey Constitution protects consumer phone records from disclosure. Through its alleged disclosure of the details of private phone calls, Verizon and AT&T may have violated their own customer service agreements. If the allegations against Verizon and AT&T are true, then the companies also have violated New Jersey's Consumer Fraud Act by engaging in deception and misrepresentation, the ACLU-NJ letter said.

In addition to the ACLU-NJ, actions were filed today by ACLU affiliates in Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts, Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia and Washington. Other ACLU affiliates are expected to file additional letters and complaints in the coming weeks.

The National ACLU today also sent a letter to the Federal Communications Commission urging the agency to reconsider its refusal to investigate reports that at least three major telecommunications companies -- AT&T, BellSouth and Verizon -- cooperated with the NSA in an effort to collect calling information and call patterns on every American.

In its letter, the ACLU refuted the agency's assertion -- made public late yesterday -- that the classified nature of NSA activities renders it "unable" to investigate potential wrongdoing. The ACLU noted that the government is publicly defending the program, so there is no way that all the details about it are "state secrets" or involve classified information. The letter also pointed out that the government has a recent history of overclassifying information and conveniently claiming that any evidence of embarrassing or illegal actions are "state secrets."

"We cannot sit by while the government and the phone companies collude in this massive, illegal and fundamentally un-American invasion of our privacy," said ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero. "And unfortunately, we cannot wait for Congress to act. The ACLU is mobilizing its members and supporters nationwide to demand investigations into this shocking breach of trust. And we are asking the FCC to use its authority to uncover the facts about how far the president's illegal spying has gone. The American people want answers."

As part of its nationwide campaign, the ACLU today is running full-page advertisements in The New York Times and half a dozen major daily newspapers, with the headline: "If You've Used a Telephone in the Last Five Years, Read This." The advertisement provides a link to www.aclu.org/dontspy, where individuals can add their names to the public record in the ACLU's complaints with public utility commissions and send e-mails to the FCC urging that it investigate the matter.

"We are seeking to create the perfect storm to end illegal NSA spying," said Barry Steinhardt, director of the ACLU's Technology and Liberty Program.

When the NSA spying program was initially uncovered last December, the ACLU was one of the first organizations to bring a legal challenge, acting on behalf of a prominent and politically diverse group of journalists, scholars and lawyers. That challenge will be heard before Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit on Monday, June 12; it will be the first-ever hearing on the legality of NSA spying since the program was disclosed.

More information on the case is online at http://www.aclu.org/nsaspying

The ACLU's FCC letter, today's full-page advertisement and other background is online at http://www.aclu.org/dontspy

Categories: Privacy National Security

ACLU-NJ Sues State and Five Towns Over Secret Documents

May 04, 2006

NEWARK, N.J. - The ACLU-NJ filed one lawsuit and reopened another today in actions concerning refusals by five New Jersey towns and the State Attorney General's Office to disclose information about individuals and organizations designated as "potential threat elements," including the criteria used by the state to make such determinations.

The court actions are the latest steps in the ACLU-NJ's ongoing effort to shed light on possible government monitoring of political and peace groups in New Jersey - an effort in which it has encountered deceit, denial and diversion at the top levels of state government. Government officials refuse to disclose even the criteria they use to decide who constitutes a terrorist threat under the law, information which other states - such as Texas, Washington and Minnesota - have made publicly available and posted on their Web sites.

"Our courts have said that 'democracy dies behind closed doors,'" said Gary Nissenbaum of Nissenbaum & Associates, the ACLU-NJ's cooperating attorney in the case. "The public should be able to find out whether resources and funds established to fight terrorism are being misused to target innocent Americans who have done nothing more than criticize the government or practice their religion."

The designation of individuals or organizations as potential threat elements was required in connection with the application for Department of Homeland Security grant money. The Homeland Security grant applications asked municipalities to identify at least 15 individuals or organizations as potential threat elements. While some states, including Texas, Washington and Minnesota, have publicly disclosed the names of potential threats or criteria used to identify them, the New Jersey Attorney General's office has gone to great - and in fact fraudulent - extents to keep it a secret in New Jersey.

"Open government is a cornerstone of our democracy," said ACLU-NJ Executive Director Deborah Jacobs. "In a climate where the federal government is spying on innocent Americans and conducting other un-American activities in secret, it's disturbing to learn that the state's highest law enforcement official misrepresented himself in order to avoid disclosure of a rather benign memo."

Jacobs added: "Abuse of power thrives in a climate of such secrecy. You have to ask, what else is being hidden from the public and the press?"

Concerns about government abuse of power under the guise of antiterrorism efforts are well founded. Through Freedom of Information Act requests made around the country on behalf of more than 150 organizations and individuals, the ACLU has learned that the FBI, the Pentagon and local police have engaged in surveillance - and in some cases infiltration - of political, environmental, antiwar and faith-based groups. The targets for government surveillance include peace activists handing out peanut-butter-and-jelly sandwiches outside of Halliburton headquarters in Texas, as well as the Quakers, Catholic Worker, the Vegan Community Project and other Americans who are merely exercising their constitutional rights to free speech and dissent.

Background:

In 2004, nine municipalities denied ACLU-NJ Executive Director Deborah Jacobs' Open Public Records Act (OPRA) request for information about "potential threat elements," or PTEs, with some municipalities stating that the Attorney General's Office directed them to deny the request. Jacobs, therefore, filed an OPRA request directly with the Office of the Attorney General, seeking any "memorandum, letters, email, or other correspondence related to the identification or disclosures of PTEs; . . . [and a] copy of all directives issued by the NJ State Government regarding requests for information regarding PTEs . . ." That request was denied, prompting an ACLU-NJ lawsuit.

During the course of the lawsuit, then-Attorney General Peter Harvey sent a letter to the ACLU's cooperating attorney stating: "The Department of Law and Public Safety has no records responsive to the OPRA request upon which the above complaint is based. In addition, this Department did not direct or control the responses made by local law enforcement agencies to OPRA requests for PTE records, which requests had been made at an earlier date by plaintiffs and/or the ACLU." Based on that assurance, the ACLU-NJ agreed to dismiss the lawsuit in December 2005 and, instead, renew its requests directly with the municipalities. Attorney General Harvey's letter, however, provided false and fraudulent information.

In response to the ACLU-NJ's renewed request sent on March 21, 2006 to the towns for information about potential threat elements, one town appended an April 2004 Attorney General's Office memorandum to county prosecutors providing justifications for denying the ACLU-NJ's original 2004 request. The memorandum, whose subject line was "ACLU OPRA Request," from Deputy Attorney General E. Robbie Miller states: "As you may know, many municipal police departments have received an Open Public Records Act (OPRA) request from the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey (ACLU-NJ) seeking access to certain government records. This memo delineates the reasons upon which a denial of access to these documents can be based." After describing the ACLU-NJ's request, the memo then states: "The following are specific reasons for denial of access under both OPRA and the common law."

After receiving copies of the memo, the ACLU-NJ confirmed that the Attorney General's Office was aware of it but nevertheless assured the ACLU-NJ and the court in September and October 2005 that such a memo did not exist.

The ACLU-NJ, therefore, has filed a motion to reopen the lawsuit against Peter Harvey, explaining that the ACLU-NJ's agreement to withdraw the case against him was based on fraud, and the ACLU is now seeking sanctions for those actions.

In addition, the ACLU-NJ has filed suit against the five towns that again denied access to records pertaining to the identification of or criteria for determining potential threat elements. Those five towns are Linden, Middletown, Newark, Wayne and West New York.

The case against the towns is captioned Deborah Jacobs v. Val D. Imbriaco, et al., and was filed in New Jersey Superior Court, Union County. The case against Peter Harvey is captioned Deborah Jacobs v. Peter Harvey, et al. and was filed in New Jersey Superior Court, Mercer County.

ACLU-NJ Announces Newark Voter Protection For May 9 Elections

May 02, 2006

Newark, N.J. -- The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey announced its Voter Protection hotline today for citizens who encounter difficulties exercising their right to vote in the Newark nonpartisan May election for mayor and city council. Anyone experiencing difficulty voting may call (973) 642-2084 between now and May 9 for help.

"Newark voters deserve to have a fair and open process for casting their votes," said Anne Barron, Director of the ACLU-NJ Voting Rights for All Project. "Ensuring fundamental fairness in the voting process is essential to our democracy."

The ACLU-NJ is implementing this hotline in response to calls from Newark citizens with complaints about problems attempting to register to vote or to voting in the past two elections. The hotline will be staffed with volunteers trained to assist with voters problems and lawyers will also be on call to help voters who want to challenge denials of their voting rights on the day of election.

The ACLU-NJ participated in election protection efforts in both the 2004 and 2005 general elections with a number of other state and national voting rights groups. Complaints ranged from a long-time voter whose name was missing from the poll book on Election Day 2004 to improper denials of voter registration to people with prior convictions. In addition, recently enacted changes in the absentee ballot and provisional ballot procedures may also cause confusion at the polls.

Organizers of previous election protection efforts collected and analyzed the complaints and submitted the results with recommendations for improvement to the New Jersey Office of the Attorney General. Numerous voting problems were documented, including incomplete voter rolls, denial of language assistance, lack of sufficient provisional and emergency ballots and machine problems. The ACLU-NJ will provide a similar report and recommendations for Essex County election officials based on an analysis of the calls that come in on the hotline during the local May 9 elections.

Categories: Elections & Voting Discrimination Criminal Justice

ACLU-NJ Issues Public Records Requests on 'Potential Threat Elements'

March 20, 2006

NEWARK, N.J.-The American Civil Liberties of Union of New Jersey today renewed a request to nine New Jersey towns for information about individuals and organizations designated as "potential threat elements" (PTEs), including the criteria used by the towns to make such determinations.

"We all want the police to protect us from real criminals and terrorists," said Deborah Jacobs, ACLU-NJ Executive Director. "But the public should be able to find out whether resources and funds designated to fight terrorism are being misused to target innocent Americans who have done nothing more than criticize the government or practice their religion."

The designation of individuals or organizations as PTEs was included in the application for Department of Homeland Security grant money. In order to obtain certain Homeland Security grants, towns that applied were asked to identify up to 15 individuals or organizations in their communities as PTEs. While some states - including Washington and Minnesota - publicly disclosed the names of PTEs or criteria used to identify them, it has never been disclosed in New Jersey.

"Sadly, we know that the federal government has recently spied on or targeted organizations, such as the Quakers and pro-peace groups, not because they pose a threat but, rather, due to their political beliefs," said ACLU-NJ Legal Director Ed Barocas. "We want to make sure that our own New Jersey government officials are not doing likewise."

The ACLU-NJ's first request for this information came in April 2004. The ACLU-NJ sent open public records requests to the 50 largest New Jersey municipalities to obtain documents disclosing the identification of and criteria for designating PTEs. While most municipalities had no such documents, some responded by refusing to disclose their records, claiming they were exempt from disclosure under New Jersey's Open Public Records Act (OPRA), or that they had been instructed by the State Attorney General's office not to disclose the information. On October 4, 2004, Jacobs filed an OPRA request directly with the Office of the Attorney General. On October 19, 2004, the Office of the Attorney General responded, claiming that such records were exempt as "security measures or surveillance techniques" and that their disclosure would interfere with the ability to protect the State against acts of sabotage or terrorism.

The ACLU-NJ filed a lawsuit against the Attorney General to obtain the records in December 2004. Almost a year later, the Office of the Attorney General confirmed that it had no records pertaining to PTEs and that it did not advise the municipalities to withhold the information the ACLU-NJ requested. The case was therefore voluntarily dismissed by the ACLU-NJ. The case was captioned Deborah Jacobs v. Peter Harvey, et al. The ACLU-NJ therefore renewed its request for information related to the PTEs to the towns that previously responded that they believed such information was exempt from disclosure or that claimed the Office of the Attorney General directed them not to disclose such information. Those towns are: Edison, Linden, Middletown, Mount Laurel, Newark, Parsippany-Troy Hills, Trenton, Wayne and West New York.

Categories: Open Government National Security

ACLU-NJ Defends Free Speech for Flemington Peace Activist

February 21, 2006

Flemington, NJ - TheAmerican Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey (ACLU-NJ) appeared last night inFlemington Municipal Court seeking to dismiss a citation issued to Bob Flisser,a Flemington resident who received the citation for being part of a publicvigil for fallen soldiers without obtaining a permit. The ACLU-NJ contends thatthe Flemington "parade" ordinance violates numerous free speech protections.

When Flisser receivedword that peace groups around the country were holding vigils on August 17thfor fallen soldiers, he went to the police station to inform them that he wouldbe holding a vigil. The vigil was to be held at the sidewalk plaza on Main Street in Flemington, a location where such free speech activities havetraditionally taken place in town. He anticipated that less than two dozenpeople would show up and that the chosen space was large enough to accommodatehis group without blocking any right of way for pedestrians, which it was. Thepolice refused to even consider his application on short notice (as they areauthorized to do), let alone decide whether to grant him a permit. Nevertheless,the vigil took place as planned, about 40 people showed up, and Flisser wasarrested and charged with violating [the] Flemington's parade ordinance.

"We shouldn'tneed the government's permission every time we want to express ourselves in public,"said Flisser, "especially when our activities don't block traffic or cause anyother disruptions." He added: "It'ssad that when we expressed gratitude to soldiers who gave their lives toprotect our freedom, the Borough of Flemington improperly took some of thosefreedoms away."

The "Parade" ordinancethreatens free speech because it covers much more activity than isconstitutionally permissible and makes no accommodation for spontaneous speech.It covers "any parade, march, ceremony, show, exhibition, pageant or processionof any kind, or any similar display in or upon any street, park or other publicplace." To be eligible for a permit, an application must besubmitted at least six days before an event. The Chief of Police can waive therequirement apparently based on his unfettered discretion as the ordinanceprovides no guidelines for deciding whether to grant or not grant theexemption.

The case is captioned Boroughof Flemington v. Robert Flisser. The hearing date for the motion to dismissis to be set by the judge sometime in early 2006.

Categories: Free Speech

ACLU-NJ Lauds Landmark Free Speech Decision Regarding Homeowner Associations

February 06, 2006

Newark - The Rutgers Constitutional Litigation Clinic and the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey praise an opinion handed down by the Superior Court Appellate Division today that provides new rights under the State Constitution for the more than one million New Jerseyans who reside in private communities governed by homeowners associations.

"For the first time anywhere in the United States, an appellate court has ruled that such private communities are 'constitutional actors' and must therefore respect their members' freedom of speech," explained Rutgers Law Professor Frank Askin, lead counsel in the case. "The court recognized that just like shopping malls are the new public square, these associations have become and act, for all practical purposes, like municipal entities unto themselves," he added.

At issue in the case, which involved the 10,000-resident community of Twin Rivers in East Windsor, were the right to post political signs on members lawns, equal access to the community newspaper run by the Board of Trustees, and equitable access to the community room for meetings for dissidents. The complaint raises claims under the free speech protections of the New Jersey Constitution.

The Unanimous Opinion of the three-judge appellate panel relied heavily upon earlier decisions of the New Jersey Supreme Court holding that privately owned and operated shopping malls were public forums under the State Constitution, and had to allow non-profit advocacy groups to gather petitions and distribute educational material on mall property.

Building on those cases, the Court held that private residential communities could no more deny free speech to its residents to discuss public issues than municipal governments. The Court wrote:

The manner and extent to which functions undertaken by community associations have supplanted the role that only towns or villages once played in our polity mirrors the manner and extent to which regional shopping centers have become the functional equivalents of downtown business districts . . .

It follows that fundamental rights exercises, including free speech, must be protected as fully as they always have been, even where modern societal developments have created new relationships or changed old ones. Expressive exercises, especially those bearing upon real and legitimate community issues, should not be silenced or subject to undue limitation because of changes in residential relationships, such as where lifestyle issues are governed or administered by community associations in addition to being regulated by governmental entities.

The case had initially been dismissed by the Superior Court in Trenton. The Appellate Division, in overturning that decision, has now remanded the case back to the lower court to apply the new constitutional standard to the issues involved in Twin Rivers. The appeals court did uphold the dismissal of the Plaintiffs' complaint against the weighted voting system employed by the Twin Rivers Homeowner Association to elect its Board of trustees.

The case was handled by the Rutgers Law School Constitutional Litigation Clinic on behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey under the supervision of Rutgers Law Professor Frank Askin, who was assisted by dozens of Rutgers' law students during the 5-year course of the litigation. The case was originally filed in December 2000. The complaint raised claims solely under the New Jersey Constitution and state statutes. Under the United States Constitution, such communities are currently considered solely private property and their residents have no constitutional rights.

Professor Askin described the case as a national landmark, and said that homeowners groups across the country have anxiously awaited the outcome, and would now try to convince other states' courts to emulate New Jersey.

The case is captioned Committee for a Better Twin Rivers v. Twin Rivers Homeowners' Association.

Categories: Free Speech

ACLU-NJ Helps Protesting Student 'Skirt' School's No-Shorts Policy

January 23, 2006

Newark, NJ - The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey announced that it reached an agreement last week with the Hasbrouck Heights School District on behalf of Michael Coviello, a 17 year-old male student who was prohibited from wearing a skirt to school.

"This is the right outcome," said Jeanne LoCicero, the ACLU-NJ staff attorney who handled the case, "Michael is courageous for challenging the school policy by defying societal norms and for standing up to protest a senseless, discriminatory school policy."

Coviello, a senior at the Hasbrouck Heights High School, decided to wear skirts and kilts to school to protest the District's prohibition on students wearing shorts between October 1 and April 15, which he thought was arbitrary and unfair. The school objected when he wore a costume dress and ask Coviello to change clothes, which he did. Michael discussed the issue with the Superintendent who advised him to wear skirts and dresses purchased in a retail store. Coviello followed the superintendent's suggestion, buying several skirts that complied with the superintendent's guidelines. After a few days of wearing skirts and kilts without incident, Michael was sent home with a note from the principal stating that he would not be allowed to attend class if he wore any sort of dress, kilt or skirt.

"I'm happy to be able to wear skirts again to bring attention to the fact that the ban on shorts doesn't make sense," said Coviello, "It is discriminatory for the school dress code to allow skirts but not shorts."

On January 3, 2006, the ACLU-NJ sent a letter to the superintendent explaining that the dress policy needed to be enforced equally: because the policy allows students to wear skirts, all students - not just girls - should be able to wear skirts that comply with the policy. The letter also explained that Coviello's decision to wear skirts was expressive conduct that is protected by the First Amendment. During a meeting last week, the district agreed that Michael would be allowed to wear skirts in the future.

Laura Coviello, Michael's mother, contacted the ACLU-NJ because she believed her son's right to free expression was being violated, and that the school dress policy was unfair. "I'm relieved that the dress policy will be enforced equally and that Michael won't be punished for expressing his disagreement with the school's dress policy," Ms. Coviello stated.

Categories: Student & Youth Rights Free Speech

ACLU-NJ Protects Inmate's Right to Receive Religious Items in Prison

January 09, 2006

Newark, NJ - The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey has settled with the New Jersey Department of Corrections on behalf of Patrick Pantusco, an inmate who was denied religious books and other items while in prison. In the settlement, the State agreed to permit Mr. Pantusco access to all requested items and paid damages.

"We all have a right to exercise our religion, even people in prison," said Ed Barocas, ACLU-NJ Legal Director. "The State does not have the right to pick and choose which religions should be practiced and which should not."

Mr. Pantusco, an inmate in East Jersey State Prison who practices Wicca, a recognized religion, filed suit in federal court in Newark after prison officials denied him his right to obtain Wiccan books and religious items. Persons of other religions were permitted to obtain similar books and items specific to their religious practice. The prison's denial of Mr. Pantusco's requests was based on the fact that the prison refused to recognize Wicca as a legitimate religion. The ACLU-NJ took over the case for Mr. Pantusco in June 2003.

"All Mr Pantusco wanted was to have the same rights as the Muslim and Christian inmates," said Steven Latimer of the Hackensack firm Loughin & Latimer, who served as the ACLU-NJ's cooperating attorney representing Mr. Pantusco. "He asked for no special privileges."

Among the claims against the State defendants was that they violated the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), which protects religious rights of inmates by requiring that government entities demonstrate a compelling need in order to deny inmates their ability to religious exercise. The State moved to dismiss the RLUIPA claim, asserting that Congress did not have the authority to pass such a law. The judge denied the motion. In May of 2005, the United States Supreme Court in a similar case upheld the constitutionality of RLUIPA.

The lawsuit recently settled by the ACLU-NJ was captioned Pantusco v. Moore, et al.

The ACLU-NJ is currently also involved in a religious freedom case involving a student. The ACLU-NJ submitted a motion to appear as a friend-of-the-court on behalf of Olivia Turton, who was denied the right to sing the song "Awesome God" at an after-school talent show in which the choice of song or skit performed was left up to each student.

Categories: Religious Freedom

ACLU-NJ Lauds Ruling Protecting Students from Discrimination-Based Bullying

December 06, 2005

Newark, NJ -- The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey praised a decision released today by the Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division extending anti-discrimination protections to school children subjected to bias-based bullying.

"Today's decision ensures that children receive the same protections in their schools that their parents receive in the work place," said Deborah Jacobs, Executive Director of the ACLU-NJ. "Children are entitled to a safe schoolyard free from discrimination and harassment just like adults expect in the workplace."

The ACLU-NJ and several other child advocacy organizations filed a joint amici curiae (friend-of-the-court) brief in L.W. v. Toms River Regional Schools Board of Education supporting L.W.'s claim under the New Jersey's Law Against Discrimination (LAD) and describing the negative impact that peer harassment and bullying have on students and the school environment. The Appellate Division today sided with L.W. and firmly stated that schools may be liable under the LAD for permitting student-on- student biased-based harassment.

As described in the decision, L.W., a student in the Toms River schools, was subjected to anti-gay peer harassment and bullying based on his perceived sexual orientation. As he progressed through school, the harassment increased in frequency and severity and he ultimately transferred to another school district. The Director of the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights held that the LAD protected L.W. from the harassment, using the same standard that applies to employment discrimination. The Toms River Regional Schools Board of Education then appealed the decision to the Appellate Division.

Citing New Jersey's strong public policy requiring school officials to protect children when they attend school, the Appellate Division affirmed the Director's decision that a student could make a claim against the school under the LAD, stating that "we do not believe that the legislature intended that students in our schools would be entitled to less protection from bias-based harassment than individuals in the workplace."

ACLU-NJ cooperating attorneys Gitanjali Gutierrez and Larry Lustberg of Gibbons Del Deo Dolan Griffinger & Vecchione filed the brief on behalf of the ACLU-NJ and the Association for Children of New Jersey, Education Law Center, the Gay Lesbian and Straight Education Network of Northern New Jersey, the National Conference for Community and Justice (NJ), New Jersey Family Voices, Roxbury Parents for Exceptional Children, and Statewide Parents Advocacy Network of New Jersey.

The case is captioned L.W. v. Toms River Regional Schools Board of Education, A-7084-03T5, and the Appellate Division decision is available at http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/opinions/index.htm.

Categories: Student & Youth Rights Gay & Lesbian Rights Discrimination

ACLU-NJ Announces Settlement in 8th Grade Webmaster Case

November 06, 2005

Newark, NJ - The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey announcedtoday the finalization of a settlement between Oceanport School District andRyan Dwyer, the then 8th-grade student who was improperly punished bydistrict administrators for creating a website forum that includedstatements critical of his school. In the settlement, the Oceanport SchoolDistrict apologized, acknowledged that Ryan did nothing wrong and should nothave been punished, and agreed to pay $117,500 in damages and attorneysfees. The settlement followed a decision on April 3, 2005, in which the U.S.District Court found Oceanport school officials liable for violating Ryan'sfree speech rights.

"While my parents and I are happy the case is resolved, most importantly,I'm hopeful this will help ensure that free speech rights of students aren'ttrampled on again in the future," said Ryan Dwyer, now an 11th grader. "Butit is a shame that in our free country, school administrators actuallythought that they could punish students like me just because they didn'tlike what we had to say or that we had a place to say it."

Ryan Dwyer created a website in April 2003 that contained criticisms of hisschool, Maple Place. He created and maintained the website on his own timefrom his home computer. The site contained a "Guest Book" in which visitorsto the site could register comments about the site or about the school. Ryanvoluntarily included a statement on the Guest Book web page that no postingshould contain profanity or threats. Nevertheless, after school officialsdiscovered the site, they suspended Ryan for a week, banned him from playingon the baseball team for a month, and did not allow him to go on theeighth-grade class trip. They also would not permit him to take HonorsEnglish and Honors Algebra placement tests that were being administered inanother school district during his suspension, and did not announce hisaward for a high SAT score when similar awards were announced.

The ACLU-NJ asserted that the school district's actions violated the Ryan'sright to free speech and expression as guaranteed by the First Amendment tothe United States Constitution and by Article I, Paragraphs 1 and 6 of theNew Jersey Constitution.

"The school district has never - to this day - explained to us what rule orpolicy our son violated," said Kevin Dwyer, Ryan's father. The schoolofficials did identify particular statements written in the Guest Book byother students that they found offensive. However, despite the fact thatRyan himself made no offensive or threatening remarks and repeatedly warnedothers from so doing, he received far greater punishment than the studentswho wrote the offensive remarks.

"Our constitution and laws protect webmasters from being held liable forstatements made on their sites over which they maintain no editorialcontrol," explained ACLU-NJ cooperating attorney Grayson Barber, wholitigated the case. "Our schools should encourage debate and politicalengagement rather than punishing students who provide a forum for freeexpression," she added.

In its decision of April 3, 2005, the court noted that "the comments made byother individuals in the Guestbook are not attributable to Ryan as creatorof the website" and that the school district presented no evidence thatRyan's own comments were either threatening or created a substantialdisruption of the operation of the school.

Nationwide, the ACLU has successfully represented numerous students whoreceived punishment for materials they posted on the web on their own time,from home.

The lawsuit was captioned Dwyer v. Oceanport School District, et al.

Categories: Student & Youth Rights Free Speech

Women Abused and Exploited by NJ Chinese Restaurant, ACLU Charges

October 30, 2005

NEWARK - Two immigrant waitresses at the Rainbow Buffet restaurant in Fairview, New Jersey were exploited by their bosses, deprived of wages and tips, and subjected to physical and emotional abuse, according to a federal lawsuit filed today by the American Civil Liberties Union.

The restaurant's practices, the ACLU lawsuit charged, violated federal and state labor laws as well as state tort law. The ACLU seeks to recover for its clients all unpaid minimum wages and unpaid overtime compensation, and has asked the court to award appropriate compensatory and punitive damages. The ACLU previously filed charges of sexual harassment and wrongful discharge on the women's behalf with the Newark Area Office of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

"Unfortunately, immigrant workers are easy targets for unscrupulous employers, and female immigrant workers face the added burden of gender discrimination and sexual harassment," said Claudia Flores, a staff attorney with the ACLU Women's Rights Project, and a lead attorney in this case. "The Rainbow Buffet management not only violated labor laws by relentlessly exploiting our clients, they also allowed these women to be abused and humiliated by male employees."

The women, Mei Li and Li Wang, recount disturbing incidents of exploitation that took place during their employment at Rainbow Buffet between November 2003 and August 2004. During that time, the waitresses worked for more than 60 hours per week for far less than minimum wage. Each woman was paid only $120 per month in wages for nearly 300 monthly work hours. The Rainbow Buffet management also systematically confiscated portions of the tips the waitresses received from customers.

Li and Wang also charge that busboys and other employees at Rainbow Buffet intentionally hit them, touched them against their will, made humiliating and menacing sexual comments and threatened them, all with the full knowledge of management, who did nothing to stop the acts.

"Our clients suffered extreme emotional distress and humiliation at the hands of their co-employees with the full knowledge of their employers, who did nothing to stop the harassment," said Jean-David Barnea, an ACLU cooperating attorney who is serving as co-counsel in the case. "Rainbow Buffet's actions are clearly unlawful under state and federal labor, tort and discrimination laws."

The ACLU Women's Rights Project, which regularly advocates on behalf of low-income immigrant women, is representing two other women in a similar case filed against King Chef Chinese Restaurant in Wayne, New Jersey. That case was filed in June 2003 on behalf of waitresses Mei Liu and Shu Chen, who charged that they were kept under the complete control of their employers, were paid no wages for their work, had to pay a daily kickback out of their tips to the restaurant owners, faced gender and ethnicity discrimination, were housed in an overcrowded, vermin-filled apartment and were threatened with death when they stopped working at the restaurant. The case is currently pending before the district court.

"Too often immigrants, especially women, feel that they have no choice but to accept illegal working conditions," said Nancy Eng, Program Director of the Chinese Staff and Workers Association. "Hopefully, the lawsuit brought by these brave women will send a message that immigrant workers should not have to tolerate this kind of abuse and can come together to assert their rights."

Today's lawsuit, Li v. Rainbow Group, was filed in United States District Court in Newark. The EEOC charges on behalf of Li and Wang were filed on August 23 and are currently under investigation.

In addition to Flores and Barnea, other attorneys in the case are Lenora Lapidus, Director of the ACLU Women's Rights Project, and Edward Barocas, Legal Director of the ACLU of New Jersey.

Categories: Immigrant Rights Discrimination

ACLU Report Exposes Compromised Lead Testing of NJ Children

October 25, 2005

IRVINGTON, NJ – Thousands of New Jersey children are at risk of lead poisoning, according to a report released today by the American Civil Liberties Union, the Association for Children of New Jersey and a coalition of advocates, and blame for the tragic state of affairs rests solidly with the lack of leadership exhibited by the state government. Yet a groundbreaking pilot study shows that there are things that can be done to increase testing and treatment.

“Before our involvement in 2000, the state paid little attention to childhood lead poisoning,” said Robin Dahlberg, an attorney with the ACLU and lead author of the report. “Although a 1996 state law requires the state’s public health department to take steps to ensure that every New Jersey child is tested for lead at the age of one and again at the age of two, the health department had done almost nothing to implement that law.”

According to the report, in 2000 the state health department had identified only one-third of the estimated 18,000 children under the age of six suffering from lead poisoning. Only 50 percent of those were receiving necessary follow-up treatment. Unable to engage the health department, the advocates went to the state’s Medicaid agency. The Medicaid agency, in turn, invited the ACLU, the Association for Children of New Jersey and others to work collaboratively to increase the lead testing of Medicaid-enrolled children.

“We are excited about the results of this pilot program that indicate that we can increase the number of children getting tested,” said Mayor Wayne Smith of Irvington, where one in every ten children under the age of six is lead-poisoned. “There is a critical need for state government to roll out the resources so that more children in Irvington and around the state can get tested.”

Despite this progress, childhood lead poisoning in New Jersey continues to be a major problem. The percentage of New Jersey children who are lead poisoned is almost twice the national average. The state health department has still not fully implemented the 1996 state law. Roughly fifty percent of all one and two year olds have not been tested for lead.

Over the last five years, the group has piloted a number of different reform efforts. It encouraged doctors to provide lead testing in their offices, trained day care center staff to educate parents and caretakers about the need to have children tested and held Medicaid Managed Care Organizations and Medicaid providers more accountable. Much of the group’s work has focused in Camden City and the Township of Irvington.

“Screening is the first step toward getting children the healthcare they need to treat the very serious health effects of childhood lead poisoning,” said Mary Coogan, assistant director of the Association for Children of New Jersey. “This pilot clearly shows we can improve our testing of children and subsequent treatment. This effort should be rolled out statewide, with active support from New Jersey's next governor.”

As a result of the coalition’s efforts:

In 2000, 34 percent of children between the ages of 18 and 29 months enrolled in a Medicaid HMO were tested for lead; in 2004, 54 percent were tested.
In 2000, only one of the 11 Federally Qualified Health Care centers audited by the state’s Medicaid agency had a screening rate over 90 percent; by 2005, 11 centers had screening rates of over 90 percent.
In June 2002, only 59 of the 150 Medicaid providers in Irvington and Camden City provided lead screens in their offices; by January 2004, 121 tested for lead on-site.
During the 2002 – 2003 school year, 80 percent of the 1,430 children in the Irvington Abbott preschool programs and 60 percent of the more than 1,000 children enrolled in the Camden County Head Start programs were tested for lead. Sixteen of the 23 Irvington centers had screening rates of over 80 percent. Seven of the 12 Camden County Head Start programs had screening rates of over 50 percent. Three of the seven had screening rates of over 70 percent.

“Many of Legal Services’ clients are the most likely to be harmed by lead poisoning and the least likely to be informed about its effects or to be capable of removing themselves from the danger,” said Linda Garibaldi of Legal Services of New Jersey. “They are families just struggling to survive whose children are often being slowly poisoned by a killer they don’t even know about.”

The ACLU, the Association for Children of New Jersey, Legal Services of New Jersey and the Office of the Child Advocate, called upon the state health department to implement the 1996 state law and to work with the state Medicaid agency to institutionalize and expand upon the reforms and changes initiated in Irvington and Camden City.

The report is entitled Preventing Childhood Lead Poisoning in New Jersey (784k PDF).

Categories: Poverty Rights

ACLU-NJ Defends Property Owner Against Government Seizure of Land

October 18, 2005

Newark, NJ -- The ACLU-NJ announced today that it is representing tavern owner Cheng "Terry" Tan who is fighting the Jersey City Redevelopment Agency's attempt to take his restaurant by eminent domain. Jersey City officials want to take Mr. Tan's land to give it to a parochial school, St. Peter's Prep, for its football field.

"I've been a business owner here for over 18 years," said Mr. Tan, the owner of The Golden Cicada on Grand Street. "I've worked hard and become part of the community. Now, the government is taking my property from me for no other purpose than to provide land for a private school's football field that the general public has no right to enjoy the use of."

Eminent domain is a legal doctrine that allows the state to appropriate private property for its own use without the owner's consent. Governments most commonly use the power of eminent domain when the acquisition of real property is necessary for the completion of a public project such as a road, and the owner of the required property is unwilling to negotiate a price for its sale.

The land in question is located in one of Jersey City's many redevelopment zones. The original plan, created in September 1999, called for the zone that included Mr. Tan's land to be used for residential or commercial purposes. However, when the final plan was adopted in October 1999, the area was re-zoned for use as an athletic field or educational facility. According to Mr. Tan, the change occurred because the Redevelopment Agency learned that St. Peter's Prep wanted to acquire the land for a school football field. St. Peter's did buy land in that zone and began to build a field. However, it then determined that it needed additional land so that its field could reach official football field length. After St. Peter's failed to persuade Mr. Tan to sell to them at a price it found acceptable, the Redevelopment Agency stepped in on St. Peter's behalf and initiated eminent domain proceedings.

Mr. Tan and the ACLU-NJ contend that the government is illegally using taxpayer dollars to fund a particular religious institution by re-zoning the area and taking his land in order to aid St. Peter's Prep. Under both the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution and the "No-Preference" Clause of the New Jersey Constitution, a governmental entity such as the Jersey City Redevelopment Agency cannot act with the primary intent to aid a particular religious entity. Likewise, its actions cannot have the primary effect of aiding one religion over another or preferring religion over non-religion.

"Government is not allowed to invoke its power in order to benefit a particular religious organization," said Ronald Chen of Rutgers Law School - Newark's Constitutional Litigation Clinic. "Here, the power of eminent domain is being used to specifically benefit an institution that promotes a particular religious faith." Mr. Chen, along with Michael Kates of Nashel Kates Nussman Rapone & Ellis in Hackensack, are the ACLU-NJ's volunteer cooperating attorneys representing Mr. Tan.

The ACLU-NJ will also argue that the Redevelopment Agency's actions violate the Takings Clause of the United States Constitution, which permits the government to take a property owner's land if it is for a "public use" and the property owner receives just compensation. Last year, the United States Supreme Court held that, while the term "public use" can be read broadly, the Takings Clause does not permit the government to use its power of eminent domain if its purpose is simply to take property from one private party in order to give it to another private party.

In last year's Supreme Court case, Kelo v. City of New London, the city in question successfully argued that the increased tax revenue that would result from the taking met the "public use" standard. However, in the present case, the city will actually lose tax revenue if the land is given to St. Peter's Prep since, as a religious institution, it pays no taxes on the land it owns.

The case is captioned Jersey City Redevelopment Agency v. Cheng Tan, et al. The case is scheduled for a hearing on Nov. 4, 2005.

Categories: Religious Freedom

ACLU-NJ Joins Lawsuit to Support Student's Right to Religious Expression

September 20, 2005

Newark, NJ -- The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey announced that it filed a motion yesterday to participate as amicus curiae (friend-of-the-court) in a case seeking to uphold the right of an elementary school student to sing a religious song in a voluntary, after-school talent show.

"There is a distinction between speech by a school and speech by individual students," stated ACLU-NJ cooperating attorney Jennifer Klear of Drinker, Biddle & Reath in New York City. "The Constitution protects a student's individual right to express herself, including the right to express herself religiously."

According to the complaint filed by the second-grade student and her parents, an elementary school in Frenchtown prohibited the student, Olivia Turton, from singing the song "Awesome God" in a voluntary, after-school talent show. The talent show was open for anyone from first through eighth grades who wished to play solo instruments, dance, perform a skit or sing to karaoke. Students were permitted to select their own songs or skits so long as they were G-rated.

"Because the school left the choice of songs up to each individual student, no reasonable observer would have believed that the school affirmatively endorsed the content of each student's selection," Klear added. "Therefore, it would not constitute a violation of the separation of church and state. Rather, it's an issue of religious freedom."

"The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey has dedicated itself to protecting the right of individual religious expression, including recently helping to ensure that jurors are not removed from jury pools for wearing religious clothing and that prisoners are able to obtain religious literature," noted ACLU-NJ Legal Director Ed Barocas. "This student also deserves our full support."

The case is captioned Turton, et al. v. Frenchtown Elementary School, et al. and was filed in federal court in Trenton, New Jersey.

Categories: Student & Youth Rights Religious Freedom Free Speech

ACLU-NJ Protects Against Censorship of Student Sex Article

September 13, 2005

Newark, NJ - The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey announced that it reached an amicable agreement yesterday with the Caldwell-West Caldwell school district on behalf of current and former members of James Caldwell High School's student newspaper (The Caldron) who were prohibited from publishing an article discussing the subject of sex. The school's principal also prohibited publication of any future article that sought to comment on his decision to engage in censorship.

"The censorship of this wonderful article was a failure by school administrators to recognize responsible journalism and the First Amendment rights of high school students," stated Andrew Mangino, former editor-in-chief and student Board of Director Chairman for The Caldron. "Thankfully, the student community will finally have the opportunity to read this piece as well as others that address the real issues students face every day."

During last school year, Samantha Paul, a Caldron writer, researched and wrote an article entitled "Let's Talk About Sex." The article discussed national trends and studies regarding students' sexual habits and then compared them to West Caldwell, based on the paper's own investigation and questioning of students. No students' names were used in the article. The article was to run in the April 2005 edition of the paper. However, the school's principal censored publication of the article and, later, prohibited any future mention in The Caldron of his decision. Those prohibitions continued into the current school year.

The ACLU-NJ agreed to represent current Cauldron co-editor-in-chief Jillian Chase and former student staff members Samantha Paul and Andrew Mangino. In hopes of avoiding the need to file a lawsuit, the ACLU-NJ sent a letter to school officials seeking resolution. The letter explained that the school official's actions violated the students' right to free speech and expression as guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and by Article I, Paragraphs 1 and 6 of the New Jersey Constitution. After meeting yesterday, all parties involved agreed to an amicable settlement.

Pursuant to the agreement, the students will be permitted to publish the "Let's Talk About Sex" article with minor changes to the language (but not the content) of the article. They will also be permitted to write follow-up stories addressing the conflict over the principal's initial decision to censor the article. The Board of Education has further acknowledged that, unless more specific policies are promulgated, school officials can only prohibit publication of articles that would cause a substantial and material disruption to the school.

"Our schools should encourage responsible discussions by students of the issues affecting them," explained ACLU-NJ cooperating attorney Bennet Zurofsky of Reitman Parsonnet in Newark, New Jersey, who, along with Hilary Meyer (also of Reitman Parsonnet), represented the students in this matter. He added, "Our courts have long since recognized that students do not shed their rights at the schoolhouse gates and that student speech, whether in general or specifically in school newspapers, should not be restricted absent an overriding and clearly-defined justification to do so."

CaldronClients:

Left to right: Andrew Mangino, Paul Martucci, Matthew Skibinski, Julian Chase, Brian Taylor, Samantha Paul.

Categories: Student & Youth Rights Free Speech

ACLU-NJ Sues Waterford Township for Violating Open Public Records Act

August 24, 2005

Camden, NJ – The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey (ACLU-NJ) filed a lawsuit today against Waterford Township and township officials on behalf of a woman who filed an anonymous request for public documents pursuant to the state’s Open Public Records Act (OPRA) and whose identity was then investigated and exposed by township officials.

“People have a right to request public documents anonymously and without fear of retaliation or intimidation,” said Grayson Barber, the ACLU-NJ's cooperating attorney and lead counsel representing the plaintiff in this case. “Open government is a cornerstone of our democracy and the actions of the Waterford Township officials showed complete disregard for our state’s law on open records and the principles behind it.”

Kathy McGuire made an anonymous OPRA request in February seeking information about the number of dog licenses issued to a resident of Waterford Township. The township clerk initially declined to process an anonymous request, but eventually agreed after McGuire persisted. When McGuire went to pick up the information seven days later, she was followed to her car by a township official. The following day, Waterford Chief of Police John Bekisz revealed McGuire’s actions and identity to a local animal protection agency with whom she had volunteered. McGuire later learned that her identity had been revealed to the dog owner about whom she had made the request, and that he had made inquiries about her appearance, home address, and activities.

The ACLU-NJ asserts that the actions by the township and its officials violated McGuire's right to obtain public records anonymously pursuant to OPRA and her privacy and due process rights as guaranteed by the United States and New Jersey constitutions.

Despite the fact that McGuire’s identity was illegally revealed and intimidating actions taken against her, McGuire stepped up to address Waterford’s illegal actions in the interest of the greater public good. “I want to make sure that others are not intimidated from exercising their right to access public documents.”

The case is captioned McGuire v. Township of Waterford, et al. and was filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey in Camden County.

Categories: Open Government

ACLU-NJ Requests Review of Discrimination Against Gays at Park

July 26, 2005

Newark, N.J. - With growing reports that Palisades Interstate Park Police Department in New Jersey is spending taxpayer money to lure gays into sexual acts and that a judge is giving lighter sentences to straights similarly charged with lewdness, Garden State Equality and the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey today wrote to Governor Richard Codey and the Palisades Interstate Park Commission calling for a comprehensive investigation.

In their letter, the two statewide organizations ask the Commission to investigate the park police's sting operation for its apparently exclusive focus on gays; and the Governor to investigate the sentencing practices of Judge Stephen J. Zaben, the municipal judge with park jurisdiction.

"We seek this investigation not to condone public lewdness," said Jeanne LoCicero, staff attorney at the ACLU of New Jersey, "but to stop the disparate treatment of gays and straights that may well be a violation of the New Jersey's Law Against Discrimination."

"Let the police and the judge clean up the park," said Steven Goldstein, chair of Garden State Equality, "but make sure they do it without a witchhunt or a double-standard in sentencing. Anything else is sexual-orientation profiling."

In 2004, according to the Gay City News, police arrested at least 98 men in the park, including many men lured by undercover male police officers. Judge Zaben's sentences in those cases, the Gay City News reports, have included suspended jail sentences, one or two years on probation, a two-year ban from the park and court-supervised psychiatric counseling.

Earlier this month, the Gay City News reported that Judge Zaben sentenced a straight couple - violating the same lewdness statute - to fines and a ban from the park, but not to a jail sentence, probation or court-supervised psychiatric counseling. And unlike many of the gay men, the straight couple engaged in lewd behavior without being lured into it by police.

In their Letter to Governor Codey (95k PDF) and the Park Commission, the ACLU of New Jersey and Garden State Equality wrote: "We believe that an investigation by the Palisades Interstate Park Commission of its police department's practices and procedures regarding lewdness arrests is necessary to determine whether the department is engaging in discrimination. Additionally, we call on the Commission to reconsider using its limited resources to conduct undercover sting operations in the park.

"We call on the Governor's office to conduct a comprehensive review of Judge Zaben's handling of lewdness charges against gay men including comparisons to determine whether his practices indicate disparate treatment of, or have a disparate impact on, gay men."

Palisades Interstate Park extends from Fort Lee in New Jersey north to Bear Mountain in New York. The New Jersey and New York Governors each appoint five of the 10 commissioners. Separate forces on each side of the border police each state's portion of the park.

Categories: Police Practices Gay & Lesbian Rights Discrimination

Appellate Victory for Couple Ordered to Turn Over Computer

July 12, 2005

NEWARK - The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey and Public Citizen announced today that the Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court has ruled in favor of free speech and privacy rights, by holding that it was improper for a trial judge to order Scott and Charlene “Charlie” Uhrmann to relinquish their hard drive so the officials they sued could determine whether the Uhrmanns anonymously posted derogatory statements about them on the Internet.

“We are extremely pleased that the Appellate Division vindicated our right to privacy,” said Scott Uhrmann. “Having to turn over personal, financial and other information stored on our computer would have been an inappropriate and rather harsh consequence for engaging in our right to file a lawsuit trying to protect our and our fellow taxpayers’ rights against what we believe to be misuse of public funds by township officials.”

In January 2005, Charlene and Scott Uhrmann sued a current and a former member of the Mount Olive town council, claiming that, as part-time officials, they were not entitled to the medical and dental benefits they received. The Uhrmanns sued to see that the money is returned to Mt. Olive.

The officials claim that the Uhrmanns were responsible for criticisms about them posted in online chat rooms using pseudonyms. However, the officials have not countersued for defamation. Nevertheless, the business owners requested the Uhrmanns' hard drives to determine whether the Uhrmanns did in fact write the postings they felt were defamatory. On May 19, 2005, Judge D. Hunt Dumont denied the Uhrmanns’ motion to quash the officials’ request to produce their hard drive.

After that ruling, the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey and Public Citizen agreed to represent the Uhrmanns in their request for appellate review of the trial court order. The groups noted that the hard drive contains financial and other personal information and said that the order violated free speech and privacy rights as well as established law on rules of discovery and on anonymous Internet postings.

In a one-paragraph ruling on Friday, July 8, 2005, the Appellate Division held that the requested information was beyond the scope of discovery, not relevant to the case and could lead to the disclosure of personal information.

Richard Ravin, of Hartman & Winnicki, P.C., who was the ACLU-NJ cooperating attorney in the case, said, “This appellate decision is a warning to all litigants and their attorneys, and a reminder to judges everywhere, that computer hard drives are not simply pieces of tangible property – they contain highly sensitive and confidential information of individuals and businesses. A party to a lawsuit is not entitled to inspect and copy such computer hard drives of other individuals simply because those individuals are parties to the same suit.”

The ACLU-NJ and Public Citizen previously jointly submitted a brief in Dendrite v. Doe, the case in which the standard for identifying anonymous Internet speech was established. In addition, Public Citizen represented two flight attendants for Northwest Airlines in an appeal from a court order allowing the airline to seize of their hard drives.

“This was a fishing expedition by the public officials and a blatant violation of privacy rights and established law,” stated Paul Alan Levy of Public Citizen. “We are pleased that the Appellate Division recognized that.”

The current case is captioned Uhrmann v. Scapicchio..

Categories: Privacy

ACLU-NJ Defends Couple Ordered to Turn Over Computer

June 30, 2005

NEWARK - The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey and Public Citizen have agreed to represent Scott and Charlene “Charlie” Uhrmann in an appeal from a trial court order requiring them to turn over their computer hard drive to public officials they sued. The public officials requested the computer hard drive, which contains financial and other information about the couple, to determine whether they anonymously posted derogatory statements about them on the Internet.

“We’re being asked to turn over all of our private information to the defendant because we decided to take a stand as taxpayers and challenge what we believe to be misuse of public funds,” said Scott Uhrmann. “The total loss of privacy is a rather harsh consequence for trying to protect our and our fellow taxpayers’ rights.”

"Today's computer hard drives have replaced yesterday's filing cabinets and boxes for the storage of documents," stated ACLU-NJ cooperating attorney Richard Ravin, of Hartman & Winnicki, P.C., who practices Technology and Intellectual Property Law in Paramus, New Jersey. "Ordering individuals to turn over their hard drives to an opponent in a lawsuit is the equivalent of allowing someone to drive a truck up to one’s door, look through every piece of paper in their home or business and make copies of whatever they want -- social security numbers, financial statements, bank records, medical records, school records, personal letters, business records, photographs, and untold other documents -- and drive off, to use such personal and confidential information at their discretion."

The ACLU-NJ and Public Citizen will explain on appeal that the trial court erred in granting the public officials’ request for the Uhrmanns’ computer hard drives. The order violates free speech and privacy rights as well as established law on rules of discovery and on anonymous Internet postings.

“Prior cases set forth an explicit and stringent test to determine whether and how anonymous Internet posters should be identified,” stated Paul Alan Levy of Public Citizen who is lead counsel for the Uhrmanns. “The trial court made an end-run around that clearly established law.”

The current case is captioned Uhrmann v. Scapicchio. The Appellate Division will decide shortly whether or not to hear the Uhrmanns’ request for review of the trial court order.

Categories: Privacy

ACLU-NJ Defends Peace Activist Accused of Violating Iraq Travel Ban

May 26, 2005

NEWARK - The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey, in conjunction with the New York Civil Liberties Union, filed a lawsuit yesterday on behalf of a Methodist minister initially accused of going to Iraq as a “human shield” prior to the beginning of the war in 2003. Rev. Frederick Boyle is fighting an effort by the federal Office of Foreign Asset Control (OFAC) to impose a fine on him without affording a fair opportunity to contest the charges.

“The regulations violate our most basic freedoms of travel and of religious and political expression,” said Rev. Boyle, a lifelong pacifist and outspoken critic of U.S. military action in Iraq. Boyle said he believes the government has singled him out for prosecution owing to media coverage of his views about the war.

Rev. Boyle was assessed a fine of $6,700 for allegedly traveling to Iraq in early 2003, at which time he was pastor at a United Methodist Church in Randolph, New Jersey. He is challenging OFAC’s authority to issue the fine and challenging the legality of the process by which the agency determines such penalties. The Iraq Sanctions Act regulations do not permit a person to find out the basis for the government’s accusations, to confront witnesses, or to have a hearing with a neutral decision-maker.

Further, the ACLU-NJ argues that the government required the minister to answer the accusations against him without giving him immunity from a possible additional criminal charge based upon the same alleged activity. Criminally, violations of these regulations are punishable by up to 12 years in prison and by $1 million in fines.

“This process doesn’t follow even the most rudimentary principles of fundamental fairness,” said Jonathan Hafetz of Gibbons, Del Deo, Dolan, Griffinger & Vecchione, who, along with Lawrence Lustberg, is the ACLU of New Jersey cooperating attorney representing Boyle. “The administrative process offered Rev. Boyle has less procedural protection than if he had been issued a parking ticket.”

In view of the inadequacy of OFAC’s procedures and Boyle’s potential exposure to over a decade in prison, he sought a stay of the enforcement action from OFAC until the expiration of the statute of limitations for criminal prosecution. Alternatively, he sought a grant of immunity from prosecution or agreement to waive prosecution. OFAC denied those requests, but did reduce the penalty from $10,000 to $6,700 last March. OFAC did not make a finding that Rev. Boyle acted as a “human shield,” an allegation Rev. Boyle has denied.

The ACLU’s lawsuit asks that the fine be dismissed or that the case be returned to OFAC to hold a meaningful hearing at which Rev. Boyle can contest the charges.

The ACLU of Wisconsin today filed a similar case, representing Ryan Clancy, a Milwaukee-area businessman. Mr. Clancy also argues that OFAC’s rules violate his rights to due process and freedom of travel and speech.

“The government does not claim that Ryan Clancy provided any financial benefit to the Iraqi government or even to any individual Iraqis,” said Christopher Ahmuty, Executive Director of the ACLU of Wisconsin. “This fine clearly isn’t about controlling ‘foreign assets.’ It’s about squelching the ability of people to travel and learn for themselves what is going on in disputed countries like Iraq and then punishing those who have the courage to question the government’s version of events upon their return.”

Rev. Boyle’s case was filed yesterday in the Southern District of New York, as he now resides in that state. The case is captioned Frederick Boyle v. Robert W. Werner, et al.

Photo of Boyle:

Categories: National Security

New Brunswick City Council Supports Pro-Civil Liberties Resolution

May 25, 2005

The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey (ACLU-NJ) applauded passage by the New Brunswick City Council of a resolution calling upon Congress to scrutinize the USA PATRIOT Act and the manner in which its enforcement may imperil civil liberties.

The pro-civil liberties resolution makes New Brunswick the fifteenth municipality in New Jersey to register criticism of the federal government’s controversial USA PATRIOT Act.

The Resolution calls upon the U.S. government and the government of each and every state to affirm their respect for individual rights and civil liberties and not intrude upon fundamental rights and liberties, even as they are committed to preserving national security.

Congress passed the USA PATRIOT Act just 45 days after the September 11 attacks, with virtually no debate. This 342-page piece of legislation allows for the broadest expansion of police and law enforcement powers in the recent history of our country. Some of the most troubling provisions of the Act enable the FBI to access private records, including medical records, library records and student records, without the need for a warrant or establishing probable cause that a crime has occurred or is about to occur. A “gag provision” within the Act makes it so that the person searched may never learn that he or she has been the subject of government surveillance.

In the more than three years since the passage of the Act, seven states and more than 380 cities and towns have adopted resolutions condemning the Act’s civil liberties abuses. Courts have declared some of its provisions unconstitutional. And, numerous lawmakers, Republicans and Democrats alike, have condemned some of the Act’s most far-reaching provisions and have called for closer scrutiny into how the government uses its expanded powers.

The New Brunswick resolution and the debate around the Act comes at a critical time, as sixteen provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act are scheduled to sunset on December 31, 2005, unless re-authorized by Congress. The Senate Intelligence Committee announced on May 17, 2005 that it is rushing forward with a markup of Patriot Act reauthorization legislation Thursday, but that the session will be behind closed doors.

“One reason that people across the political spectrum are concerned about the Patriot Act is that so much of it is shrouded in secrecy. Many provisions are implemented secretly, and the government has kept secret key information on how it is being used. Now, lawmakers are trying to keep legislation to reauthorize the Patriot Act secret as well,” said Deborah Jacobs, Executive Director of the American Civil Liberties union of New Jersey. She continued, “I commend the city council of New Brunswick for taking a stand to ensure that we remain both safe and free.”

In New Brunswick, a coalition of organizations and New Brunswick residents concerned about the threats to checks and balances, the increase in racial and ethnic profiling and the erosion of civil liberties called the New Brunswick Bill of Rights Defenders (NBBORD) had formed to approach the New Brunswick City Council to adopt a resolution, like those adopted by other municipalities.

However, the City Council drafted its own resolution, which it voted on and adopted on May 18, 2005.

“As a third generation New Brunswick native, a retired owner of a century old New Brunswick based business, as well as a Rutgers alumnus, I am proud that the City Council of New Brunswick has publicly stepped forward and unanimously passed a resolution in support of the US Constitution and our Bill of Rights,” said Jeffrey Aaron, a member of NBBORD.

“The Latino community in New Brunswick has more than doubled in the last 10 years according to census figures. As a resident of New Brunswick for well over 20 years, I applaud, commend and thank the New Brunswick City Council for their prompt and impressive response on behalf of our community on this issue,” said Cuqui Rivera, Outreach Manager at the Hispanic Directors Association of New Jersey and a member of NBBORD. “As a member of the Middlesex County Human Relations Commission as well, we are also working right now to pass a similar Resolution as soon as possible.”

More information about the USA PATRIOT Act, about the various communities that have passed resolutions, and other information about the expansion of executive powers since September 11 can be found at: http://www.aclu.org/safeandfree.

Categories: National Security

Birth Certificate Victory for Same-Sex Couple

May 24, 2005

Newark - The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey (ACLU-NJ) announced today that it successfully obtained a court order yesterday granting a lesbian couple the right to have both of their names listed on their child’s birth certificate, pursuant to New Jersey’s artificial insemination statute. The artificial insemination statute protects a child’s relationship to a non-biological parent who consents to his spouse’s artificial insemination. This is the first known order of its type in the State of New Jersey.

“We are thrilled that the court gave legal recognition to our family, and we are relieved that we won’t have the uncertainty and fear about whether our daughter would be protected if something happened to one of us,” said Kimberly Robinson, who gave birth to Vivian on April 30, 2005. When choosing to have a family, Kimberly and Jeanne LoCicero, who are registered domestic partners and also married in Canada last summer, decided that Kimberly would give birth to the baby, using an anonymous donor through artificial insemination.

“The court’s decision ensures that Vivian’s relationship to Jeanne is recognized as of Vivian’s birth, rather than placing her rights in legal limbo while awaiting adoption proceedings,” said William Singer of Singer & Fedun, who represented the couple on behalf of the ACLU-NJ. “Delaying recognition of Jeanne’s relationship to Vivian would have put Vivian’s rights at risk, depriving her of being immediately acknowledged as having two parents who are responsible for her both legally and financially.”

The court accepted the ACLU-NJ’s argument that, since the statute seeks to ensure the best interests of children, it must be read in a manner consistent with that purpose. Since Jeanne and Kimberly had met every indicia of commitment contemplated under the statute, the ACLU-NJ successfully argued that there would be no purpose served in denying Jeanne and Vivian the same parent-child status to which a male heterosexual and his non-biological child (via his wife’s artificial insemination) would be entitled.

Indeed, although the artificial insemination statute was written in terms of “husband” and “wife,” the court noted that any possible interest in limiting the statute to children of heterosexual couples only was not sufficient to overcome the best interests of the child. New Jersey courts have long recognized that, in parentage cases, the best interests of the child are paramount and that a child should not be denied the right to have two loving parents regardless of the intended parents’ sexual orientations.

Because the question at issue was the relationship between Jeanne and her child (as opposed to the relationship between Jeanne and Kimberly), the court specifically did not address whether New Jersey should recognize an out-of-state same-sex marriage. Rather, the significance of Jeanne and Kim’s Canadian marriage was that it provided one more piece of evidence that established the couple has done everything possible “to declare and to be recognized as committed partners, a married couple, and a dedicated family.”

The ACLU-NJ had previously appeared in a case in which a five-year-old child was denied Social Security benefits after the death of his biological mother’s lesbian partner -- despite the facts that the couple jointly decided to have the child, that they raised the child together since birth, and that the deceased partner was the family’s main wage-earner -- because the adoption had not yet taken place

The current case is captioned In the Matter of Child to Be Born to Kimberly Robinson. It was filed in New Jersey Superior Court, Family Division, Essex County, on March 21, 2005.

Photo of the family: Jeanne LoCicero, Kimberly Robinson and their daughter, Vivian.

Categories: Gay & Lesbian Rights

ACLU-NJ Announces Results of County Elections Survey

May 09, 2005

Trenton – The ACLU-NJ announced today the completion of a survey that reveals numerous shortcomings of New Jersey county election offices when it comes to registering ex-offenders to vote.

“The Survey Results are disheartening,” said Anne Barron, ACLU-NJ Ex-Offender Voting Rights Project Director, “of the 21 county offices, 43% do not follow the law with respect to registering citizens who have finished their criminal sentences. Nine counties put up illegal roadblocks in the way of eligible citizens trying to vote, requiring personal visits and/or unnecessary, and sometimes unobtainable, documents.”

The Survey Results illuminate New Jersey’s slap-dash approach to the voting process, with each county effectively acting on its own and the state Division of Elections unable to oversee and provide uniformity. Given that voter registration and voter education are mainstays of a vibrant democracy, the lack of cohesion in New Jersey is unacceptable.

According to New Jersey law, people in prison or on parole or probation cannot vote. However, once they have completed their sentences, they become eligible to vote again, with the same rights and responsibilities as any other citizen. Unfortunately, many county election offices have failed to follow the law.

The ACLU-NJ became aware of the scope of the problem during its 2004 Ex-Offender Voting Rights Project, which sought to register ex-offenders to vote. The ACLU-NJ received complaints from a number of ex-offenders who were denied their right to vote in 2004, particularly from Salem, Camden and Essex counties. While we knew that many ex-offenders believed that they had lost their voting rights forever, we discovered that this ignorance extended to the very governmental agencies that service re-entering prisoners. To learn more about the problems, the ACLU-NJ used a survey developed by the Brennan Center to uncover the practices for handling ex-offender voter registrations in each county election office. We questioned election office staff about the voting rights of people convicted of a crime, notification procedures, and also about general rules for voter registration.

Twelve of the county elections offices registered ex-offenders automatically, as required by law (Atlantic, Cape May, Gloucester, Mercer, Middlesex, Monmouth, Morris, Somerset, Sussex, Union, Warren and usually Essex). However, nine election offices, (Bergen, Burlington, Camden, Cumberland, Hudson, Passaic, Hunterdon, Ocean and Salem) continue to demand illegally that ex-offenders provide “proof of release,” either in person or through the mail.

We also compared the ease with which ex-offenders could obtain information about their voting rights in the 21 counties. Our surveyors had great difficulty in getting correct information from the majority of election offices. Our surveyors received minimal assistance, unable even to get just basic information. Due to lack of written procedures, use of temporary election office employees during the October registration period, and insufficient training of election office staff, ACLU-NJ surveyors often had to make at least three follow-up calls to get information. Two counties told the surveyor to call the office “investigator” for further information, a suggestion guaranteed to stop many ex-offenders from continuing.

The ACLU-NJ alerted the Division of Elections to the ex-offender registration problems and asked for clarification of various voting procedures. Unfortunately, we received little in the way of clear rules or uniformity.

The New Jersey State Legislature neglected to give the Division on Elections, the very government entity in charge of elections, any real authority or power. Rather, that authority rests with the Office of the Attorney General, which also failed to provide us with any written clarification on the policies and practices concerning registration of ex-offenders. New Jersey is the only state across the country to have the Division of Elections under the authority of the Office of the Attorney General. This sets up a conflict of interest, where the enforcement agency and the regulatory agency are the same.

The Survey Results of the ACLU-NJ’s survey reveal ongoing problems and lack of uniformity with the registration of citizens who have paid their debt to society and want to reclaim their vote. Much of the trouble is systemic, resulting from little state oversight of the central mechanism of our democracy, the voter registration process. Consequently, the electoral map of New Jersey is a hodge-podge of rules and procedures, most of which are not available in any written form, apparently passed down, word-of-mouth, from worker to worker.

ACLU-NJ strongly urges that the Division of Elections be removed from under the direction of the Office of the Attorney General and given autonomy, authority and enforcement powers over elections and voter registration around the state.

Furthermore, the ACLU-NJ calls upon the Legislature to follow the recommendations of New Jersey Citizen’s Coalition on implementation of the Help America Vote Act, laid out in “Making New Jersey’s Votes Count.” Voting reform legislation now under consideration must include uniform training for all election officials who have contact with the voting public, as well as link the federally-mandated statewide voter database to the criminal justice agencies for instant verification of a citizen’s completion of sentence, rather than relying on inadequate resources to investigate all incoming voter registrations.

And the ACLU-NJ calls upon the Office of the Attorney General to fulfill its exhortation to “be powerful, be heard,” by ensuring that all eligible citizens’ right to vote is protected. Today, May 9th, is the last day to register before the June primary. How many citizens will be unjustly denied their right to vote? Will the state take the necessary steps to resolve these ongoing problems, problems voting advocacy groups have been warning the state about, before the end of the next voter registration period?

Categories: Elections & Voting

ACLU-NJ Wins Free Speech Victory for 8th Grade Webmaster

April 04, 2005

Newark, NJ - The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey announced today that the U.S. District Court has ruled in favor of free speech for students, finding Oceanport, NJ school officials liable for violating the rights of an eighth-grade student by punishing him for creating a website from his home computer that included student comments criticizing the school.

"My parents and I are happy that the court did the right thing and upheld my free speech rights," said Ryan Dwyer, now a tenth grader, "But it's a shame that in our free country students like me can be punished just because administrators don't like what we have to say or that we have a place to say it."

Ryan Dwyer created a website in April 2003 that contained criticisms of his school, Maple Place. He created and maintained the website on his own time from his home computer. The site contained a "Guest Book" in which visitors to the site could register comments about the site or about the school. Ryan voluntarily included a statement on the Guest Book web page that no posting should contain profanity or threats. Nevertheless, after school officials discovered the site, they suspended Ryan for a week, banned him from playing on the baseball team for a month, and did not allow him to go on the eighth-grade class trip. They also would not permit him to take Honors English and Honors Algebra placement tests that were being administered in another school district during his suspension, and did not announce his award for a high SAT score when similar awards were announced.

The ACLU-NJ asserted that the school district's actions violated the Ryan's right to free speech and expression as guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and by Article I, Paragraphs 1 and 6 of the New Jersey Constitution.

"The school district has never - to this day - explained to us what rule or policy our son violated," said Kevin Dwyer, Ryan's father. The school officials did identify particular statements written in the Guest Book by other students that they found offensive. However, despite the fact that Ryan himself made no offensive or threatening remarks and repeatedly warned others from so doing, he received far greater punishment than the students who wrote the offensive remarks.

"Our constitution and laws protect webmasters from being held liable for statements made on their sites over which they maintain no editorial control," explained ACLU-NJ cooperating attorney Grayson Barber, who litigated the case. "Our schools should encourage debate and political engagement rather than punishing students who provide a forum for free expression," she added.

The court noted that "the comments made by other individuals in the Guestbook are not attributable to Ryan as creator of the website" and that the school district presented no evidence that Ryan's own comments were either threatening or created a substantial disruption of the operation of the school.

Nationwide, the ACLU has successfully represented numerous students who received punishment for materials they posted on the web on their own time, from home.

The lawsuit is captioned Dwyer v. Amato, et al. The decision was rendered by United States District Judge Stanley R. Chesler in Trenton, New Jersey.

Categories: Student & Youth Rights Free Speech

ACLU-NJ Wins Republican Candidates' Right to Political Speech

February 09, 2005

Newark - The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey (ACLU-NJ) announced today that it successfully obtained a court order dismissing a libel suit filed against the Piscataway Republican Organization and its recent slate of candidates for township offices. The suit against the Republicans was filed by the Piscataway Democratic Organization and centered on language used on campaign billboards and fliers.

"Free political speech is a founding American belief," said Deborah Jacobs, ACLU-NJ Executive Director. "The way to fight speech that you don't like or don't think is accurate is to speak out yourself, not to silence or suppress what others say."

During the November 2004 elections, the Piscataway Republican Organization erected a billboard stating: "Bribery. Corruption. Indictment. Had Enough?" with a picture of a broom. The sign then urged viewers to vote for the Republican slate for township mayor and council.

The Democratic incumbents asked that the signs be removed. The Republicans refused. The Democrats then filed suit for libel, claiming that the sign implied that they, as individuals, were guilty of bribery and corruption. Although the entire Piscataway Democratic slate of candidates won in the November elections, they refused to dismiss the lawsuit.

On Wednesday, February 9, 2005, Judge Yolanda Ciccone granted the ACLU-NJ's motion to dismiss the lawsuit based on the fact that the ad contained protected, non-libelous speech. The ACLU-NJ's brief explained that the ad was political rhetoric, and did not direct allegations at a particular individual; rather, it was impersonal criticism of a government administration.

"Political discourse should be uninhibited and this was political speech in its most basic form," said Frank Corrado of Barry Corrado Grassi & Gibson, the ACLU-NJ's cooperating attorney in the case. "The candidates had the right to comment on the political climate as they saw it and to ask voters to remove the incumbents to change the status quo."

The case is captioned Piscataway Democratic Organization v. Piscataway Republican Organization. It was filed in New Jersey Superior Court, Middlesex County.

Categories: Free Speech

Advocates File Brief to Protect School Children from Bullying

February 08, 2005

Newark, NJ - In a case that highlights the damaging effects of bullying on school children, the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey and several other child advocacy organizations filed an amici curiae (friend-of-the-court) brief this week urging the Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division to extend anti-discrimination protections to school children subjected to bias-based bullying.

"Every day schoolchildren are subjected to harassment and bullying by classmates that can cause enduring psychological, social and physical harm," said Gitanjali Gutierrez of Gibbons Del Deo Dolan Griffinger & Vecchione, an ACLU-NJ cooperating attorney who filed the brief on behalf of the organizations. "Children deserve the same protection from harassment in their schools as adults receive in places of employment."

As described in the brief, L.W., a student in the Toms River schools, was subjected to anti-gay peer harassment and bullying based on his perceived sexual orientation. As he progressed through school, the harassment increased in frequency and severity. He ultimately transferred to another school district. The Director of the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights held that the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination protected L.W. from the harassment, using the same standard that applies to employment discrimination.

The brief calls to the Court's attention the negative impact that peer harassment and bullying have on students and the school environment, and urges for New Jersey's school children to be protected from discriminatory peer harassment.

"Children should not have to be afraid of going to school for fear of being harassed and parents should not have to worry that their children will be subjected to discrimination," said Deborah Jacobs, Executive Director of the ACLU of New Jersey.

The other organizations on the brief are the Association for Children of New Jersey, Education Law Center, the Gay Lesbian and Straight Education Network of Northern New Jersey, the National Conference for Community and Justice (NJ), New Jersey Family Voices, Roxbury Parents for Exceptional Children, and Statewide Parents Advocacy Network of New Jersey.

The case is L.W. v. Toms River Regional Schools Board of Education, A-7084-03T5, on appeal from a final administrative decision of the Director of the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights.

Categories: Student & Youth Rights Discrimination

ACLU-NJ Successfully Defends Right of Religious Expression by Jurors

December 21, 2004

Newark, NJ -- The State Supreme Court ruled today that a prosecutor violated the New Jersey Constitution when he removed two jurors from a jury pool, one for wearing Muslim religious clothing and another for having engaged in missionary activity.

"In this country people have a right to express their religious beliefs without fear of discrimination by the government for so doing," said ACLU-NJ Legal Director Ed Barocas, "Excluding people from jury pools based on their religious belief or expression violates the principles of freedom found in the Bill of Rights."

The case concerns the dismissal of two jurors in a criminal case in the New Jersey Superior Court in Essex County. The prosecutor excused the jurors, saying that they were "demonstrative about their religion" and that such persons "tend to favor defendants.."

In its brief, the ACLU-NJ argued that such actions violated the Equal Protection and freedom of religion clauses of the United States and New Jersey Constitutions, as well as the right to trial by an impartial jury. The ACLU-NJ explained that not only should people be free to express themselves about their religion but, in addition, such a basis for jury removal will often lead to discrimination against identifiable religious minorities.

In its opinion, the New Jersey Supreme Court cited to the ACLU-NJ's brief to support its holding that: "Clothing, in those cases, is little more than a proxy for religion." Indeed, the Court noted that certain religions require outward expressions of faith or encourage missionary service more than others and, if the prosecutor's actions were permitted to stand, those religious groups would be discriminated against and, therefore, improperly underrepresented in juries.

The case is captioned State v. Lloyd Fuller. Oral argument took place on December 2, 2003. Ronald Chen, Associate Dean of Rutgers Law School - Newark, argued the case on behalf of the ACLU-NJ which appeared as amicus curiae.

Categories: Religious Freedom

ACLU-NJ Wins Victory In DNA Law Challenge

December 21, 2004

Newark, NJ - The Superior Court of New Jersey in Mercer County ruled today that the State of New Jersey must limit its new DNA collection law so that it does not violate the constitutional right of freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. Specifically, the State must destroy the DNA upon completion of an offender's sentence and must not disclose the information to any other government agency unless it agrees to destroy the information upon completion of the offender's sentence.

"The court's thoughtful and deliberative opinion establishes crucial restrictions upon the retention of DNA information, ensuring that the state's use of emerging technology does not eviscerate deeply-rooted privacy protections," stated Gitanjali Gutierrez of Gibbons Del Deo Dolan Griffinger & Vecchione, one of the ACLU-NJ cooperating attorneys who argued the case on behalf of two individuals who were subject to the law.

The ACLU-NJ represents Jamaal Allah, who pled guilty in 2002 to a non-violent drug offense and was sentenced to eight years in prison, as well as a juvenile who was 14 years old in 2002 when he was sentenced to probation for having acted out against a police officer. The juvenile has since been successfully rehabilitated, and is succeeding in school and at home.

In 2003, the State of New Jersey expanded its DNA collection law to require that anyone convicted of any crime, including juveniles, must provide a DNA sample. Previously the law covered only sexual offenders. When the law passed, the ACLU-NJ received countless inquiries from concerned citizens. The law threatens the privacy of thousands of New Jerseyans and their relatives by collecting personal and confidential information and maintaining it in a database.

The court recognized that "[t]he primary purpose of the DNA Act unquestionably is to assist law enforcement" and that, therefore, search and seizure protections apply. The court also acknowledged the lesser privacy rights of parolees, probationers and inmates, and held that the State's interest in obtaining DNA information outweighs the rights of those individuals while they remain under government supervision. Nonetheless, the court found that, once free from government supervision, the State's supervisory interest dissipates and the individual's right not to have medical and other identifying information contained in the DNA sample maintained by the government requires destruction of the sample.

The case is captioned A.A. (by his parent and guardian B.A.) and Jamal Allah. v. Attorney General of New Jersey, et al. See A.A., et al. v. Monmouth County Probation for the ACLU-NJ's legal documents filed in this case.

Categories: Criminal Justice

Piscataway Republican Organization Represented in Libel Suit

December 05, 2004

Newark - The ACLU-NJ announced today that it represents the Piscataway Republican Organization and its recent slate of candidates for township offices in a libel suit filed against them by the Piscataway Democratic Organization. As part of its representation, the ACLU-NJ today filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit.

The lawsuit centers on a campaign sign (see image) used by the Piscataway Republican Organization during the recent elections. The sign stated: "Bribery. Corruption. Indictment. Had Enough?" with a picture of a broom. The sign then urged viewers to vote for the Republican slate for township mayor and council.

The ACLU-NJ's motion to dismiss the lawsuit is based on the fact that the ad contained protected, non-libelous speech. The brief explains that the ad was political rhetoric, and did not direct allegations at a particular individual; rather, it was impersonal criticism of a government administration.

"Political discourse should be uninhibited and this is political speech in its most basic form," said Frank Corrado of Barry Corrado Grassi & Gibson, the ACLU-NJ's cooperating attorney in the case. "The candidates had the right to comment on the political climate as they saw it and to ask voters to remove the incumbents to change the status quo."

The case is captioned Piscataway Democratic Organization, et al. v. Piscataway Republican Organization, et al. It was filed in New Jersey Superior Court, Middlesex County.

Categories: Free Speech

ACLU-NJ Files Lawsuit Seeking Information on Potential Threat Elements

December 01, 2004

Newark - The ACLU-NJ filed a lawsuit today challenging the New Jersey Attorney General’s refusal to disclose information about individuals and organizations designated as “potential threat elements” (PTEs) including the criteria used by the state to make such determinations.

“We all want the police to protect us from real criminals and terrorists,” said Deborah Jacobs, ACLU-NJ Executive Director. “But the public should be able to find out whether resources and funds established to fight terrorism are being misused to target innocent Americans who have done nothing more than criticize the government or practice their religion.”

The designation of individuals or organizations as PTEs was required in connection with the application for Department of Homeland Security grant money. In order to obtain certain Homeland Security grants, municipalities that applied were required to identify at least 15 individuals or organizations as PTEs.

Earlier this year, the ACLU-NJ sent open public records requests to the 50 largest New Jersey municipalities to obtain documents disclosing the identification of, or criteria for designating, PTEs. While most municipalities had no such documents, eight municipalities responded with refusals to disclose their records, claiming they were exempt from disclosure under New Jersey’s Open Public Records Act (OPRA). On Oct 4, 2004, Jacobs filed an OPRA request directly with the Office of the Attorney General. On October 19, 2004, the Office of the Attorney General responded, claiming that such records were exempt as “security measures or surveillance techniques” and that their disclosure would interfere with the ability to protect the State against acts of sabotage or terrorism.

“Our courts have ruled that ‘democracy dies behind closed doors’ and the public needs access to information like this to help guard against discrimination and harassment,” said Ronald Chen, Associate Dean of Rutgers Law School -Newark, the ACLU-NJ’s cooperating attorney in the case. “Since we know that the political beliefs of an organization can be taken into account by the state in determining who is a PTE, without disclosure of the full criteria there is no way organizations can be certain whether they are subject to designation as a PTE.”

The case is captioned Deborah Jacobs v. Peter Harvey, et al. It was filed in New Jersey Superior Court, Mercer County.

In a related action today, the national ACLU and its affiliates filed Freedom of Information Act requests in 10 states and the District of Columbia seeking information about the FBI’s use of Joint Terrorism Task Forces and local police to engage in political surveillance of political and religious organizations. For more information, go to http://www.aclu.org/spyfiles.

Categories: Open Government National Security

Army Officer's Right to Display Political Sign Secured

October 31, 2004

Newark - The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey (ACLU-NJ) announced today that it successfully defended the right of an Army officer and other residents of the Borough of Haddon Heights to display political signs on their lawns. Borough Ordinance 430-135 bans all political signs. However, after being informed that the ACLU-NJ was preparing to file a lawsuit seeking an emergency injunction against implementation of the ordinance, the Borough agreed not to enforce the political sign ban.

“While speaking now as an individual citizen rather than as an Army officer, I find it absurd that I’ve been deployed around the world to defend freedom and civil rights, only to have one of the most basic civil rights -- the right to free speech -- denied to me right here at home," said Steven Kressel, currently a Lt. Colonel in the Army Reserves and who has been with Special Operations since 1987. Mr. Kressel’s most recent deployment was in Iraq, from which he returned earlier this year.

On October 27, 2004, Kressel returned to his home in Haddon Heights, from serving that day as an Honor Guard for a funeral for a World War II veteran, to find that the police had come to his home and informed his wife that the sign in support of John Kerry on the Kressel’s front lawn violated a Borough ban on political signs and would have to come down. When Kressel contacted the Haddon Heights clerk the next day, he learned of Haddon Heights’ ban on political signs throughout the town, including in residential districts. On Friday, October 29, 2004, he contacted the ACLU-NJ seeking assistance. The ACLU-NJ immediately informed counsel for Haddon Heights that it would file suit on Monday morning, November 1, 2004, challenging the ordinance. On Saturday, the ACLU-NJ received word from the Borough’s attorney that it would not enforce the ordinance and Kressel could replace his sign.

The Haddon Heights’ political sign ban violates the right to free speech both under the United States Constitution and the New Jersey Constitution. The total prohibition on political signs in the Borough does not serve a legitimate purpose and restricts speech, especially by precluding the time-honored right of Americans to express political messages through the placement of signs on their lawns. Additionally, the ordinance impermissibly grants greater protection to commercial speech than to political speech, as other types of signs are permitted in residential districts, including real estate signs, church signs, and signs promoting events. Although the Borough agreed not to enforce the political sign ban, unless that portion of the ordinance is formally repealed, the ACLU-NJ will still file a lawsuit.

“New Jersey’s towns need to know that overreaching limitations on lawn signs are unconstitutional and that the ACLU-NJ is ready to defend the public’s rights against such restrictions,” stated ACLU-NJ Legal Director Edward Barocas, who previously obtained an injunction against the Borough of Franklin Lakes for restricting the use of political lawn signs. “Especially in the midst of a national election, the right to freedom of speech must be zealously protected.”

Categories: Free Speech

ACLU-NJ Wins Newark Free Speech Injunction

October 07, 2004

Newark – The ACLU-NJ successfully blocked enforcement of two Newark policies affecting free speech rights in a ruling issued today by Judge Kenneth Levy of the Superior Court of New Jersey, Essex County. One of the policies required that protestors buy a $1,000,000 insurance policy in order to engage in protests, marches or vigils. The other policy restricted the right of individuals to distribute leaflets on public sidewalks and streets.

“We hope this serves as a victory for all small and grassroots organizations that seek to engage in their constitutional right to speak. Free speech should be free, and should not be only for those wealthy enough to afford it,” stated Madelyn Hoffman, President of New Jersey Peace Action, a plaintiff in the suit, along with the People’s Organization for Progress and the ACLU-NJ itself.

The ACLU-NJ argued that Newark’s restrictions violate the right to freedom of speech under the United States and New Jersey Constitutions.

Judge Levy held that the City’s insurance and hold harmless requirements for street marches and demonstrations were not properly adopted and were therefore likely to be ruled invalid. The Newark City Council had never officially adopted such requirements, and Judge Levy explained that an executive officer cannot simply impose such requirements without the Council’s authorization to do so. Judge Levy also noted that, even if it were properly adopted, there was no evidence that the insurance requirement was narrowly tailored to meet the City’s interests, as is required under constitutional analysis.

Until recently, Newark recognized that requiring individuals or grass-roots organizations to obtain a million-dollar insurance policy as a prerequisite for holding a march, rally, or vigil on a public street violated free speech protections. As such, free speech activities were exempt from the City’s insurance requirement. However, since at least April, Newark reinstituted their insurance requirement for free speech activities and, in addition, requires individuals to indemnify the City for any harm that may occur to them during the march. As such, individuals and organizations that could not afford the cost of insurance were to be precluded from exercising their free speech rights.

Additionally, in response to the ACLU-NJ’s lawsuit, the City has now agreed not to enforce its leafleting ordinance. Newark’s leafleting ordinance (Ordinance 8:6-1) states not only that persons handing out notices or leaflets on public sidewalks or streets without a permit can be arrested, but further requires that, in order to obtain a permit, the Chief of Police must be “satisfied that the person is of good moral character,” the applicant must be fingerprinted, and the applicant must submit two recent photographs of himself “of a size determined by the Chief of Police.” The ACLU-NJ argued that permits cannot be required for free speech activities and that the Chief of Police cannot be granted such wide discretion in deciding who may obtain a permit. Perhaps recognizing its unconstitutionality, the City of Newark decided not to defend the ordinance in court.

“Courts have long held that the right to march and leaflet in the public streets are among the most basic free speech protections,” stated Bennet Zurofsky of Reitman Parsonnet, a volunteer attorney representing the plaintiffs on behalf of the ACLU-NJ. He added, “We are pleased that our clients have been able to vindicate those rights in the City of Newark.”

The lawsuit is entitled People's Organization for Progress, et al. v. City of Newark, et al. The case was filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey in Newark. Newark was represented by Assistant Corporate Counsel Catherine Bruzzese.

Categories: Free Speech

Groups Criticize New Voter Registration Form

September 28, 2004

Newark – With the October 4 voter registration deadline looming, the New Jersey Citizens’ Coalition for the Implementation of HAVA has serious concerns about the State’s new voter registration form, recently produced by the Attorney General’s office, which contains false and misleading information.

“The new Voter Registration Form is confusing, misleading and hard to follow” said Renée Steinhagen, Executive Director of New Jersey Appleseed. “With dozens of good models of HAVA compliant forms available from other states, you would think New Jersey could come up with something that works for potential voters.”

A voter registration form is one of the most important pieces of paper of any democracy. It is the first point of contact between a citizen who wants to vote and the government. Congress recognized this in its Help America Vote Act (HAVA) of 2002, when it mandated that states update, simplify and ensure statewide uniformity of voter registration forms. It also directed states to maintain a centralized, statewide database of registered voters. HAVA was a direct response to the electoral chaos in Florida and other states in 2000.

New Jersey’s new voter registration process, touted as “quick and simple” by Governor McGreevey and “inclusive . . . and user-friendly” by Attorney General Harvey is neither. The new registration form has fancy graphics that interfere with the printed directions. Marcia Lausen, of the American Institute of Graphic Arts (AIGA), the nation’s oldest and largest graphic arts professional organization, Conducted an Analysis of New Jersey’s form as part of AIGA’s Design for Democracy project. The analysis criticized many aspects of the form’s design, calling it “amateurish” and citing the use of multiple and inappropriate fonts, hard to read type, lack of design strategy, awkward shapes that lack meaning, redundant information, overly complicated procedures and sacrifice of ease of use to achieve an ideal size for mailing. In one section, she writes, “All established principles of information design are violated here . . .”

Of particular concern is question #9, which requests registrants’ driver’s license numbers or the last four digits of their Social Security Numbers. The section is marked with an asterisk that directs registrants to tiny print at the bottom that specifies that one must provide those identification numbers only if registering by mail for the first time in that county and have never voted in a federal election in that county. An initial reading suggests that a driver’s license is required. Citizens without driver’s licenses might put the form down immediately before reading the print at the bottom to see that one can register using many other forms of identification, or wait to show identification at the polls. And, citizens should know that they can register by mail with other forms of ID.

The small print associated with question #9 goes on to state that if registrants do not provide identification with their mailed-in registrations, then they must show identification at the polling place; if they don’t, it says that you “must vote by provisional ballot.” Voters should be informed that they may submit such identification anytime prior to election day, not just with the registration form, and should be encouraged to do so. In addition, there is nowhere on the form a place for the registrant to indicate that he/she does not have a drivers license or social security number so that the State may assign that person an identification number to be used in the newly created data base. The present two-step process commencing with a simple registration form and a follow-up mailed request for voter identification works well as is.

For the first two weeks that the new voter registration form was available online, only the first of two pages were posted, thus leaving out critical information such as the voter registration deadline and a phone number for contact. The form still has not been posted online in Spanish. The Attorney General’s website also lists inaccurate information concerning what kinds of identification are acceptable to present for those who vote for the first time without having provided identification upon submitting by mail their registration forms. While the law indicates that whatever document used must contain an individual’s address, the Attorney General’s website lists store membership IDs as a valid identification. Unfortunately such identification would be rejected at the polls because they lack an address. See http://www.nj.gov/oag/elections/vote_id_req.html.

These kinds of problems are further evidence that the placement of the Division on Elections in the Attorney General’s office – rather than with the Secretary of State, as is the case in most other states - has contributed greatly to New Jersey’s lagging behind in the timeline for and quality of New Jersey’s implementation of the Help America Vote Act. The new voter registration form was issued by the Attorney General’s staff rather than the elections professionals working for the Division on Elections. Indeed, we had reports from one county voter registration official that the counties’ input hadn’t been asked, somewhat surprising given that these staff members deal directly with voter confusion over registration. The new form reflects a failure of process.

“The state should cease circulation of this form until it can be revised” said Steinhagen, “there are ample resources to give input so that the New Jersey has a truly user-friendly form that facilitates voting registration.”

Member organizations of the New Jersey Citizens’ Coalition for the Implementation of HAVA

American Association of Retired Persons-NJ
American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey
Alliance for the Betterment of Citizens with Disabilities
American Association of People with Disabilities
Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund
Asian American Political Coalition
Brennan Center for Social Justice
Common Cause of New Jersey
Demos: A Network for Ideas and Action
Garden State Bar Association
Hispanic Bar Association of NJ
Korean American Voters’ Council-NY/NJ
Latino Leadership Alliance of NJ
Leadership Conference on Civil Rights
Monday Morning Project Networks of Atlantic, Cape May, Burlington, Cumberland, Morris, Ocean, Middlesex, Mercer, Essex, Sussex, Passaic, Gloucester, Somerset, Hudson, Bergen Regional, & Union Counties.
NAACP of NJ
NAACP Voter Fund-NJ
National Council of Jewish Women-NJ
National Organization for Women of NJ
New Jersey Appleseed Public Interest Law Center
New Jersey Association on Correction
New Jersey Citizen Action
New Jersey Coalition for Democracy
Organization of Chinese Americans-NJ Chapter
People for the American Way, Metro-Regional Office
Spina Bifida Association Tri-State Region
Statewide Parent Advocacy Network of NJ
United Jewish Communities of Metrowest NJ Community Relations Committee
Young Korean American Service and Education Center

Categories: Elections & Voting

Mercer Becomes First County to Pass Pro-Civil Liberties Resolution

September 10, 2004

The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey (ACLU-NJ) applauds the Mercer County Freeholder Board for their unanimous vote in support of the Pro-Civil Liberties Resolution adopted at their meeting last night.

The Resolution calls upon the County to affirm their commitment to securing national security, but without sacrificing the fundamental civil rights and liberties upon which our country has been founded.

By passing the resolution, Mercer County has become the first county in New Jersey to pass a resolution in reaction to the federal government's controversial USA PATRIOT Act.

Congress passed the USA PATRIOT Act just 45 days after the September 11 attacks, with virtually no debate. This 342-page piece of legislation allows for the broadest expansion of police and law enforcement powers in the recent history of our country. Some of the most troubling provisions of the Act enable the FBI to access private records, including medical records, library records and student records, without the need for a warrant or establishing probable cause that a crime has occurred or is about to occur. A "gag provision" within the Act makes it so that the person searched may never learn that he or she has been the subject of government surveillance.

In the two years since the passage of the Act, numerous lawmakers, Republicans and Democrats alike, have condemned some of the Act's most far-reaching provisions and have called for closer scrutiny into how the government uses its expanded powers.

Eleven municipalities in New Jersey, including three Mercer County municipalities (Princeton Borough, Ewing Township and Lawrence Township) have passed such resolutions. Nationally, over 347 communities and four states have passed resolutions condemning the Act. These local votes come at a crucial time, as President Bush presses to extend the surveillance provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act beyond 2005 when they are scheduled to sunset.

The Mercer County resolution, which will be sent to Senators Jon Corzine and Frank Lautenberg, calls for assurances that the surveillance provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act do in fact expire at their scheduled sunset date, and that no further expansion of government surveillance powers is taken that infringes upon individual rights and civil liberties.

The campaign to pass a pro-civil liberties resolution in Mercer County was initiated by resident Allan Willinger, who founded the group Mercer County Coalition for Civil Liberties (MCCCL). "Its great to be represented by a Freeholder Board that is so concerned about the threat that the USA PATRIOT Act poses to our civil liberties. I hope citizens in other counties and towns join the grass-roots movement to pass a resolution in their counties and towns," said Allan Willinger, co-founder of MCCCL.

"The USA PATRIOT Act threatens the very rights and freedoms that we are struggling to protect," said ACLU of New Jersey Executive Director Deborah Jacobs. "Communities across America are very concerned about the expansion of government powers. They see it limiting civil liberties and not keeping us safe from terrorism. I commend the people of Mercer County for taking a stand to ensure that we remain both safe and free."

MCCL, a coalition of organizations and Mercer County citizens, has organized public forums and meetings to increase public awareness and promote dialogue about the importance of civil liberties and the rights granted to us under the U.S. Constitution. Some of the member organizations of MCCL include: the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey, Coalition for Peace Action, Peace and Social Justice Task Force of the New Jersey Chapter of the National Association of Social Workers, ImmPACT (Immigrant's Public Advocacy Coalition of Trenton), and others.

Categories: National Security

Mercer Freeholders to Vote on Pro-Civil Liberties Resolution

September 09, 2004

The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey (ACLU-NJ) anticipates a favorable vote by the Mercer County Board of Freeholders in support of a Pro-Civil Liberties Resolution that the Freeholders will consider at their meeting tonight, September 9, 2004, at 6:30 p.m.

The Resolution calls upon the Mercer County Board of Freeholders to affirm a commitment to securing national security, without sacrificing the fundamental civil rights and liberties upon which our country has been founded. If passed, Mercer County will become the first county in New Jersey to have passed such a resolution in reaction to federal government’s controversial USA PATRIOT Act. Eleven municipalities in New Jersey, including three Mercer County municipalities (Princeton Borough, Ewing Township, and Lawrence Township) have passed such resolutions. Nationally, over 347 communities and four states have passed resolutions condemning the Act.

In the two years since the passage of the Act, numerous lawmakers, Republicans and Democrats alike, have condemned some of the Act’s most far-reaching provisions and have called for closer scrutiny into how the government uses its expanded powers.

In Mercer County, the resolution was presented to the Board of Freeholders by the Mercer County Coalition for Civil Liberties (MCCCL). MCCL, a coalition of organizations and Mercer County citizens, has organized public forums and meetings to increase public awareness and promote dialogue about the importance of civil liberties and the rights granted to us under the U.S. Constitution. Some of the member organizations of MCCL include: the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey, Coalition for Peace Action, Peace and Social Justice Task Force of the New Jersey Chapter of the National Association of Social Workers, ImmPACT (Immigrant’s Public Advocacy Coalition of Trenton), and others.

Categories: National Security

ACLU-NJ Challenges Newark Anti-Free Speech Practices

September 01, 2004

Newark - The ACLU-NJ filed a lawsuit today on behalf of the People's Organization for Progress, New Jersey Peace Action, and itself, challenging two Newark policies affecting free speech rights -- one which restricts the right of individuals to distribute leaflets on public sidewalks and streets, and another which requires individuals to buy a $1,000,000 insurance policy in order to engage in protests, marches or vigils. Both practices violate the right to freedom of speech under the United States and New Jersey Constitutions.

"The City of Newark has placed these organizations - as well as many of its citizens - in a position of either being subject to excessive restrictions and costs they can't afford, risking arrest, or remaining silent," stated Bennet Zurofsky of Reitmann Parsonnet, a volunteer attorney representing the plaintiffs on behalf of the ACLU-NJ. He added, "Free speech should be free, and should not be only for those wealthy enough to afford it."

Newark's handbill ordinance (Ordinance 8:6-1) states not only that persons handing out notices or leaflets on public sidewalks or streets without a permit can be arrested, but further requires that, in order to obtain a permit, the Chief of Police must be "satisfied that the person is of good moral character," the applicant must be fingerprinted, and the applicant must submit two recent photographs of himself "of a size determined by the Chief of Police." After obtaining the permit, "[t]he permittee shall carry the permit and shall exhibit it to any policeman or other person, on request." Although the ordinance was enacted many years ago, until recently Newark has not sought to enforce it against the ACLU-NJ's clients. However, in the Spring of 2004, the Newark City Council expressed its desire to have Newark police officers actively enforce the ordinance and declared that enforcement would begin on July 1, 2004.

In addition, until recently Newark recognized that requiring individuals or grass-roots organizations to obtain a million-dollar insurance policy as a prerequisite for holding a march, rally, or vigil on a public street violated free speech protections. As such, free speech activities were exempt from the City's insurance requirement. However, Newark has recently reinstituted their insurance requirement for free speech activities and, in addition, requires individuals to indemnify the City for any harm that may occur to them during the march. As such, individuals and organizations that cannot afford the cost of insurance will be precluded from exercising their free speech rights.

The lawsuit is entitled People's Organization for Progress, et al. v. City of Newark, et al. The case was filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey in Newark.

Categories: Free Speech

ACLU-NJ Sues Manalapan Police for Targeting African-American Youths

August 25, 2004

Newark - The ACLU-NJ filed a discrimination lawsuit today against the Manalapan Police Department on behalf of three African-American teenagers who said that officers searched them without justification and called them names while the boys' three white friends were told to go home.

"The police harassed these kids based on their skin color," said Ed Barocas, ACLU-NJ Legal Director. "We receive discrimination complaints every day, but in this case there were reliable witnesses, and the differential treatment engaged in by the officers was blatant and brazen."

The case stems from an incident on June 21, 2003 when Diamond Yorker (then 16), Randy Reina (then 17), Sean Anderson (then 11), and three white friends were together near Buck's Head Park in Manalapan. According to all six boys, around 10:00 p.m., two police officers stopped their separate cars and approached the youngsters. One officer told Yorker to take his hands out of his pockets. Yorker asked why he had to do so since he was doing nothing wrong, but nevertheless complied. Without reason or provocation, the officer put Yorker up against a car and searched him. Reina told the officer he had no right to search Yorker, at which point the second officer asked Reina where he lived. When Reina said that he was from Edison, the officer said that he never wanted to see Reina in Manalapan again and put Reina up against a car to search him. The actions of the police scared eleven year old Anderson and he became upset, which the officers responded to by calling him names like "baby" and "little punk." During the incident, one of the officers told the three white boys to leave and that they "don't have to see this." The white boys didn't leave, and have provided statements supporting the African American boys' claims.

The boys' parents said that when they filed complaints with the Manalapan Police Department they were treated disrespectfully and with a lack of racial sensitivity. For example, the Yorkers' complaint was curled up into a funnel-shape by a sergeant who stuffed it in his back pocket and, during the taking of the Mr. Anderson's complaint, the detective filled out his race as "Negro." The police investigated the complaints but no further action was taken.

The lawsuit alleges that the Manalapan Police Department and Officers Turner and Chaflin violated state discrimination laws and the search and seizure and equal protection clauses of the federal and state constitutions. In addition to unspecified money damages, the lawsuit seeks a court order enjoining further discriminatory activity and directing Manalapan to provide proper training and to take other remedial action to prevent similar occurrences in the future.

The lawsuit is captioned Yorker, et al. v. Township of Manalapan, et al. The case was filed in Superior Court in Monmouth County, New Jersey. The cooperating attorney representing the plaintiffs on behalf of the ACLU of New Jersey is John O'Connor of Anderson, Kill & Olick.

Categories: Discrimination

ACLU-NJ Offers Legal Help to FBI Questioned

August 19, 2004

Newark, NJ-The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey (ACLU-NJ) and the New Jersey Chapter of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC-NJ) are critical of the government's plans to undertake another round of interviews within Muslims and Arab Communities, and are working with volunteer attorneys to provide free legal representation to anyone who is approached by the FBI or Homeland Security during the latest round of "dragnet" interviews of Arabs and Muslims.

The mobilization has come in response to recent announcements by Attorney General John Ashcroft and FBI Director Robert Mueller that the FBI would launch a new round of interviews in Arab and Muslim communities nationwide. The latest announcement appears to be a resurrection of similar programs attempted in late 2001, early 2002, and in 2003, in which the FBI announced its intention to question more than 8,000 men of Middle Eastern origin.

A General Accounting Office Report ("GAO Report"), issued in April 2003 raised a number of concerns about the effectiveness of the Justice Department's 2001 interview project, namely: (1) though the interviews were meant to be voluntary, many of the interviewees "did not perceive the interviews to be truly voluntary," and "worried about repercussions . . . if they refused to be interviewed"; (2) concerns from law enforcement about "the quality of the questions asked and the value of responses obtained," in addition to concerns that the project "had a negative effect on relations between the Arab community and law enforcement personnel." Lastly, according to the GAO report, none of the subjects interviewed "appeared to have any connection to terrorism," and there appear to be "no specific plans to analyze the project data."

"Casting blanket suspicion on an entire religious and ethnic community is not only an immoral and un-American practice, but also is not an effective investigative technique or productive means of protecting national security," said Edward Barocas, Legal Director of the ACLU-NJ. "To hold an entire community suspect and to question its loyalty and patriotism is a stark violation of the civil rights of our community and goes against the basic principles of freedom and equality that stands as the foundation of our democracy," added Aref Assaf, President of ADC-NJ.

According to reports from ACLU attorneys who have accompanied members of the targeted communities in other parts of the country to such interviews, the line of questioning can include inquiries about religious practices, views on U.S. foreign policy, as well as questions about family members. Agents have been known to become coercive and place pressure on interviewees to respond to all questions.

Another example of the way in which the government continues to treat Arabs and Muslims as suspects came to light in late July, when news reports revealed that the U.S. Census Bureau, at the request of the Department of Homeland Security, provided detailed statistical data about the distribution of Arabs in the United States. Both organizations have expressed their concerns in letters addressed to Charles Kincannon, Director of the Census Bureau.

The ACLU and ADC call on Attorney General Ashcroft and FBI Director Mueller to refrain from substituting national origin, ethnicity, or religion as a proxy for suspicion and to end the un-American practice of profiling. We also call upon Congress to curb racial profiling through adoption of the End Racial Profiling Act (ERPA), federal legislation that defines racial profiling, makes it illegal, and would require data collection on all law enforcement encounters. This legislation is critical in preventing abuses of the Muslim community in particular, because current Justice Department guidelines on the use of racial profiling in law enforcement allow an exception for National Security reasons.

The ACLU has also updated its Know Your Rights pamphlets, which are now available in Arabic, Farsi, Urdu, Somali, Punjabi, English and Spanish. Download Know Your Rights-English. Others will be available soon. Individuals in need of pamphlets or those who have been contacted or believe they may be contacted by the FBI and require assistance are urged to contact the ACLU-NJ at 973-642-2084 or intake@aclu-nj.org.

Categories: National Security

NJ Court Says Towns Cannot Close Parks to Nonresidents

July 29, 2004

NEWARK, NJ — A Superior Court Judge today ruled that New Jersey municipalities may not restrict use of their parks to town residents.

The ruling, which is the first of its kind in New Jersey, and one of the first in the country, is the result of a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey in cooperation with attorneys from the Constitutional Litigation Clinic at Rutgers Law School in Newark.

The ACLU and the Constitutional Litigation Clinic challenged a Borough of Haledon ordinance that restricts use of the public parks to town residents and their accompanied guests. Violation of the ordinance carries a $500 fine and/or a 30-day jail sentence. Many towns throughout New Jersey have similar laws.

Judge Margaret M. McVeigh, a Superior Court judge in Paterson, ruled that the ordinance violated the First and Fourth Amendment rights of non-resident park users.

The Court held that parks serve a unique role in American society, allowing newcomers to become part of the community. "At one time all of us were outsiders," Judge McVeigh said. The way we became part of the community was to watch, listen, learn, and "impart a little bit of ourselves in the process."

Judge McVeigh also found that police had no constitutional means of ascertaining the residency status of a park user. "Residents come in all shapes, sizes, and colors," she said. The ordinance gives "absolutely no neutral criteria to ensure that the governmental intrusion is not the product of the detaining personnel's unfettered discretion," and therefore violates the Fourth Amendment.

"This decision comes at a particularly apt time," said Lenora M. Lapidus, Legal Director of the ACLU of New Jersey. "It would be ironic if, just as New Jersey won bragging rights to Ellis Island, the immigrant gateway to America, the state courts sanctioned the balkanization of New Jersey's towns, allowing them to turn away outsiders. Thankfully that didn't happen today."

The ACLU brought suit on behalf of Hwilda Barkawi, a native of Syria and a resident of Prospect Park, who was arrested and prosecuted for using Haledon's Roe Field Park in 1993, in violation of an earlier version of the town ordinance.

The ACLU and the Constitutional Litigation Clinic represented Barkawi in that criminal case, which led to an appellate court decision invalidating the original ordinance because it did not adequately inform the public that infractions would be punished by penal sanctions. The Borough reenacted the ordinance in 1995, making it clear that violators would be subject to punishment.

Barkawi argued that the revised ordinance violated non-residents' constitutional equal protection and free speech rights as well as their right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.

"The Haledon ordinance invited law enforcement officials to ask for identification for no reason, or for impermissible reasons, such as race or ethnicity," said Penny Venetis, the Rutgers professor who argued the case. "Our constitution does not permit police interrogation on either basis."

Barkawi also argued that the ordinance violated New Jersey's public policy against discrimination against non-residents as well as the common law public trust doctrine, which holds that New Jersey's public parks and beaches are held in trust for all residents of the state to enjoy.

"This suit is an important step in fighting the growing national trend of sealing off traditionally public spaces," Venetis added. "This practice is particularly pronounced in suburban communities that want to exclude their less affluent neighbors. We believe that public spaces are for the public at large, not just local residents."

The case is Barkawi v. Borough of Haledon, Docket No. 1-6997-96.

Categories: Discrimination

ACLU Challenges HIV Discrimination

July 29, 2004

NEWARK, NJ - The ACLU of New Jersey announced today that it had filed suit against Shelton Dental Services in Newark and Drs. William E. Shelton and Julius McDaniels for refusing to provide routine dental services to a woman who is HIV positive and for disclosing her medical status to other individuals.

In September 1998, the woman, identified only as C.C. in the federal court complaint, went to Shelton Dental Services for a routine check-up. After her x-rays were completed by a dental assistant, Dr. McDaniels entered the examining room and asked C.C. questions about her medical history. Once Dr. McDaniels learned that C.C. was HIV positive, he refused to treat her and instead referred her to the Special Services Dental Clinic at the New Jersey Dental School.

The complaint alleges that it is the policy of Shelton Dental Services to refuse treatment to all HIV positive people seeking dental services and to refer them to the New Jersey Dental School. The complaint also alleges that employees of Shelton Dental Services unlawfully disclosed to others that C.C. was HIV positive.

The ACLU argues that Dr. McDaniels' refusal to treat C.C. was a form of discrimination prohibited by the Amercians with Disabilities Act and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination. The ACLU also argues that Shelton Dental Services' blanket policy of referring all HIV positive patients to the Special Services Dental Clinic at the New Jersey Dental School is unlawful.

"Federal and state law prohibit places of public accommodation from discriminating on the basis of disability," said Cynthia M. Dennis, the attorney handling the case for the ACLU. "It means that private entities can not deny benefits or services to someone solely on the basis of HIV status."

"All individuals are entitled to medical treatment," explained Lenora M. Lapidus, Legal Director of the ACLU of New Jersey. "Denying an HIV positive person dental care is blatant disrimination."

The case, C.C. v. Shelton Dental Services, was filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (Newark Vicinage). Cynthia M. Dennis, Clincal Attorney and Director of the Women and AIDS Clinic at Rutgers Law School - Newark, is counsel for the plaintiff on behalf of the ACLU of New Jersey.

Categories: Discrimination

With Liberty in Parks for All: NJ Towns Can't Bar 'Outsiders' from Parks Court Says

July 29, 2004

NEWARK, NJ — A state appeals court today upheld a 1998 ruling that New Jersey towns may not restrict use of their parks to residents.

The ruling, the first of its kind in New Jersey and one of the first in the country, is the result of a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey in cooperation with attorneys from the Constitutional Litigation Clinic at Rutgers Law School in Newark.

The suit challenged a Borough of Haledon ordinance that restricted use of the public parks to town residents and their accompanied guests. Violation of the ordinance carried a $500 fine and/or a 30-day jail sentence. Many towns throughout New Jersey have similar laws.

In its decision today, the Appellate Division upheld a June 1998 ruling by superior Court Judge Margaret M. McVeigh. The appeals court rejected the Borough's contention that the ordinance was a rational means of assuring the health, welfare and safety of borough residents, concluding that “it is hard to imagine what health, welfare and safety issues might arise when a mother and three sons from the neighboring town use a neighborhood park.” The court also noted that there would be “inevitable search and seizure concerns triggered by an effort to enforce this ordinance.”

“The Haledon ordinance invited law enforcement officials to ask for identification for no reason, or for impermissible reasons, such as race or ethnicity,” said Penny Venetis, the Rutgers professor who argued the case. “Our constitution does not permit police interrogation on either basis.”

The ACLU-NJ brought suit on behalf of Hwida Barkawi, a native of Syria and a resident of Prospect Park, who was arrested and prosecuted for using Haledon's Roe Field Park in 1993, in violation of an earlier version of the town ordinance.

The ACLU-NJ and the Constitutional Litigation Clinic represented Mrs. Barkawi in that criminal case, which led to an appellate court decision invalidating the original ordinance because it did not adequately inform the public that infractions would be punished by penal sanctions. The Borough reenacted the ordinance in 1995, making it clear that violators would be subject to punishment.

Ms. Barkawi argued that the revised ordinance violated non-residents' constitutional equal protection and free speech rights as well as their right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.

Ms. Barkawi also argued that the ordinance violated New Jersey's public policy against discrimination against non-residents as well as the common law public trust doctrine, which holds that New Jersey's public parks and beaches are held in trust for all residents of the state to enjoy.

“This suit is an important step in fighting the growing national trend of sealing off traditionally public spaces,” said ACLU-NJ staff attorney David Rocah. “This practice is particularly pronounced in suburban communities that want to exclude their less affluent neighbors. We believe that public spaces are for the public at large, not just local residents.”

In June, 1998, Judge McVeigh, a Superior Court judge in Paterson New Jersey, ruled that the ordinance violated the First and Fourth Amendment rights of non-resident park users. The court held that parks serve a unique role in American society, allowing newcomers to become part of the community. “At one time all of us were outsiders,” the Judge said. “The way we became part of the community was to watch, listen, learn, and impart a little bit of ourselves in the process.” The judge further held that the right to participate in this process “is intrinsic to our national spirit.”

Judge McVeigh also found that police had no constitutional means of ascertaining the residency status of a park user. “Residents come in all shapes, sizes, and colors,” the Judge said. The ordinance gives “absolutely no neutral criteria to ensure that the governmental intrusion is not the product of the detaining personnel's unfettered discretion,” she said, and therefore violates the Fourth Amendment.

The case is Barkawi v. Borough of Haledon, Docket No. A-7455-97T5. Ms. Barkawi was represented by ACLU-NJ cooperating attorneys Penny M. Venetis and Frank Askin of the Rutgers Constitutional Litigation Clinic.

Categories: Discrimination

Women & AIDS Clinic and ACLU File Suit Alleging Discrimination Against HIV-Positive Woman

July 29, 2004

NEWARK, NJ — The Women and AIDS Clinic at Rutgers Law School- Newark and the ACLU of New Jersey announced today that they filed a lawsuit against the New Jersey Division of Youth and Family Services and Capital Health System, Inc. for discriminatory policies and unlawful treatment of an HIV positive woman and her newborn child.

In July 1998, the woman, identified as Jane Doe in the federal court complaint, went to Capital Health System at Mercer for a doctor's visit when she began experiencing severe cramping during her pregnancy. The woman was advised that blood work would have to be performed to determine the cause of the cramping. At that time, the woman's blood was tested for HIV without written consent or authorization. Later, after the woman gave birth, the child was removed from her custody based upon her refusal to provide AZT to the newborn.

The complaint alleges constitutional and statutory violations stemming from an unauthorized HIV test, breach of confidentiality, and interference with custodial and parental rights. The complaint also alleges that DYFS filed false affidavits with the court, which stated that the woman was drug involved at the time of her pregnancy, in an effort to remove the child from the woman's custody.

The ACLU and the Women and AIDS Clinic argue that Capital Health System's and DYFS's actions violate the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, and the New Jersey AIDS Assistance Act. Further, they argue that DYFS violated rights of the woman that are protected by the United States Constitution and the New Jersey Constitution.

"New Jersey law mandates that pregnant woman be counseled regarding HIV testing," said Cynthia M. Dennis, Director of the Woman and AIDS Clinic. "The law does not permit unauthorized HIV testing after a pregnant woman has decided not to consent to testing."

"A woman does not lose her right to decide whether or not to undergo an HIV test simply because she is pregnant," added Lenora Lapidus, Legal Director of the ACLU-NJ. "And she certainly does not lose the right to raise her child simply because she is HIV-positive."

The case, Doe v. Division of Youth and Family Services, et al., was filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Does' attorneys are Cynthia M. Dennis, Clinical Attorney and Director of the Women and AIDS Clinic at Rutgers Law School- Newark, and Lenora M. Lapidus, Legal Director of the ACLU of New Jersey.

Categories: Discrimination

Racist Owners of Swim Club Barred 'Black' and 'Brown-Skinned' Visitors, ACLU-NJ Charges

July 29, 2004

NEWARK, NJ — Owners of a swim club in suburban Nutley violated state discrimination laws when they turned away "black" and "brown-skinned" customers and guests, the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey charged today in a lawsuit filed on behalf of a group of parents and their children.

"It is sad to see that the same kind of discrimination we fought long and hard against in the 1960s is still alive today," said Edward Barocas, Legal Director of the ACLU of New Jersey. "The difference is that we now have laws in place that, in the words of the New Jersey Supreme Court, provide the tools to 'eradicat[e] the cancer of discrimination.'"

The ACLU lawsuit charged Patrick and Ray Nardone, owners of the Le Terrace Swim Club, with violation of a state discrimination law that prohibits businesses from denying any individual the right to use their accommodations based on that person's race, color or ethnicity. Swimming pools are listed as a specific example of a "public accommodation" covered by the law.

In legal papers, the ACLU said that Patrick Nardone quizzed one member about whether any of her guests for her daughter's birthday party were "brown-skinned" or "black" and said that people of color would not be welcome at Le Terrace. The member, who is represented in today's lawsuit, was so shocked at the questions and so concerned that the guests would be treated disparagingly that she cancelled plans for the party at the club. Further, on a number of occasions, persons of color who were brought as guests to the club were denied the right to enter even while white guests were permitted in. There is nothing in Le Terrace Swim Club's by-laws, membership agreements, rules, etc. that would apprise members or their guests of any associational interest in joining Le Terrace other than the club being for individuals who pay for the use of the pool's facilities. Therefore, the members represented in this lawsuit were shocked at the discriminatory practice engaged in by Mr. Nardone, although it appears that he and the club have been engaging in such discrimination for many years.

"A business cannot shield itself from the discrimination laws simply by labeling itself a 'private club,'" stated Anne McHugh, lead counsel in the case. "The greatness of this country lies in its diversity and I have no doubt that a New Jersey jury will send that message to Mr. Nardone."

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Nutley residents Michael and Catherine Russo and 18-year-old daughter Marci Shephard, who lives with them, Phyllis Kropp and her adopted 17- year-old daughter Nicole, and Bloomfield residents Philip and Annmarie Giordano and their 11-year-old daughter Cara Marie.

The ACLU complaint describes the ugly racism the three families encountered over the years:

Michael and Catherine Russo, who are white, accepted Marci Shepard, who is African American, into their home after her father died during her senior year of high school. The Russos had grown close to Marci during the time she was a mother's helper for their four children. After joining Le Terrace in May of 2001, Catherine Russo and her children brought Marci to the club as their guest. An employee would not let Marci in, claiming that no more guests were being permitted that day. While Catherine Russo went to discuss the matter with the owner, the employee permitted a member and that member's white guest to enter the facilities. After Mrs. Russo continued to protest the treatment of Marci, Nardone ordered the family off the premises.
Philip and Annmarie Giordano scheduled their daughter's June 2002 birthday party at Le Terrace Swim Club, where Annmarie Giordano and her daughter were members. Patrick Nardone demanded a list of guests and asked whether the guest list included any "brown-skinned" or "black" children. When told that her child did have African-American friends who were guests, Nardone informed her that those children were not welcome at the club. He thereafter rescinded the Giordano's' membership.
Nicole Kropp was six years old when she and her adopted mother Phyllis were invited to Le Terrace Swim Club by a member who had received prior approval to bring two guests. However, when Nicole Kropp, who is dark-skinned, arrived at the club, she and her mother were informed that no guests were allowed to enter. It was clear that other white guests were being permitted entry. Nicole was not invited to future events at the swimming pool because people knew that she would not be permitted to enter. Nicole is now seventeen years old and the impact of that act of discrimination remains strong.

The lawsuit seeks a court order barring any future discrimination by the club owners and requiring them to annually inform the state civil rights office of the ethnicity of club members and guests permitted to use the facilities, as well as compensatory and punitive damages for the families.

The lawsuit is captioned Shepard, et al. v. Le Terrace Swim Club, et al. The case was filed in Superior Court in Newark, New Jersey. The attorney representing the plaintiffs on behalf of the ACLU of New Jersey is Anne McHugh of Pellettieri, Rabstein & Altman in Princeton.

Categories: Discrimination

Appeals Court Protects Anonymous Internet Critics of NJ Company

July 29, 2004

MORRISTOWN, N.J. — Adopting arguments made by attorneys for Public Citizen and the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of New Jersey, a New Jersey appeals court rejected a company's attempt to discover the identities of anonymous Internet message posters by going to court. The case is the first time any appeals court in the nation has considered this question.

The company, Dendrite International, failed to meet the stringent legal standards required for it to obtain subpoenas for the disclosure of the identities of people who post Web messages about those companies, Judge Robert Fall ruled today in an opinion for a three judge panel of the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division.

"Several other courts have articulated similar standards for deciding whether to compel the identification of anonymous Internet speakers, but this decision marks the first time that any appeals court has considered such a request for identification," said Paul Levy, who filed a brief for Public Citizen as a friend of the court. "Because it sets forth strict procedural and evidentiary standards for compelled identification, and then shows that these standards can produce real protection for anonymity, this decision is a tremendous victory for free speech."

Levy predicted that for this reason, as well as the court's thorough analysis of constitutional rights involved, the decision is likely to be especially influential in future cases. Yahoo! recently told a judge in another case that it has received "thousands" of subpoenas like Dendrite's.

The court issued the ruling in a case in which Dendrite International, a supplier of sales force software products and support services to the pharmaceutical industry, sued four people who posted messages anonymously about the company on a Yahoo! message board. Dendrite alleged that three of the message posters made false statements, that two of them who identified themselves as employees violated employment agreements, and that three of them published secret information. After Dendrite asked the court to authorize it to pursue discovery to identify the defendants, Superior Court Judge Kenneth MacKenzie ordered Dendrite to post a notice of its request on the Yahoo! message board to alert the potential defendants that their anonymity was at issue. Two of the posters hired lawyers to defend their right to

remain anonymous, and Public Citizen entered the case as a friend of the court to argue for a limited right to anonymity. After Judge MacKenzie ruled in favor of the two posters, Dendrite appealed the denial of its request to identify one of the posters.

The court accepted Public Citizen's argument that court must "strike a balance between the well-established First Amendment right to speak anonymously, and the right of the plaintiff to protect its proprietary interests and reputation [against] actionable conduct of anonymous, fictionally named defendants." To achieve this balance, Judge Fall adopted a four-part test, following the standard proposed in Public Citizen's brief, to ensure that the right to speak anonymously can be lost only if the plaintiff can show that it had a valid case against the speakers that could not be pursued without identifying the speakers.

Under this standard, the court should first require the plaintiff to attempt to notify the anonymous posters that their identities are being sought, and give the defendants an opportunity to oppose the request. The plaintiff must identify the exact statements alleged to be unlawful. The court must then decide both whether the complaint states a valid claim for relief, and whether the plaintiff has enough evidence to support its claim. Finally, if these first three standards is met, "the court must balance the defendant's First Amendment right of anonymous free speech against the strength of the prima facie case and the necessity for the disclosure of the anonymous defendant's identity to allow the plaintiff to proceed."

The court upheld Judge MacKenzie's ruling that Dendrite had not met this standard, because there was no proof that the messages had caused its stock price to fall, or had otherwise caused it harm.

Public Citizen argued in its brief that because the main purpose of such suits is often to unmask the company's critics, the identification of those critics should be treated as a major form of relief that cannot be awarded without proof of wrongdoing. A company should not be able to deny members of the public the right to speak anonymously simply by filing a complaint and making vague allegations of wrongdoing. The Internet, Levy argued, is "the modern equivalent of the Speakers' Corner at Hyde Park. That's where anybody can stand up and voice their opinions -- however silly, profane or brilliant they might seem -- to anyone who chooses to listen. By establishing tough standards that companies must meet before anonymous speakers may be identified, and then actually applying those standards to protect the only two defendants who came to court to defend themselves, while inviting the other two speakers to explain why they, too, should be protected, Judge Fall has set an important precedent protecting the free speech rights of all Internet posters."

In a second case, Immunomedics v. Doe, which was argued in tandem with the Dendrite case, the appellate court applied the same standard set out in Dendrite and affirmed a trial court's denial of a motion to quash. In that case, the court held that there was sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the Jane Doe in question was an employee who had breached a confidentiality agreement and that that evidence supported a bona fide claim of breach of contract.

Public Citizen filed the brief because it champions free speech rights. The organization recently represented a person who posted anonymous messages on a Yahoo! message board about Thomas & Betts Corporation, a Tennessee manufacturer of electrical components. The company dismissed the case with a statement that it did not want to chill free speech on the Internet. Public Citizen is also representing an employee who anonymously posted a message on the Internet about an executive of Ohio-based AK Steel Company. The executive has sued to learn the identity of the employee for this allegedly defamatory posting.

J.C. Salyer of the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey Foundation was local counsel in the case. Judges Edwin Stern and Ariel Rodriguez joined Judge Fall's opinion.

Categories: Cyber-Liberties

Court Blocks Enforcement of West New York Curfew

July 29, 2004

WEST NEW YORK, NJ — Ruling in a lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey, a Superior Court judge today told West New York it could not continue to enforce its juvenile curfew ordinance until the court makes a final determination regarding the curfew's constitutionality.

Chancery Division Judge Martin L. Greenberg, in Hudson County, issued a preliminary injunction in a suit brought by the ACLU-NJ on behalf of two families whose children had been arrested under the curfew. Finding that the plaintiffs were likely to prevail on their claim that the curfew was unconstitutional, the court told West New York that it must immediately cease enforcement of the ordinance and cease prosecution of curfew violators.

The judge said that it was unlikely that West New York would be able to show that “house confinement of all minors under age 18” was a permissible restriction on minors' constitutional rights.

West New York's curfew, which was enacted in 1993, prohibits anyone under age 18 from being in a public place between 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. unless accompanied by their parent or guardian. According to the township's attorney, the ordinance provides exceptions for juveniles traveling to or from work, engaged in a medical emergency, or traveling to or from events sponsored by community or religious organizations. Curfew violators and their parents are subject to fines of up to $1,000, and up to 90 days community service.

“West New York's curfew is an assault on the basic constitutional rights of thousands of young people in the township,” said David M. Kohane, an attorney in the Hackensack law firm of Cole, Schotz, Meisel, Forman & Leonard who is handling the case for the ACLU. “Placing everyone in West New York under house arrest from 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. would certainly reduce crime, but how many people would be willing to pay that price?”

Kohane noted that the teenagers involved in the ACLU lawsuit have been arrested for curfew violations while returning home from delivering cake to a grandparent, eating in a restaurant with an adult friend, walking home from work at McDonalds, and walking home with friends from a movie. “It makes no sense to punish these teenagers, and thousands of other good kids like them, for problems they haven't caused.”

“The police already have the ability to arrest juvenile criminals; the curfew adds nothing more than the obligation to arrest the innocent as well,” said ACLU-NJ Staff Attorney David Rocah. “The proper response to juvenile crime is to arrest the criminals,” Rocah said, “not to place thousands of law-abiding young people under house arrest.”

Courts around the country have reached differing conclusions regarding the constitutionality of juvenile curfews, and the U.S. Supreme Court has never ruled on their legality. Juvenile curfews have been found to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Courts of Washington, Iowa, and Hawaii, and have recently been struck down by federal courts in Washington, D.C., and San Diego, California. However courts have upheld curfews in Dallas, Texas, and Charlottesville, Virginia.

Studies have repeatedly shown that curfews are an ineffective crime-fighting tool, and many large cities have either scrapped or refused to adopt curfew laws. A recent comprehensive study of curfew enforcement in California by the Justice Policy Institute found that curfew enforcement had no discernible effect on juvenile crime, and in many jurisdictions, juvenile crime actually increased. In addition, federal crime statistics show that the majority of juvenile crimes occur during non-curfew hours, peaking between 2:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m.

The ACLU lawsuit — Betancourt v. Township of West New York, docket number C-6-99 — was filed in the New Jersey Superior Court, Chancery Division, Hudson County, on January 19, 1999.

Categories: Student & Youth Rights

NJ Supreme Court Strikes Down Parental Notification for Abortion Act

July 29, 2004

TRENTON, NJ — Reaffirming the fundamental right of young women to choose to terminate their pregnancies, the New Jersey State Supreme Court, in a 4 to 2 decision, today struck down a law that would have prevented pregnant teens from getting an abortion unless they notified a parent or obtained a court order. The law did not impose a similar requirement on minors seeking other pregnancy-related care.

The American Civil Liberties Union, which challenged the law on behalf of health-care providers and their patients throughout the state, said that today's decision sends a strong message that the state cannot enact laws that uniquely burden minors seeking abortions.

“Today's decision recognizes the unfortunate truth: not all teens come from perfect families,” said Jennifer Dalven, an attorney on the case with the National ACLU's Reproductive Freedom Project. “The Court's decision should serve as a guide to legislatures and courts around the country. It makes clear that when you put aside the state's rhetoric these laws do not further family communication, but instead put teens' health and rights at risk.”

In its decision, the Court recognized that a parental notification law will not serve to foster family communication. The Court explained, “[T]he Notification Act cannot transform a household with poor lines of communication into a paradigm of the perfect American family.”

The law in question, the “Parental Notification for Abortion Act,” would have radically changed the way medical care has been delivered safely in New Jersey for over two decades. It would have amended a long-standing New Jersey law that expressly permitted pregnant minors to consent to all care related to their pregnancies — whether they wanted to have an abortion or become mothers.

It would have singled out pregnant minors who choose abortion — but not those who carry their pregnancies to term — and imposed on them alone the requirement of notifying a parent or going to court.

In its opinion, the Court accepted the ACLU's argument that the New Jersey Constitution does not tolerate such discrimination. The Court held in no uncertain terms that “the State may not affirmatively tip the scales against the right to choose an abortion absent compelling reasons.” In this case, it found that the State had “failed utterly” to show that it has any significant interest to justify the burdens and discrimination imposed by the Act.

“This decision is not only a victory for young women in New Jersey who will now continue to have access to safe and legal abortions but for all state residents who will be able to rely on the state Supreme Court and Constitution to protect their fundamental rights,” said Lenora Lapidus, Legal Director of the ACLU of New Jersey and co-counsel in the case.

The case, Planned Parenthood v. Farmer, number A-52, was filed by the ACLU in September 1999 on behalf of 13 health-care providers, including Planned Parenthood of Central New Jersey and the American Academy of Pediatrics/New Jersey Chapter. Attorneys on the case were Jennifer Dalven, Julie Sternberg, and Catherine Weiss of the National ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project, and Lenora Lapidus of the ACLU of New Jersey.

Categories: Reproductive Freedom Student & Youth Rights

Court Blocks Implementation of Random Drug Testing Policy in ACLU Lawsuit

July 29, 2004

A New Jersey Superior Court judge issued an injunction today that blocks the implementation of a random drug testing policy aimed at students who participate in athletics, extracurricular activities, or park their cars at their high school. The lawsuit was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey on behalf of three families with students at Hunterdon Central Regional High School who believe that the policy is a violation of students' privacy rights under the New Jersey Constitution.

“The Court's opinion recognizes that the State Constitution protects individuals from searches, such as urine tests, unless there is evidence that they have done something wrong or unless the government demonstrates a great need for such a search. At Hunterdon Central there is no evidence that there is a drug problem among the students subject to the policy that would justify this kind of random drug testing,” explained Ravinder S. Bhalla, of the Newark firm Krovatin & Associates, who represented the plaintiffs on behalf of the ACLU-NJ.

In an opinion granting plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, Judge Robert E. Guterl, Somerset County Superior Court, stated: “This Court agrees with Plaintiffs' argument that the program violates the heightened privacy protection afforded by the New Jersey Constitution and enjoins the further implementation of the program.” The Court also stated that: “Students should not have to surrender their right to privacy in order to participate in athletics and extracurricular activities, and participation in these school programs does not significantly diminish an individual's reasonable expectation of privacy or the intrusiveness of a suspicionless drug testing program.”

The new policy was scheduled to go into full effect on September 8, 2000, but was halted by the ACLU-NJ's lawsuit filed on August 17, 2000. The plaintiffs in the lawsuit are families with students at Hunterdon Central who participate in a variety of extracurricular activities and object to the invasive and unnecessary drug testing.

Although the United States Supreme Court has allowed random drug testing of student athletes if a school demonstrates a special need to test, the New Jersey State Constitution provides greater privacy protections than its federal counterpart. One New Jersey court has previously enjoined a Ridgefield Park High School's policy that called for the random testing of student athletes because the school had failed to show a need for the testing program. Courts in other states, such as Pennsylvania and Indiana, have also held that their state constitutions prohibit such random testing.

The plaintiffs are represented by Ravinder S. Bhalla of the Newark firm Krovatin & Associates and J.C. Salyer and Lenora Lapidus of the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey Foundation. The case is captioned Joye et al. v. Hunterdon Central Regional Board of Education et al.

Categories: Student & Youth Rights

Appellate Court Strikes Down West New York Curfew Ordinance

July 29, 2004

TRENTON, NJ — Ruling in a lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey, the Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court upheld a ruling that had struck down a West New York curfew ordinance as unconstitutional.

The Town of West New York had appealed the ruling of Chancery Division Judge Martin L. Greenberg, Hudson County, granting plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment. In its ruling, the Appellate Division recognized that there was a “strong constitutional presumption in favor of parental authority over government authority.” The Appellate Division went on to hold that the West New York curfew ordinance was unconstitutional because it was “not broad enough to recognize the right of parents to permit their children to participate in many legitimate activities” and because the terms of the ordinance were unconstitutionally vague.

The suit was brought on behalf of two families whose children had been arrested under the curfew by David M. Kohane, an attorney in the Hackensack law firm of Cole, Schotz, Meisel, Forman & Leonard, who is handling the case for the ACLU-NJ. The Appellate Divisions ruling lets stand a permanent injunction that was issued by the lower court in September 1999 that prevents West New York from enforcing the ordinance.

West New York's curfew ordinance, which was enacted in 1993, prohibited minors from being in a public place between 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. unless accompanied by their parent or guardian. The ordinance provides exceptions for juveniles traveling to or from work, engaged in a medical emergency, or traveling to or from events sponsored by community or religious organizations. Curfew violators and their parents are subject to fines of up to $1,000, and up to 90 days community service.

“The ruling gives families in the township the freedom and respect they deserve,” said David Kohane attorney for the plaintiffs. Kohane noted that the teenagers involved in the ACLU lawsuit have been arrested for curfew violations while returning home from delivering cake to a grandparent, eating in a restaurant with an adult friend, walking home from work at McDonalds, and walking home with friends from a movie. “It makes no sense to criminalize the innocent activities of these teenagers, and numerous other good kids like them, for problems they haven't caused.”

“The proper response to juvenile crime is to arrest the criminals,” Kohane added, “not to place all law-abiding young people under house arrest. The police already have the ability to arrest juvenile when they break the law; the curfew would have added nothing except giving police the right to arrest the innocent as well.”

Studies have repeatedly shown that curfews are an ineffective crime-fighting tool. A recent comprehensive study of curfew enforcement in California by the Justice Policy Institute found that curfew enforcement had no discernible effect on juvenile crime, and in many jurisdictions, juvenile crime actually increased. In addition, federal crime statistics show that the majority of juvenile crimes occur during non-curfew hours, peaking between 2:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m.

The ACLU lawsuit — Betancourt v. Township of West New York, docket number A-711-99T2 was originally filed on January 19, 1999. Plaintiffs were represented by David M. Kohane of the Hackensack law firm of Cole, Schotz, Meisel, Forman & Leonard.

Categories: Student & Youth Rights

Students & Parents Challenge Random Drug Testing Policy at Hunterdon Central Regional High

July 29, 2004

The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey filed a lawsuit today challenging Hunterdon Central Regional High School’s recently expanded drug testing policy that requires students participating in athletics, extracurricular activities and parking on campus to submit to random tests for drug and alcohol use. The school has in the past randomly tested student athletes but began to phase in the expanded policy at the end of the last semester. The new policy is scheduled to go into full effect on September 8, 2000.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of three families with students at Hunterdon Central who believe that the policy violates student rights under the New Jersey Constitution. The ACLU-NJ argues that the policy is unjustified and is an invasion of students’ rights to privacy. In addition, the policy does not require the type of individualized suspicion of wrongdoing usually required to justify drug testing.

“Under the State Constitution individuals cannot be subjected to searches, such as urine tests, without evidence that they have done something wrong or unless the government demonstrates a great need for such a search. At Hunterdon Central there is no reason to believe that there is a drug problem among the students involved in extracurricular activities that would justify this sweeping drug testing policy,” explained J.C. Salyer, Staff Attorney for the ACLU-NJ. “To the contrary, Hunterdon Central appears to be an excellent school that consistently produces successful students,” Salyer added.

“My husband and I are filing this lawsuit on behalf of our daughter, Melissa” said Joan Z. Greiner, one of the parents represented in the lawsuit. “The protections of the Constitution have provided a good life for my family and me. We want to preserve this way of life for our children and their children.” Melissa Greiner will be a senior at Hunterdon Central in September and has participated in varsity gymnastics for the past two years.

Greiner served on Hunterdon Central’s Drug Testing Task Force, which recommended the policy, as a representative of parents with children who participate in athletic programs at the school. In that capacity, Greiner repeatedly sought an explanation for why Hunterdon Central needed a random drug testing program that targeted students who participate in extracurricular activities. Because Greiner never received an adequate explanation, she voted against the policy.

The ACLU-NJ also represents Deborah, Michael and Shaun Joye. Shaun will be a junior in September and has participated in a variety of extra-curricular activities including an online literary magazine. Last spring, Shaun was not allowed to participate in a school play because his parents objected to signing the school’s random testing consent form.

The third student in the suit, senior Anna Zdepski, has participated in Model United Nations sessions, an online science magazine, and “PULSE,” a student organization formed to promote interaction and understanding between gay and heterosexual students. Anna and her parents, Mark and Linda Zdepski, do not want her participation in these programs to require her submitting to an invasive and unnecessary urine test.

The matter raises public policy questions as well as constitutional problems. It calls into question the wisdom of requiring drug testing for students who wish to pursue extracurricular activities. Students who participate in sports and other school activities after school are less likely to use drugs than other students and testing policies discourage involvement in activities that complement students classes and may expand opportunities for college admissions and scholarships.

The issue also brings into question to the role of educators. "When we send our children to the public schools, we trust and expect officials there to look out for their welfare and safety. But there is a line between assisting parents by looking out for students, and usurping parental authority by invading students' legitimate rights to privacy. That line obviously has been crossed here.” said Deborah Jacobs, ACLU-NJ Executive Director. Jacobs also noted that state statutes authorizing school officials to test students legitimately suspected of drug use already provide schools with ways of dealing with drug use without resorting to sweeping random drug testing policies.

Although the United States Supreme Court has allowed random drug testing of student athletes if a school demonstrates a special need to test, this case is brought under the New Jersey State Constitution which provides greater privacy protections than its federal counterpart. One New Jersey court has previously enjoined a Ridgefield Park high school’s policy that called for the random testing of student athletes because the school had failed to show a need for the testing program.

The plaintiffs are represented by Ravinder S. Bhalla of the Newark firm Krovatin & Associates and J.C. Salyer and Lenora Lapidus of the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey Foundation. The lawsuit captioned, Joye et al. v. Hunterdon Central Regional Board of Education et al., was filed today in the Superior Court of New Jersey in Hunterdon County.

Categories: Student & Youth Rights

NJ Mall Leafleting Restrictions Declared Unconstitutional in 2nd ACLU Challenge

July 28, 2004

NEWARK, NJ — The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey announced today that a State Superior Court Judge has struck down as unconstitutional regulations restricting the distribution of literature and the gathering of political petitions at the Mall at Mill Creek in Secaucus.

The decision came in a case brought by the Rutgers Law School Constitutional Litigation Clinic and the ACLU of New Jersey on behalf of the Green Party of New Jersey, challenging rules adopted by the Mall at Mill Creek in Secaucus, New Jersey.

In his ruling, Judge Martin L. Greenberg rejected the mall's requirement that any group wishing to leaflet or collect signatures must obtain a million dollar liability insurance policy and execute an agreement to indemnify the mall for any lawsuits resulting from their activity. Such a requirement, he said, violated the spirit of a related 1996 Supreme Court decision.

The state court's opinion, which was released late Friday afternoon, is an extension of a 1996 decision by the New Jersey Supreme Court that regional shopping malls are public fora under state law and must accommodate ideological expression by political and non-profit groups. The 1996 case, New Jersey Coalition Against the War in the Middle East v. J.M.B. Realty, was also brought by the Rutgers clinic and the ACLU of New Jersey. The Mall at Mill Creek, which is owned by Hartz Mountain Industries, was one of the ten defendants in the earlier case.

Judge Greenberg held that "as a practical matter, the insurance and hold harmless requirements act as a de facto ban on free speech because these regulations are cost prohibitive and difficult to obtain due to political beliefs." He added that the regulations "deny groups the ability to follow society to shopping centers and therefore the right to exercise free speech" at such public gathering places. He further held that the rule restricting each organization to "one day or a few consecutive days per year" was unreasonable.

Professor Frank Askin of the Rutgers Constitutional Litigation Clinic, who represented the plaintiffs, said he and his students were pleased that they had been successful in further extending the right of free speech in New Jersey.

"Our clinic has been working for the past fifteen years to widen the public forum where citizens of our state can come together and communicate on issues of public importance," he said. "Once again, a court has vindicated our argument that places of public congregation, whether publicly or privately owned, must accommodate the constitutional rights of speech and petition."

Judge Greenberg also declared unconstitutional a mall regulation that no group could be licensed to engage in expressive activity more often than once a year for "several consecutive days."

The ACLU plans to circulate Judge Greenberg's opinion to other regional shopping malls in New Jersey to ensure that they are aware of the limited scope of permissible regulation of free speech.

The case before Judge Greenberg was captioned Green Party v. Hartz Mountain Industries, Docket Number C-137-96 in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Hudson County

Categories: Free Speech

Elmwood Park Magistrate Withdraws Contempt Charge

July 28, 2004

NEWARK, NJ — The ACLU-NJ announced today that Elmwood Park Municipal Magistrate Anthony D. Cipollone had withdrawn a contempt charge against Mary Novak rather than appear at a show cause hearing in Superior Court in Bergen County this Thursday.

Ms. Novak, represented by the Rutgers Law School Constitutional Litigation Clinic and the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey, had sued Magistrate Cipollone for allegedly abusing his authority by ordering her to come to court to explain why she wrote "highway robbery fund" on the check she submitted as payment for a parking ticket.

On April 12, 1999, New Jersey Superior Court Assignment Judge Sybil R. Moses issued an Order to Show Cause directing Magistrate Cipollone to appear in court on April 15 to justify his authority to issue the contempt charge.

Raymond Flood, attorney for Judge Cipollone, wrote to Judge Moses this morning offering on behalf of Judge Cipollone to withdraw the contempt charge and moot the show cause hearing.

Frank Askin, Director of the Rutgerslegal clinic stated, "We are pleased that Judge Cipollone has recognized his mistake and withdrawn the contempt charge. It is unfortunate that it took a law suit to bring this about. Hopefully, this will be a lesson to other municipal magistrates that they do not have authority to threaten punishment against citizens who exercise their free speech right to express their dissatisfaction with the operation of governmental agencies."

Categories: Free Speech

Free Speech Protected in the Courts

July 28, 2004

NEWARK, NJ — A directive issued to all state judges and magistrates by the Administrative Office of the Courts has been hailed by the American Civil Liberties Union as a triumph for the free speech rights of all New Jerseyans.

The directive, dated June 22, and signed by AOC Director Judge James Ciancia instructs judges that they are not authorized to use their summary contempt powers against individuals who write "offensive comments" on communications to the court, such as memos on checks in payment of traffic and parking fines.

The directive was issued in response to a request by the ACLU of New Jersey and the Rutgers Law School Constitutional Litigation Clinic, which, in recent years, has represented several individuals issued contempt citations by municipal magistrates because they wrote angry comments on the memo portion of their checks.

Most recently, the ACLU-NJ and the Rutgers clinic represented Mary Novak of Elmwood Park, who wrote "highway robbery fund" on a $9 check for an overdue parking fine. When Ms. Novak was ordered to appear in Elmwood Park Municipal Court for a contempt hearing, Rutgers Professor Frank Askin, on behalf of the ACLU, filed suit in Bergen County Superior Court against the Magistrate for violating Ms. Novak's free speech rights. After Bergen County Assignment Judge Sybil Moses signed an order to show cause against Magistrate Anthony Cipollone, the Magistrate voluntarily withdrew the contempt charge.

Last summer, the ACLU and the Rutgers clinic represented a Morristown man who was accused of contempt when he wrote "legal extortion" on his check for three overdue parking tickets. Magistrate Michael Noonan dismissed the charge after a hearing in Morristown Municipal Court.

In the letter to Chief Justice Deborah Poritz which resulted in the AOC directive, Professor Askin had explained: "Requiring a person to respond to a contempt citation for the exercise of free speech has the inevitable effect of discouraging other citizens from criticizing government agencies. The message conveyed by such actions is that citizens can criticize the municipal parking administration only if they are prepared either to pay a fine for contempt or to obtain adequate legal representation. Moreover, such actions can only encourage cynicism among citizens with respect to the judicial system."

Lenora Lapidus, Legal Director of the ACLU of New Jersey said in welcoming the AOC directive: "We are gratified that the AOC has issued this strong directive reminding all New Jersey judges that they may not cite individuals for contempt simply for exercising the right to free speech.

Categories: Free Speech

Rutgers Sued for Censoring Alumni Magazine

July 28, 2004

NEWARK, NJ — The ACLU of New Jersey announced today that it had filed suit against Rutgers University for refusing to publish an ad submitted to the Rutgers Alumni Magazine by a group opposed to the growing emphasis on athletics at the state university.

The group — known as Rutgers 1000 — is composed of faculty, students, and alumni who believe that the University places too much emphasis on its sports program at the expense of its academic program.

In 1998, the group sought to purchase an ad in the Rutgers Alumni magazine soliciting additional members, and inviting inquiries about the group and its goals. The magazine refused to publish the ad, citing a policy of refusing "advocacy advertising."

The ACLU argues that the University's refusal to publish the ad, and its policy of discriminating against political advertising in general, violates both the federal and state constitutions.

"Political advocacy is entitled to the highest degree of constitutional protection," said Flavio Komuves, the attorney handling the case for the ACLU. "A government policy discriminating against such speech must have a compelling justification, and Rutgers has none."

The suit also contends that the University's refusal to publish the ad means that Rutgers 1000 has no means of reaching out to alumni. Rutgers University refused the group's request to rent the alumni mailing list so that direct mail appeals could be sent.

Richard Seclow, a spokesman for Rutgers 1000, expressed dismay at the actions of his alma mater. "Rutgers University, which is institutionally committed to the free exchange of ideas, should be the last place in the world to even think of banning an ad because it presents an idea rather than a product" he said. "I can't imagine a policy more at odds with the goals of the University than the one they relied on to bar our ad."

Rutgers 1000 had sought to purchase a one third page advertisement captioned "For Rutgers Alumni — A Time to Choose." The ad contained a quote from Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman, an alumni member of the group: "Universities exist to transmit knowledge and understanding of ideas and values to students, not to provide entertainment for spectators or employment for athletes." The ad also solicited readers to join the campaign and to send money to support Rutgers 1000's activities.

"By refusing to publish advocacy advertising, Rutgers magazine ensures that the only advocacy expressed in the magazine is Rutgers' own," said ACLU-NJ staff attorney David Rocah. "That kind of government censorship is exactly what the Constitution prohibits."

The case, Rutgers 1000 Alumni Council v. Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, was filed in the New Jersey Superior Court, Chancery Division, Middlesex County. Flavio L. Komuves, of the law firm Wilentz, Goldman & Spitzer in Woodbridge, New Jersey, is counsel for the plaintiff on behalf of the ACLU of New Jersey.

Categories: Free Speech

Trenton Says No to Public Use of City Hall Atrium and ACLU Sues

July 28, 2004

TRENTON, NJ — The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey today filed suit against the City of Trenton, Mayor Douglas H. Palmer, and Eric Tunstall, director of public property for the City. The suit arises out of the City's refusal to allow Juan Martinez, a local community activist, to use the City Hall Atrium for a press conference. The City denied Mr. Martinez's request after learning that he planned to criticize the mayor's choice for a new police chief.

Grayson Barber, cooperating attorney on behalf of the ACLU-NJ explained, "The City of Trenton violated Mr. Martinez's First Amendment rights in at least two ways: First, it denied public access to a public forum based on the content of his speech. Second, its "approval" process for use of the Atrium — for which there are no clear guidelines — amounts to an impermissible licensing scheme that imposes an unconstitutional prior restraint on speech."

Mr. Martinez was barred from using the City Hall Atrium despite the fact that the mayor, other politicians, community leaders, and other members of the public have used this space for a variety of expressive activities.

In design, purpose, function and use, the City Hall Atrium and adjacent plaza are equivalent to a public park and thus is a "traditional" public forum in which the government may not censor speech.

"The Atrium is, in essence, a public park with a glass roof over a portion of it," said Frank Corrado, co-counsel on behalf of the ACLU-NJ. "Just as the government could not ban Mr. Martinez from setting up a soap box in the park, neither may it banish him from speaking in the Atrium."

Mr. Martinez decided to file a lawsuit after the City refused to allow him access to the Atrium and refused to provide any guidelines for its decision to grant or deny a request to use the facility.

"This is not just about me," said Martinez. "This is about everyone who wishes to exercise their constitutional rights. Just because someone disagrees with the mayor on certain issues, that does not give the City the right to silence them."

As Lenora Lapidus, Legal Director of the ACLU-NJ explained, "The decision to deny access to the Atrium was made on an ad hoc, totally discretionary basis."

"This is a classic example," Lapidus continued, "of the government trying to freeze out the opinions of those who may be critical of official policy. The mayor cannot stay warm and dry inside the Atrium while banishing his critics to shiver outside in the elements."

The lawsuit, Martinez v. City of Trenton, was filed in United States District Court in Trenton.

Categories: Free Speech

Lawnside Residents File Lawsuit To Protect Free Speech Rights

July 28, 2004

CAMDEN — A group of Lawnside residents, known as Citizens for a Better Lawnside, filed a lawsuit today seeking to have a court strike down a permit ordinance that violates residents constitutional rights to assemble and speak freely.

"The ordinance is written so broadly that it gives the borough the power to deny a speaker a permit outright or make it cost prohibitive to obtain a permit. The ordinance makes it possible to silence any speaker that the borough finds to be controversial," explained Frank L. Corrado, an attorney with the Wildwood firm Rossi, Barry, Corrado, Grassi & Radell, P.C. who is representing the residents on behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey.

Another aspect of the ordinance that residents object to is a provision allowing the police to unilaterally change the place and time of a speaker's event. "When and where a group chooses to hold their event is as much a part of their message as their signs and speeches," said Lenora Lapidus, Legal Director of the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey.

The lawsuit challenges the heavy-handed regulation of a broad range of expressive activity, such as political demonstrations, which are contained in an ordinance adopted by the Borough of Lawnside earlier this year. The ordinance stifles speech by imposing a host of burdens on prospective speakers and giving the borough essentially unfettered discretion to deny speakers a permit to hold an event.

Among the problems with the ordinance are a 45 day advance notice requirement and a provision that allows police to deny a permit for a number of reasons such as a claim that the event will interfere with traffic or if the police deem it unsafe. The ordinance makes no provision for speakers to appeal a denial of a permit. The ordinance also gives the borough the discretion to require speakers to reimburse it for the cost of police used at an event or to require a speaker to obtain insurance prior to an event.

The Lawnside residents are represented by Frank L. Corrado of Rossi, Barry, Corrado, Grassi & Radell, P.C. and Lenora Lapidus and J.C. Salyer of the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey Foundation. The lawsuit captioned, Anderson et al. v. The Borough of Lawnside, was filed today in the District Court of New Jersey in Camden.

Categories: Free Speech

Newark Residents File Lawsuit for Right to Speak at City Council Meetings

July 28, 2004

NEWARK — Newark residents filed a lawsuit today seeking an order requiring the Newark City Clerk to place an initiative on the ballot allowing citizens the right to speak at City Council meetings.

In December of 1999, Newark residents presented petitions to the Newark City Clerk with thousands of signatures calling for the City Council to allow citizens the right to speak during regular City Council meetings. The law requires that the City Council adopt the petitioners' ordinance or submit it to the voters at the next election. Instead, the City Council introduced its own watered-down ordinance, which it said was in "substantially the form" as that requested by the citizens. As a result, the City Clerk has refused to place the citizens' ordinance on the ballot in November. The Council's ordinance, however, fails to provide an opportunity for public comment.

"The Council's ordinance continues to bar citizens from speaking at regular Council meetings, except to address ordinances on second reading, which is a very small part of the agenda," said Frank Hutchins, a South Ward Newark resident.

"The whole thrust of the citizens' petitions was the right to speak during regular City Council meetings," said William Stewart, a West Ward Newark resident who was involved in the petition drive. "The Newark City Council should be doing everything it can to encourage citizen participation in its meetings."

"Residents from all wards of Newark circulated the petitions to get the right to speak during regular Council meetings, when citizens would have the opportunity to talk to all members of the City Council at once," said Manuel Lavin, from the East Ward. "At other meetings the Council holds, Councilpersons are not all present. You never know who you will be speaking to, or how many empty chairs there will be."

The Newark residents are represented by Frank Askin of the Rutgers Constitutional Litigation Clinic, Lenora Lapidus of the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey, and Renee Steinhagen of the Public Interest Law Center of New Jersey. The lawsuit captioned, Ras Baraka, et al. v. Robert Marasco, was filed in Superior Court, Essex County.

Categories: Free Speech

ACLU & PETA Go to Court for Free Speech Rights

July 28, 2004

Trenton, N.J. — Acting on behalf of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey (ACLU-NJ) filed a lawsuit today challenging a municipal ordinance prohibiting the distribution of "any leaflets, circulars, pamphlets or other printed matter on the beachfront or boardwalk." The suit stems from charges filed last August against RaeLeann Smith, a PETA employee, for handing out leaflets on the boardwalk during an anti-fur demonstration in Belmar. Prosecutors dropped the criminal charges when Smith and the ACLU-NJ told them that she would challenge the constitutionality of the ordinance. The ordinance will now face judicial review, which the plaintiffs hope will clear the way for PETA to leaflet again this summer.

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey in Trenton, alleges that the ordinance violates both the First Amendment and the New Jersey Constitution by prohibiting free speech. The suit asks the court to declare the ordinance unconstitutional and to order Belmar to stop enforcing it.

"The animals who are trapped, drowned, and beaten to death in the wild or gassed, strangled, or electrocuted on fur farms simply for their fur cannot speak for themselves — we must do it for them. Free speech rights are protected, and Belmar's decision to defy the Constitution must not go unchallenged," says Smith.

"PETA's activists have a message about an important social issue, and the Constitution gives them the right to present that message to the public," explained Frank L. Corrado, an attorney representing PETA on behalf of the ACLU-NJ. "Ordinances such as Belmar's are dangerous because they limit society's access to valuable information and opinions," Corrado added.

The leaflets PETA had been distributing describe the crowded, filthy cages in which animals raised for their fur are confined. Suffering on fur farms is compounded during the summer months when temperatures soar and foxes, minks, and other animals die from heat exhaustion.

PETA and Ms. Smith are represented by Frank L. Corrado of the Wildwood firm Rossi, Barry, Corrado & Grassi, P.C., and J.C. Salyer of the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey Foundation. The lawsuit, captioned, PETA et al. v. The Borough of Belmar, was filed today in the District Court of New Jersey in Trenton.

Categories: Free Speech

ACLU Challenges Franklin Lakes Ordinance Which Limits Right to Display Political Signs

July 28, 2004

Newark, NJ - The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey announced today that it filed a lawsuit against the Borough of Franklin Lakes, challenging an ordinance that limits the right of borough residents to display political signs in front of their homes. The ACLU-NJ asserts that the ordinance violates citizens' right to free speech and expression as guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and by Article I, Paragraphs 1 and 6 of the New Jersey Constitution.

The Franklin Lakes ordinance prohibits any political signs from being displayed until two weeks before an election, requires their removal two days after an election and, as currently written, requires residents to obtain a permit and pay a fee to display such signs. The ordinance also requires political signs to be set back ten feet from the curb and to be no more than 2'x3' in dimension, making it hard to be viewed by passersby. The New Jersey Supreme Court has already rejected a six square foot size limitation such as the one adopted by the borough as violative of citizens' free speech rights.

"In our country citizens have a fundamental right to communicate to others support for those candidates with whom they agree or dissatisfaction with those with whom they disagree. That is in fact an essential part of our democratic process. By restricting citizens' ability to place signs of support at their own residences as a method of communicating with others, the Borough of Franklin Lakes has violated the most basic free speech rights of its residents," explained ACLU-NJ Legal Director Ed Barocas.

The lawsuit is captioned Boehm v. Borough of Franklin Lakes. The plaintiff, Dr. Ed Boehm, is a Democratic candidate for Borough Council, whose current members are all Republicans. Dr. Boehm seeks to utilize the placement of signs at his and his supporters' residences to gain name recognition and to convey his positions on issues. The attorney representing Dr. Boehm on behalf of the ACLU-NJ is Lewis Robertson of Red Bank, New Jersey.

Categories: Free Speech

Court Blocks Franklin Lakes Ordinance Limiting Right to Display Political Signs

July 28, 2004

Newark, NJ - The United States District Court issued an order today enjoining the Borough of Franklin Lakes from enforcing an ordinance limiting the right of Borough residents to display political signs in front of their homes. The court accepted the ACLU-NJ's argument that the ordinance likely violates citizens' rights to free speech and expression as guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and by Article I, Paragraphs 1 and 6 of the New Jersey Constitution.

"The decision is fully expected. Political speech has a special place in our democracy. Citizens who want to support issues or candidates should not be subject to greater restrictions than someone who wants to sell you a product," said ACLU-NJ Legal Director Ed Barocas.

Judge Katharine S. Hayden found that the Franklin Lakes ordinance subjected political signs to stricter regulations than commercial signs and that the borough presented no interest for such disparity that would pass constitutional scrutiny. The ordinance prohibits any political signs from being displayed until two weeks before an election and requires their removal two days after an election. The ordinance also requires political signs to be set back ten feet from the curb and to be no more than 2'x3' in dimension, making it hard to be viewed by passersby. Commercial signs are generally permitted to be larger in size and with a smaller or no set back requirement.

The lawsuit is captioned Boehm v. Borough of Franklin Lakes. The plaintiff, Dr. Ed Boehm, is a Democratic candidate for Borough Council. Dr. Boehm seeks to utilize the placement of signs at his and his supporters' residences to gain name recognition and to convey his positions on issues. The attorney representing Dr. Boehm on behalf of the ACLU-NJ is Lewis Robertson of Red Bank, New Jersey.

Categories: Free Speech

Free Speech Victory For Rutgers Alumni Group

July 28, 2004

NEW BRUNSWICK, NJ — Superior Court Judge Joseph Messina ruled today that Rutgers University Magazine violated the free speech rights of the Rutgers 1000 Alumni Council by refusing to publish their advertisement.

Rutgers Alumni Council 1000 is composed of alumni who believe that the University places too much emphasis on its sports program at the expense of its academic program. In 1998, the group sought to purchase an ad in the Rutgers Alumni magazine soliciting additional members, and inviting inquiries about the group and its goals. The magazine refused to publish the ad, citing a policy of refusing "advocacy advertising."

The ACLU argued that the University's refusal to publish the ad, and its policy of discriminating against political advertising in general, violated both the federal and state constitutions.

Judge Messina ruled that Rutgers Magazine had created a limited public forum which should permit discussion of important issues at the University such as those raised by Rutgers 1000. Judge Messina also held that Rutgers Magazine's policy against advocacy advertising was inconsistently applied and shifted over time. In his ruling Judge Messina characterized the University as the quintessential marketplace of ideas.

"The judge's ruling recognizes the importance of permitting differing viewpoints and protects the rights of even dissenting speakers," said Grayson Barber who handled the case on behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey.

The case, Rutgers 1000 Alumni Council v. Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, was filed in the New Jersey Superior Court, Chancery Division, Middlesex County. Grayson Barber, Esq. of Princeton, New Jersey, and J.C. Salyer of the ACLU-NJ are counsel for the plaintiff on behalf of the ACLU of New Jersey.

Categories: Free Speech

Free Speech Lawsuit Filed Against Oceanport School District for Retaliation Against Eighth Grade Webmaster

July 28, 2004

Newark, NJ — The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey announced at a news conference today that it filed a lawsuit against school officials in Oceanport, New Jersey who punished an eighth-grade student for creating a website from his home computer that included student comments criticizing the school.

"School officials must learn that, like adults, students have the right to express their views and to provide a forum for other students to do the same, even if those views are critical of school officials," stated Grayson Barber, the ACLU-NJ's cooperating attorney and lead counsel representing the plaintiff in this case.

Ryan Dwyer, now in ninth grade, created a website in April 2003 that contained criticisms of his school, Maple Place. He created and maintained the website on his own time from his home computer. The site contained a "Guest Book" in which visitors to the site could register comments about the site or about the school. Ryan voluntarily included a statement on the Guest Book web page that no posting should contain profanity or threats. Nevertheless, after school officials discovered the site, they suspended Ryan for a week, banned him from playing on the baseball team for a month, and did not allow him to go on the eighth-grade class trip. They also would not permit him to take Honors English and Honors Algebra placement tests that were being administered in another school district during his suspension, and did not announce his award for a high SAT score when similar awards were announced.

The ACLU-NJ asserts that the school district's actions violated the Ryan's right to free speech and expression as guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and by Article I, Paragraphs 1 and 6 of the New Jersey Constitution.

The complaint alleges that, to date, school officials have never explained to Ryan or his parents what particular rule or policy Ryan violated. The school officials did identify particular statements written in the Guest Book by other students that they found offensive. However, despite the fact that Ryan never made offensive or threatening remarks and repeatedly warned others from so doing, he received far greater punishment than the students who wrote the offensive remarks.

"Our constitution and laws protect webmasters from being held liable for statements made on their sites over which they maintain no editorial control," explained ACLU-NJ Legal Director Ed Barocas. "Our schools should encourage debate and political engagement rather than punishing students who provide a forum for free expression," he added.

Nationwide, the ACLU has successfully represented numerous students who received punishment for materials they posted on the web on their own time, from home.

The lawsuit is captioned Dwyer v. Oceanport School District. The case was filed today in the United States District Court in Trenton, New Jersey.

Categories: Free Speech

ACLU Goes to Court for Worker's Free Speech Rights

July 28, 2004

Newark, NJ — The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey announced today that it filed a lawsuit against the Roxbury Chemical Engine Company No. 1, and other related defendants, on behalf of a first aid worker who was fired for having exercised her constitutionally-protected right to free speech.

Judy Shoudy was a long-time member of the Roxbury Chemical Engine Company No. 1, and the Volunteer Fireman's Association, and was captain of Engine Company No. 1's First Aid Squad. She was concerned about the dwindling First Aid Squad membership, believing that it was having a serious affect on the squad's ability to make timely response to rescue calls. Shoudy attempted to discuss the staffing problem with her superiors but was either ignored or told not to worry about it. In March of this year, believing that the situation threatened the health, safety and welfare of township residents, Shoudy brought her concerns to the Roxbury Township Council. The council praised Shoudy for coming forward and unanimously voted to form a special committee to investigate and attempt to resolve the problem. Ten days later, the Roxbury Chemical Engine Company No. 1 removed Shoudy as a member. Shoudy was given no prior notice of the removal action.

The complaint alleges that Roxbury violated the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I, paragraphs 6 and 18 of the New Jersey Constitution, by penalizing Shoudy for the exercise of her free speech rights regarding matters of public concern. The complaint also alleges both substantive and procedural due process violations.

The plaintiff is represented by Frank Corrado of the Wildwood firm Rossi, Barry, Corrado & Grassi, P.C., and by Ed Barocas and J.C. Salyer of the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey Foundation. The lawsuit, captioned Shoudy v. Roxbury Chemical Engine Company Number 1, et al., was filed by mail on Friday, July 20, 2001.

Categories: Free Speech

Federal Appeals Court Clears Way For ACLU Lawsuit Over FBI Censorship of Website

July 28, 2004

NEW YORK- The American Civil Liberties Union today said it will be moving forward in its First Amendment lawsuit over censorship of a controversial website by federal law enforcement officials, now that a federal appeals court has rejected the government's attempt to dismiss the case.

The ACLU lawsuit, filed in December 1999, charged that officials at the U. S. Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation intimidated an independent filmmaker and his website operator in an attempt to have a controversial film removed from the Internet.

"The government cannot bully controversial speakers into self-censorship," said J.C. Salyer, a staff attorney at the ACLU of New Jersey who represents New Jersey artist Mike Zieper and his web host, Mark Wieger of Michigan. "Our clients believe they had the right to show the film without government intimidation, and they are now looking forward to having their day in court."

Zieper's film, a fictional six-minute video entitled "Military Takeover of Times Square," portrayed a secret army plan to incite a race riot in Times Square at the millennial New Year's Eve celebration. The ACLU lawsuit charged that Zieper and Wieger were subjected to intimidating phone calls from an FBI agent and a federal prosecutor who wanted the film removed from the Internet. The FBI even went to Zieper's home at night in their attempt to have his film censored. As a result of the government pressure, the film was removed from the website for a period of time prior to New Year's Eve.

Up to this point, the ACLU lawsuit has primarily dealt with the government's claims that law enforcement officials did not clearly violate the First Amendment and that they should be granted immunity for their actions, Salyer explained. In a ruling issued yesterday, the federal appeals court affirmed the trial court's holding that the First Amendment allegations, if proved, would be a constitutional violation. The ruling also clears the way for the ACLU to have the merits of their clients' case heard.

"As the Supreme Court has ruled, speech on the Internet is entitled to full First Amendment protection," Salyer noted. "The government cannot directly order the censorship of a controversial website, nor can it use intimidation to suppress controversial speech on a website, as was done in this case."

The case is Zieper et al. v. Ashcroft et al., Docket No. 02-618. The opinion by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals can be found online at http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov

Attorneys in the case are Ann Beeson, Chris Hansen and Juan G. Villaseñor of the national ACLU and Salyer and Ed Barocas of the ACLU of New Jersey.

A previous news release about the case, with links to the original legal complaint as well as the Zieper's website, is at http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=8803&c=83&Type=s

Categories: Cyber-Liberties Free Speech

ACLU-NJ Sues Housing Complex for Religious Discrimination

July 28, 2004

NEWARK, NJ — The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey announced today that it had filed suit against the owner and managing agent of the Roberto Clemente-Shalom Towers in Newark for religious discrimination.

The suit was brought on behalf of Pastor Delores Keels, a tenant in the Towers who has held religious services in the community room of the Towers for the past seven years. The community room is open for use by tenants on a first-come-first-served basis, so long as one month's advance notice is given. The room is used for many purposes including political rallies, birthday parties, and New Year's Eve parties. Recently, the managing agent of the Towers informed Pastor Keels that she could no longer use the community room for religious meetings.

“The denial of Pastor Keels' use of the community room is blatant discrimination on the basis of religion,” stated Lenora M. Lapidus, Legal Director of the ACLU-NJ. “New Jersey's Law Against Discrimination prohibits such discrimination.”

Although no other tenant has been denied use of the community room for any purpose, the managing agent discriminatorily restricted Pastor Keels' use of the room for religious meetings. Despite repeated requests made on behalf of Pastor Keels, neither the managing agent nor the owner has offered a satisfactory explanation for the denial.

“I am very troubled by the Towers' denial of my request to use the community room for religious meetings,” stated Pastor Keels. “I have been using the room for the past seven years without any problem. I believe I should be able to use the community room just as every other tenant in the building is able to use the community room. I hope the owner and agent will allow me to once again hold my religious meetings there.”

The case, Delores E. Keels v. Marzulli Realty and Roberto Clemente-Shalom Towers, Inc, was filed in the New Jersey Superior Court, Chancery Division, Essex County. The law firm McCarter & English in Newark, New Jersey is counsel for the plaintiff on behalf of the ACLU of New Jersey.

Categories: Religious Freedom

Muslim Officers Win Right to Wear Beards

July 28, 2004

NEWARK, NJ — The ACLU of New Jersey and the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty today applauded a United States federal appellate court decision concluding that a Newark Police Department rule barring officers from wearing beards violated Sunni Muslim officers' First Amendment right to religious freedom.

Sunni Muslim men are required by their faith to grow beards, in order to distinguish themselves from other religious groups. The Newark Police Department refused to make exemptions from its prohibition on beards for officers whose religious beliefs prohibited them from shaving. However, the Department did make exceptions for medical reasons.

The ACLU-NJ joined with the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty and the Anti-Defamation League in arguing as a friend of the court that the Department's rule violated the officers' right to religious freedom.

“This decision is an important reaffirmation that public employees do not loose their right to religious freedom during working hours,” said David Rocah, Staff Attorney for the ACLU of New Jersey. “When the government grants secular exemptions to workplace rules, it should not be able to deny comparable religious exemptions without a compelling reason.” added Rocah.

The Department argued that allowing religious exemptions would undermine discipline, uniformity, and esprit de corps among officers. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit rejected that argument, stating that the Department “has provided no legitimate explanation as to why the presence of officers who wear beards for medical reasons does not have this effect but the presence of officers who wear beards for religious reasons would.”

Kevin Hasson, President of the Becket Fund, who presented oral argument on behalf of the Fund, the ACLU, and the Anti-Defamation League, also applauded the court's decision. “The Court makes clear that religious expression is as normal a part of life as any other. This is another installment in the return of common sense to the law of religious liberty,” Hasson said.

Categories: Religious Freedom

Settlement Agreement Protects Elizabeth Residents' Reproductive Rights

July 28, 2004

Elizabeth, NJ — A first of its kind settlement agreement will ensure that Elizabeth residents continue to have access to reproductive medical services even after Elizabeth General Medical Center merges with St. Elizabeth Hospital to form a new Catholic hospital, Trinitas Hospital.

Under the agreement, which was signed last Friday, Elizabeth General Medical Center will set aside $2.4 million in two separate trusts to be used by Planned Parenthood of Greater Northern New Jersey to ensure delivery of certain medical services that will not be provided by Trinitas Hospital, which will be governed by the Ethical and Religious Directives of the National Catholic Bishops Conference. The funds will specifically support the provision of tubal case management, abortion referral and options counseling, direct financial assistance to women who cannot afford the full cost of abortions and tubal ligations, and transportation for women who will have to leave the City of Elizabeth to receive certain medical treatment after the formation of Trinitas.

The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey Foundation and the Women's Rights Litigation Clinic intervened in proceedings regarding the transfer of Elizabeth General Medical Center's charitable assets to the new Catholic hospital on behalf of the ACLU of New Jersey, the New Jersey Religious Coalition for Choice, New Jersey Right to Choose, Dr. Martin Hyman and two Elizabeth residents. In those proceedings the Honorable Miriam N. Span of Superior Court, Chancery Division, Union County, found that the conversion of the secular Elizabeth General Medical Center into a Catholic hospital was a change in charitable mission.

“This is a first,” said Renee Steinhagan, Special Counsel for the Women's Rights Litigation Clinic. “This is the first time that a court has permitted community organizations to intervene as a party in a court hearing held to determine the propriety of a merger between two charitable health care organizations, the first time that a court found that the transformation of a secular hospital to a Catholic one constituted a change in charitable mission, and the first time that a court approved a charitable asset payment that appropriately accommodated that change in mission.”

Lenora Lapidus, Legal Director of the ACLU of New Jersey, agrees with this sentiment. “This is a great precedent that can be used by women's groups both in New Jersey and around the country to preserve women's access to important medical care. In this era of healthcare consolidations, the Catholic Church's strength in the hospital market, no longer has to mean the end of a women's right to choose.”

Steinhagan says that Judge Span's decision is important for precedential legal value and as an example of a judicial decision that considers important public policy principles as New Jersey's continuing loss of secular hospitals puts women's reproductive rights at risk.

Categories: Reproductive Freedom

In Legal Challenge to NJ Parental Notification Act, ACLU Defends Rights of Teens

July 28, 2004

HACKENSACK, NJ — The American Civil Liberties Union today filed suit on behalf of health care providers and their patients throughout the state to prevent New Jersey from enforcing a restrictive new abortion law aimed at minors.

In its lawsuit, the ACLU challenges as unconstitutional New Jersey's newly enacted Parental Notification for Abortion Act, which prevents minors from obtaining an abortion unless they first notify a parent or get a court order waiving the requirement.

“This law will harm, not help, teens,” said Jennifer Dalven, an attorney with the ACLU's National Reproductive Freedom Project and counsel on the case together with the ACLU of New Jersey. “While most teens already involve a parent in their decision to have an abortion, some cannot because a parent is abusive, terminally ill, or opposed to abortion,” she added. “Those who are forced to notify a parent may be beaten, kicked out of their homes, or forced into motherhood against their will.”

The law, if enforced, would radically change the way medical care has been delivered safely in New Jersey for over two decades. It also imposes financial penalties on any person who performs an abortion without complying with the law and holds them civilly liable to a parent who is denied notification.

Currently, pregnant minors in New Jersey may consent to all of their own medical, surgical, and hospital care related to their pregnancy. Although abortion is considerably safer than continuing a pregnancy through to childbirth, the law singles out pregnant minors who choose abortion — but not those who carry their pregnancies to term — and imposes on them alone the requirement of notifying a parent or going to court.

In legal papers, the ACLU argues that the law infringes on minors' right to privacy and discriminates against pregnant teens who choose abortion in favor of those who carry to term, in violation of the right to equal protection as guaranteed by the New Jersey Constitution.

But forcing minors to appear before a judge for a waiver is not the solution, the ACLU said. Many teens will be too afraid to go to court; others will be discovered as they attempt to make their way through the process, subjecting them to the very harms they seek to avoid.

“Whether minors in New Jersey have a physician notify a parent or go to court, their access to abortions will be delayed,” said Lenora Lapidus, Legal Director of the ACLU of New Jersey and co-counsel in the case. “This delay will increase the medical risks associated with the procedure and also make it more difficult, if not impossible, for minors to get the medical care they need.”

Major medical organizations such as the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Medical Association oppose laws that require parental involvement in a minor's decision to have an abortion, Lapidus noted.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of 11 health care providers, including Planned Parenthood of Central New Jersey, Planned Parenthood Association of the Mercer Area, and the American Academy of Pediatrics/New Jersey Chapter. They are represented by National ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project attorneys Jennifer Dalven, Julie Sternberg, Cora Tung, Mariann Meier Wang and Louise Melling, and ACLU of New Jersey Legal Director Lenora Lapidus.

The case, Planned Parenthood v. Farmer, number Ber-L-8026-99E7, was filed in Bergen County Superior Court in New Jersey.

Categories: Reproductive Freedom Student & Youth Rights

ACLU-NJ Urges Court to Strike Provision that Punishes Children

July 28, 2004

Newark — Arguments will be heard Wednesday, August 30 in Sojourner A. v. The New Jersey Department of Human Services, a lawsuit challenging the Child Exclusion provision of New Jersey's welfare law. Lawyers for NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund and the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey Foundation maintain that the provision violates the equal protection and privacy guarantees of the New Jersey Constitution. Both sides have asked the court for summary judgment. The case is expected to be decided soon.

“The Child Exclusion provision of New Jersey's welfare law punishes the child because the state disapproves of the behavior of the mother,” said Sherry Leiwant, Senior Staff Attorney for NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund. “As a result, some needy children are denied basic necessities of life. All of New Jersey's poor children deserve equal protection under the law.”

Originally passed in 1992, the Child Exclusion provision, also known as the “family cap,” denies public assistance benefits to a child born into a family already receiving welfare assistance. Under the program, any child born to a mother who already has one child while on welfare is denied the $102 per month that was provided prior to August 1993. Babies born to mothers with two children are denied the $64 per month that would have been provided to them before the Child Exclusion was passed.

NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund and the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey Foundation represent a class of at least 25,000 poor children, their mothers, and women who terminated their pregnancies because of the exclusion. The Newark, New Jersey law firm of Gibbons, Del Deo, Griffinger and Vecchione is also co-counsel for the plaintiffs.

“While the provision is aimed at women receiving public benefits, the Child Exclusion strikes directly at poor children,” said Risa Kaufman, Staff Attorney for NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund. “Even in a family in which all children receive benefits, those benefits are less than what the State's own studies show a family needs to maintain a safe and decent life.”

Lawyers for the plaintiffs will also argue that the program violates a woman's fundamental right to privacy by coercing her decisions about childbearing.

In November 1998, a Rutgers University study found that the abortion rate among welfare recipients increased in the period after implementation of the Child Exclusion despite a general decline in the abortion rate among the general population. The study also found that the provision had no positive impact on recipients finding employment or increasing earnings, and that the birth rate dropped.

Lenora M. Lapidus, Legal Director of the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey, said: “The New Jersey Supreme Court has clearly stated that the State may not attempt to influence a woman's procreative decisions through its power of the purse.”

“We are encouraged by the New Jersey Supreme Court's recent ruling striking down the state's parental notification law for minors seeking abortion. That decision said clearly that the New Jersey Constitution recognizes a woman's personal, private right to make decisions about childbearing, without governmental interference,” Lapidus said. “And it made clear that the New Jersey Constitution provides privacy guarantees above and beyond those afforded by the federal Constitution.”

The plaintiffs named in the lawsuit are Sojourner A. and Angela B., who represent a class of women with children subject to the Child Exclusion. Sojourner A is a Newark woman with two children. Until April 1998 she received $322 per month in Work First New Jersey benefits for herself and her older son. She was denied additional benefits for a second son born in May 1998. As a result, she and her children suffered, court papers say, because she did not have enough money to properly feed, clothe and house both of her children. In early 1997 and again in 1998 she had abortions because she felt unable to support another child excluded from subsistence benefits. Angela B., of Elizabeth, New Jersey, does not have enough money to adequately feed, house, and clothe herself and her four children on a grant meant for two.

“Housing for poor families in New Jersey is such that any minor setback — such as the birth of a child excluded from benefits by the Child Exclusion — can push a family over the edge, increasing the risk of homelessness or the risk that housing will be inadequate, unsafe, or overcrowded,” said Lori Outzs Borgen of Gibbons, Del Deo, Dolan, Griffinger and Vecchione.

In arguing that the Child Exclusion provision harms excluded children and their families, plaintiffs' lawyers will present expert testimony explaining how insufficient benefits lead to hunger and undernutrition, homelessness, utility shut-offs, lack of adequate winter clothing, and lack of medical care among poor families.

For example, Dr. John Cook, now an Assistant Professor at Boston University School of Medicine's Department of Pediatrics and an expert on child poverty, said in a sworn statement: “...A policy such as New Jersey's which [excludes] children from basic subsistence benefits due solely to the timing of their conception or birth, when coupled with the extremely low income of their household, will result in increased hunger among those children and may lead to serious and possibly permanent damage to their health, cognitive impairments, physical weakness, anemia, stunting and growth failure.”

Another expert, Dr. Deborah Frank, Associate Professor of Pediatrics and Assistant Professor of Public Health at the Boston University Schools of Medicine and Public Health, said: “The Child Exclusion will lead to more acute infectious illnesses among low-income children requiring increased utilization of health care, and, in turn, leading to greater secondary disability.”

Oral arguments will be heard at 10:30 a.m. August 30 in the courtroom of New Jersey Superior Court Judge Anthony J. Iuliani, Essex County Superior Court, Hall of Records, 465 Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd., Newark, New Jersey.

Categories: Student & Youth Rights

ACLU & Immigrant Advocates Offer Attorneys to People Questioned in Federal 'Dragnet' Investigation

July 27, 2004

The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey announced today that it is working with Muslim advocates and immigration attorneys to provide attorneys to accompany any individuals in New Jersey who are questioned by officials as part of a U.S. Department of Justice “dragnet” investigation. The Justice Department has announced plans to question 5,000 men nationwide who have entered the country legally on non-immigrant visas in the last two years, up to 100 of these men live in New Jersey.

“We recognize the importance of investigating terrorism, and the right and responsibility of the FBI to gather relevant information for that purpose. At the same time, it is important that Americans not lose sight of the values our nation is seeking to defend. We're working together to provide attorneys to help ensure that people's legal rights are respected,” said Deborah Jacobs, Executive Director for the ACLU of New Jersey.

The ACLU is combining efforts with the Human Rights Education & Law Project (HELP), the American Muslim Union, the Council of New Jersey Mosques, and the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) to reach out to those who are sought for interviews and identify attorneys to provide free legal representation.

The ACLU and its partners are concerned that the Justice Department is interrogating individuals because of their ethnicity without reason to believe that the specific individuals to be interviewed have information about terrorist activities. Questions to be asked (as outlined in Justice Department guidelines for interviewers) go beyond those seeking factual information and include inquiries about people's political beliefs and the political beliefs of family members and friends. Former FBI assistant director Oliver Revell told the Washington Post that the Justice Department plan is not effective and “really guts the values of our society, which you cannot allow the terrorists to do.”

The ACLU has sent a letter to a number of police departments in New Jersey to recommend that they choose not to participate in the FBI's interviews. While recognizing the vital importance of investigating terrorism, and the right and responsibility of the FBI and law enforcement to gather relevant information toward that end, the ACLU believes that the Justice Department's interview plan violates our core constitutional principles because of its sweep, intrusiveness, and discriminatory nature. A primary objection to the Justice Department's plan is that it unconstitutionally targets individuals who would not have been targeted but for their ethnicity. Such actions violate the clear dictates of the both federal and state constitutions.

The ACLU has also published a “Know Your Rights” pamphlet aimed at educating targeted communities of their rights during a law enforcement investigation. It is available in English, Spanish, and Arabic via the ACLU's Web site: www.aclu.org.

Individuals called for FBI interviews who need assistance or representation should contact a tollfree hotline established by HELP: 1-877-865-5026.

Categories: Immigrant Rights

Red Alert - ACLU-NJ Calls Counter-Terrorism Chief's Comments Counter-Productive

July 27, 2004

NEWARK - The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey today severely criticized a high-level state official for saying that in the event of a “red alert” security level, “You literally are staying at home…What we’re saying is, ‘Everybody sit down.’ If you are left standing, you are probably a terrorist.”

“What that statement describes is essentially martial law,” said Deborah Jacobs, Executive Director of the ACLU-NJ.

“If ever necessary,” Jacobs added, “such extreme actions could only be justified in exceptionally limited situations where an investigation could pose a direct danger to the public in a restricted geographic area.”

Since the official, Sid Caspersen, the Director of the New Jersey Office of Counter-terrorism, made his statements, Jacobs said that the ACLU has received dozens of phone calls from members of the public concerned about the consequences of a red-alert lockdown. Some parents, for example, said they feared that they would be unable to find their children.

“While the Governor’s office seeks to assuage the public’s anxiety, comments like Caspersen’s seem only to exacerbate things,” Jacobs said.

Another point of concern that Caspersen’s comments raised was the claim that New Jersey has recently secretly arrested and detained suspected terrorists. Caspersen told listeners of a radio program on which he was interviewed that the public isn’t “going to read about them any time soon.”

“In one breath, Caspersen tries to encourage public trust by stating that ‘the state’s on top of it.’ In the next breath, he brags about secret arrests,” Jacobs said. “The proven way to create public trust is to conduct government business in the open.”

Jacobs said that as part of its ongoing litigation challenging government secrecy, the ACLU would seek to learn more about the “secret arrests” that Caspersen highlighted.

The ACLU currently has two pending cases concerning government secrecy since September 11. The first involves the closure of courtrooms for more than 1,000 immigration hearings, ordered closed to the press and public on September 21, 2001 by the Chief U.S. Immigrant Judge. The case is pending before the U.S. Supreme Court.

A second case involves the refusal of the government to release the names of individuals who were arrested on immigration violations in the weeks following September 11. This case is currently before an appeals court in Washington.

Categories: Cyber-Liberties National Security

ACLU Reports A Statewide Crisis in Policing, Calls for Statewide Audit

July 27, 2004

NEWARK, NJ — The ACLU of New Jersey today issued a report demonstrating that the problems plaguing the New Jersey State Police also affect police departments throughout the state. The ACLU called on the Governor and Attorney General to collect and disseminate complete information on problems of police violence, misconduct, racism, and corruption.

“The crisis in policing is much deeper than racial profiling and much more widespread than the State Police,” said Lenora Lapidus, ACLU-NJ Legal Director. “At a minimum, our report shows the need for an immediate, comprehensive audit of all police departments statewide, to include racial profiling data, citizen complaints, and racial makeup of police personnel.”

The report falls on the heels of a public admission to racial profiling in the State Police by the Govenor and Attorney General, as well as a plan for specific reforms. These actions by the state came only after years of knowing about the problems, denying them, and doing nothing about them. The ACLU has concerns about the preliminary report, especially the inadequate specifications for the Early Warning System. The ACLU is also worried about implementation of the reforms, given the state's record of inaction and the plans of Attorney General Verniero and Governor Whitman to move to higher office.

“While the Attorney General and Governor deserve credit for recognizing problems in the State Police and for proposing steps to address them, their response falls short in several respects,” said David Rocah, ACLU-NJ Staff Attorney. “Their belated acknowledgement of the problems cannot absolve them of responsibility for having allowed them to fester for so long.”

“The Attorney General acknowledges in his report that racial profiling is not just a problem of the State Police,” pointed out Kevin Keenan, Acting Executive Director. “The ACLU agrees and we call for statewide reforms to track and prevent such problems, as well as real systems of accountability that go beyond the fox guarding the hen house.

Categories: Police Practices

ACLU-NJ Calls for Unity on National Day to Combat Police Brutality

July 27, 2004

The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey has called for broad participation in the October 22 protests to combat police brutality. “If we, as members of a society, want to live together in safety and harmony, people of all races and economic backgrounds must stand together on October 22 to show the police and government authorities that we will not tolerate government abuse of individuals.” said Deborah Jacobs, Executive Director of the ACLU-NJ.

New Jersey law enforcement officials, at state and local levels, have been under attack over the last year due a number of horrific assaults on citizens by police. “For every attack by the police that is well-publicized, there are a dozen more that no one knows about. People fear coming forward.” said Jacobs.

Police abuse continues to be a major civil liberties problem across the United States, particularly in poor communities and communities of color. ACLU affiliates receive hundreds of civilian complaints of police misconduct every year, ranging from verbal abuse to excessive use of force.

But that does not mean there has been no progress. In communities across the country, people have organized to bring about change. The ACLU of New Jersey contends, however, that more support is needed from the community-at-large to apply pressure to the government. For example, Jacobs cites the failure of the State to meet a number of self-assigned deadlines for steps to reform. “How can we allow the state to promise reform, set its own deadlines, and then fail to deliver? In a democracy, the people must have control over those they empower to employ deadly force. Every citizen is entitled to effective, and humane, law enforcement.”

The ACLU-NJ urges citizens to demand the elements of its 10 Point Plan for effective and humane law enforcement practices.

Categories: Police Practices

ACLU-NJ Calls on Attorney General to Quit Playing Games with Racial Profiling

July 27, 2004

NEWARK, NJ — The ACLU of New Jersey today called on Attorney General Verniero to stop delaying and playing politics with the important issue of racial profiling.

The ACLU-NJ is concerned that the Attorney General's office has moved to delay proceedings in New Jersey v. Soto until June — one month after Verniero will face nomination hearings for a seat in the New Jersey Supreme Court.

“If Verniero is going to continue to deny the existence of racial profiling in court, he should do so openly and publicly,” said Acting Executive Director Kevin Keenan. “If he wants to drop his appeal of Soto, that's fine too. But, don't play political hide-and-seek with racial profiling.”

In his 1995 ruling in Soto, Superior Court Judge Francis found that the New Jersey State Police were employing an illegal policy of “racial profiling.” The judge also criticized the State Police for their refusal to address the racist practice, which was exposed as early as 1989. Since 1995, the Attorney General's office has vociferously objected to the findings in Soto and denied the existence of racial profiling.

“It is only on the heels of the increasing public furor over racial profiling and public commentary calling for a review of the Attorney General's perceived complacency that the Attorney General's office seeks to delay Soto,” said Soto co-counsel William Buckman. “Racial profiling has already been investigated and decided. For the last decade, the Attorney General has shown little desire to approach the energy and scope of the investigation that underlies Judge Francis' opinion.”

Today, William Buckman filed his response to the Attorney General's motion for an extension. In his affidavit, Buckman details the AG's long record of resistance, delay, and shenanigans. He questions the sincerity and relevance of the Attorney General's “unprecedented comprehensive” investigation, which was not ordered until February 10, 1999 — four years after the Soto finding and ten months after the shooting of four unarmed minorities on the New Jersey Turnpike.

Categories: Police Practices

ACLU-NJ Call State's Withdrawl of Soto Appeal, Too Little, Too Late

July 27, 2004

NEWARK, NJ — The American Civil Liberties Union today welcomed the news that the Attorney General has decided to dismiss the appeal in State v. Soto, the Gloucester County case in which the trial court found a practice of racial profiling, but said the dismissal is too little too late. The ACLU asserted that the Governor must do much more to address the widespread problems of policing in this state.

“It is about time that the Attorney General acknowledged that a problem exists,” said Lenora Lapidus, Legal Director of the ACLU-NJ. “Evidence that the State Police use race as a basis for making stops along the New Jersey Turnpike was presented to the court five years ago. Despite this evidence, and despite the Judge's ruling that this discriminatory practice exists, the State repeatedly denied the blatant truth.”

In a motion filed with the Appellate Division today, the Attorney General asserted that the State was withdrawing the appeal as a result of its ongoing investigation of racial profiling. The ACLU responded that this action was too little too late.

“The State's decision to withdraw the appeal does not begin to address the problem of racial profiling,” stated William Buckman, one of the attorneys representing the defendants in the Soto case. “The Governor and the Attorney General must make a sincere commitment to root out the problem, including massive retraining of police officers.”

Evidence presented in 1994 and 1995 at trial in Soto showed that although African Americans comprised only 13.5% of the drivers, and 15% of the vehicles speeding, along a stretch of the Turnpike in South Jersey, they comprised 46.2% of the people stopped by the State Police in that area. In March 1996, Superior Court Judge Robert Francis found a state-condoned policy of racial profiling was in operation on the New Jersey Turnpike. The court found that troopers patrolling the Turnpike in Gloucester County used racial profiles in stopping and arresting African Americans and Latinos from 1988 to 1991. The court also found an “utter failure by the State Police hierarchy to monitor and control ... or investigate the many claims of institutional discrimination.” The State's appeal in State v. Soto, Docket No. A-5534-95T3, was scheduled for oral argument before the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division on April 28.

The ACLU-NJ will release a report later this week that shows the problems of policing in New Jersey run much deeper than racial profiling by State Troopers along the New Jersey Turnpike.

Categories: Police Practices

ACLU Distributes Police 'Bust Cards' & Launches Hotline for Racial Profiling Victims

July 27, 2004

NEWARK, NJ — Continuing its campaign for fair, unbiased policing in New Jersey, the ACLU of New Jersey launched a toll free hotline — 877-2-END-DWB — for people to report incidents of discriminatory police stops on the New Jersey Turnpike. The ACLU-NJ is also distributing a “Bust Card” that tells all people what to do if they are stopped by the police.

Through the toll-free hotline, the ACLU-NJ will collect people's stories of discrimination and use them in its efforts to stop racial profiling. Individuals calling the hotline may wish to join the ACLU's class action lawsuit on behalf of minority motorists stopped as a result of a policy of racial profiling. The individual stories will supplement statistical evidence showing a pattern of discrimination.

The ACLU-NJ will publicize the hotline through Public Service Announcements all along the Eastern seaboard.

Until racial profiling is ended and other reforms are put in place to ensure fair, unbiased policing, the ACLU-NJ believes it is important for people to know what their rights are when stopped by the police. Accordingly, the ACLU is distributing a wallet-sized card that lays out “What to do if you're stopped by the police.”

The Associated Press reported that the “Bust Card” has been endorsed by several New Jersey State Police troopers. “We think this is good, common-sense advice,” said John Hagerty, spokesperson for the New Jersey State Police. “Certainly if people are acclimated to this knowledge, it would make a stop by a police officer much easier.”

Copies of the Bust Card are available via the Internet at http://www.aclu.org/library/bustcard.html or by calling the ACLU of New Jersey at 973-642-2084. The cards are available in English, Spanish, and Korean.

Categories: Police Practices

ACLU Says NJ Officials Still in Denial on Racial Profiling

July 27, 2004

NEWARK, NJ—Countering Governor Whitman's assertions that evidence of racial profiling is “not something [the state] had any reason to anticipate,” the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey said today that officials have been fighting the issue in a court battle for more than five years.

Based on statistical evidence presented to the court in 1994 and 1995, Judge Robert Francis found in a 1996 decision that a policy of racial profiling was in operation on the New Jersey Turnpike. The court lambasted the “utter failure by the State Police hierarchy to monitor and control...or investigate the many claims of institutional discrimination.”

The state has consistently refuted this evidence and until yesterday had vigorously disputed the court's findings. Yet hours before officials issued their own report on racial profiling — and one week before the state's appeal was to be argued in court — word came suddenly that the state had dropped its appeal, the ACLU said.

“What a coincidence that the state decided to drop its appeal in this case on the very day they issue their own report,” said Lenora Lapidus Legal Director of the ACLU of New Jersey. “If the governor and the attorney general were trying to avoid charges of hypocrisy, they acted about five years too late.”

Expert statistical reports presented at trial in State v. Soto showed that although African Americans comprised only 13.5% of the drivers — and 15% of the vehicles speeding — along a stretch of the Turnpike in South Jersey, they comprised 46.2% of the people stopped by the State Police in that area.

“The state's decision to withdraw its appeal in the Soto case is only a first step in addressing the problem of racial profiling,” said William Buckman, one of the attorneys representing the defendants in the case. “The Governor and the Attorney General must make a sincere commitment to root out the problem, including massive retraining of police officers.”

But their political ambitions may soon remove them from any direct responsibility. The ACLU noted that Whitman and Attorney General Peter Verniero attempted to delay arguments in the Soto case until after the date of Verniero's nomination hearings for a seat on the New Jersey Supreme Court. They only admitted to problems of racial discrimination after failing to secure a delay. Attorney General Verniero is still seeking that seat appointment, while Governor Whitman is planning a run for the United States Senate.

“The ACLU is concerned that, while finally showing some leadership, Whitman and Verniero will not stick around to get the job done,” said Acting Executive Director Kevin Keenan. “It's easy to acknowledge the house is on fire as you run out the door. It is much harder to stay and help put it out.”

At a 2:30 p.m. press conference tomorrow in Newark, the ACLU will give its analysis of the state's recommendations and issue a report showing there is a statewide crisis in policing, deeper than racial profiling and more widespread than the State Police.

Categories: Police Practices

ACLU-NJ Condemns Racial Profiling By State Troopers

July 27, 2004

NEWARK, NJ — At a press conference held today, representatives from the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey condemned the practice of racial profiling by New Jersey State Troopers and stated that the firing of Colonel Williams was not enough.

“Colonel Williams was fired for telling the truth about policing in New Jersey: Troopers and officers wrongly believe that blacks and Latinos are the principal drug traffickers. The statistics prove this is false,” said Kevin Keenan, Acting Executive Director of the ACLU of New Jersey.

“The State Trooper's policy of targeting people of color for traffic stops is discriminatory and unacceptable,” said Lenora Lapidus, Legal Director of the ACLU of New Jersey. “Although the State denied having such a policy, Col. Williams' statements make clear that racial profiling has been used by state troopers for a long time.”

“We have filed a class action on behalf of all individuals who have been stopped on the Turnpike as a result of racial profiling,” Lapidus continued. “We are prepared to represent other individuals who believe they have been stopped for this reason and who wish to join the class action. These people should call the ACLU of New Jersey.”

“Williams's statement is a vindication of the facts that we have known for over a decade now, that race is a major component of New Jersey State Police thinking,” said William Buckman, an attorney in the Turnpike case. “In 1994 and 1995, extensive evidence was presented to the court that the state police concentrate on race in making stops along the turnpike. And the court found that a state police condoned policy of racial profiling existed. Despite this finding, the Governor and the Attorney General have appealed this finding and have vociferously fought to deny what that case proved. Sadly, the Governor has chosen to seek a course of spin control in firing Williams, rather than address the problem and make a commitment to end it once and for all.”

The firing of Williams will not change the State Police culture and operating procedure of targeting minorities on the roads of New Jersey. Instead, data must be collected on all stops by the state police which would show the racial composition of stops, and these data must be made available to public watchdog groups such as the ACLU of New Jersey. Even that is not enough, however. The ACLU is calling on Governor Whitman to promote early warning system (EWS) databases to red flag officers with psychological or other problems.

Categories: Police Practices

Groups Demand Independent Auditor & Civilian Review Board for State Police

July 27, 2004

NEWARK, NJ — A broad coalition of organizations today called upon Governor Whitman to make the State Police accountable to independent bodies, rather than just the Attorney General's office. The organizations included the ACLU of New Jersey, Black Ministers Council, Black N.I.A. Force, New Jersey Coalition Against Police Brutality, New Jersey Lesbian and Gay Coalition, People's Organization for Progress, and UHURU Organization.

In its July 2 final report, the Governor's State Police Review Team acknowledged racism, sexism, intimidation, retaliation, and other misconduct in the State Police. In an April 20 interim report, the review team acknowledged that State Police have practiced racial profiling. The organizations found the review team's admissions and recommendations for reform to be fundamentally inadequate.

“The Governor's idea of a solution is to assign the Attorney General to watch over the State Police,” stated Kevin Keenan, Acting Executive Director of the ACLU of New Jersey. “The Attorney General's Office has been part of the problem. What's needed is external accountability that will truly restore the public's faith in policing.”

“The Governor's reports are a whitewash on racism and sexism in the State Police,” said King Downing of the People's Organization for Progress. “The reports themselves are proof that the state cannot be relied on to police itself.”

The interim and final reports minimize the depth and severity of racism and sexism in the New Jersey State Police. They avoid substantiating any policy, practice, or incidents of internal racism or sexism other than racial profiling, which was already proven in a 1996 court case (Soto v. New Jersey). Even with racial profiling, the state attempts to paint the problems of the State Police as the work of a few bad apples. The reports provide no independent mechanism or authority to ensure that reforms are implemented fully, on time, or at all.

“A civilian complaint review board and an outside auditor will ensure that the State fulfills its promise of a new, improved State Police force,” said Reverend Dwight Gill of the Black Ministers Council. “Without those mechanisms, the public will continue — with good reason — to doubt the integrity of the State Police.”

Civilian complaint review boards have been put in place in dozens of cities over the past thirty years — so many that there are two professional associations of civilian review boards. Independent Police Auditors (IPA's) have been hired in San Jose, Pittsburgh, and elsewhere. In 1996, the Los Angeles Police Department hired an inspector general to review the operations of the Internal Affairs Division. In 1996, the Philadelphia Police gave broad auditing powers to the ACLU and NAACP.

Categories: Police Practices

When Will NJ Police Its Own Cops?

July 27, 2004

Newark — The ACLU of New Jersey today praised the verdict against five Orange City police officers convicted of conspiring to deprive Earl Faison of his civil rights when he was killed in police custody on April 19, 1999.

“An innocent man was killed by the very people responsible for protecting him. We are pleased that the jury appropriately blamed the officers who beat, kicked and pepper-sprayed Mr. Faison” said Deborah Jacobs, ACLU-NJ Executive Director. “However, it is a shame that the State of New Jersey refused to hold the officers criminally responsible. Until the State of New Jersey shares its citizens' commitment to fair and humane policing, and holds police who commit criminal acts criminally responsible, we will continue to see racism and abuse in New Jersey's police practices,” Jacobs added.

The ACLU-NJ, which is currently challenging the practice of racial profiling on the New Jersey Turnpike in a class-action lawsuit against the State, has continually expressed frustration that State officials consistently deny allegations of racism and abuse by police, until their own records prove otherwise. And, even with the release of law enforcement documents that prove allegations of racism and abuse by police, the State's leadership does not express outrage at the suffering of innocent people at the hands of police.

“There is little evidence that the State values police professionalism. Not only do officials fail to consider serious reforms, but they rarely acknowledge a problem that has been brought to their attention by the people of New Jersey or even by police officers themselves,” said Jacobs. The ACLU-NJ has proposed a 10-point plan to improve policing in New Jersey and insists that steps like forming a citizen review panel, providing greater training opportunities for police, and engaging outside auditors to review police practices are necessary to ensure the safety and equal treatment of people in New Jersey.

“Why do we have to wait for the federal government, which has resources to file civil charges in only the most egregious cases, to come in and hold New Jersey cops responsible for such crimes?” asked Jacobs. “Why isn't the State taking the lead to ensure police professionalism and the safety of those who have interactions with police?”

The ACLU-NJ has urged Attorney General John Farmer to take the lead in holding police responsible for criminal acts. However, when the ACLU-NJ wrote to the Attorney General in August requesting an explanation for the State's failure to bring criminal charges against the officers who killed Earl Faison, Mr. Farmer claimed that he did not have sufficient evidence for criminal charges. Mr. Farmer made this claim despite the fact that he knew of the same allegations that ultimately formed the grounds for the federal convictions.

The ACLU-NJ does not support further criminal charges for the cops who murdered Mr. Faison at this stage because trying the officers a second time in a different jurisdiction would constitute a violation of the constitutional principle of double jeopardy which should prohibit people from being tried twice for the same crime.

Categories: Police Practices

ACLU Praises Farmer Decision to Change Witness ID System

July 27, 2004

NEWARK, NJ — The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey today praised a move by Attorney General John Farmer to adopt a witness identification technique that will result in fewer false identifications.

Rather than the current practice of having witnesses review books of mug shots, crime witness will now be shown pictures one after another and not permitted to browse. Sequential photo lineups have been shown to significantly cut down on the number of false identifications by eyewitnesses without reducing the number of correct ones.

“The ACLU believes that adoption of sequential photo lineups will help prevent false convictions in New Jersey,” said Deborah Jacobs, Executive Director of the ACLU of New Jersey. “With this policy change, New Jersey is showing itself a leader in protecting the rights of the accused.”

Research psychologists have been studying the reliability of eyewitness testimony for more than 20 years, staging mock crimes and observing the success of identifications made when presented in different manners. Law professors sometimes stage classroom “robberies” and ask students to provide descriptions of suspects, in order to demonstrate how challenging accurate identification can be.

Studies showed that witnesses often identify the wrong person, and that police interviewing techniques could affect the witnesses' decision making. Researchers found, however, that witness reliability could be significantly improved with the implementation of different techniques, such as sequential photo lineups.

In late 1999, the Department of Justice published, for the first time, national guidelines on gathering witness testimony. The study was generated in light of questions about the reliability of witness identifications that arose in the wake of DNA testing that proved the innocence of numerous convicted felons.

“Many wrongfully convicted people were sent away based on little more than a witness ID,” Jacobs said. “It doesn't take much to recognize that witnesses can be mistaken, or manipulated, especially under stressful circumstances.”

Categories: Police Practices

ACLU Takes Battle to End Racial Profiling to the Turnpike

July 27, 2004

NEWARK, NJ — The American Civil Liberties Union and cooperating law firms today launched a paid media campaign in New Jersey — including a highway billboard — condemning the practice of racial profiling on the New Jersey Turnpike and urging victims of the practice to come forward to protect their rights.

“Racial profiling violates our Constitution's promise of equal protection and the right to be presumed innocent,” said Edward Barocas, Legal Director for the ACLU of New Jersey. “No person should be stopped and searched simply because of the color of their skin. Unfortunately, that is exactly what New Jersey admits its State Troopers did.”

In fact, in April of this year, New Jersey Attorney General John Farmer testified before the state Senate Judiciary Committee that racial profiling on the New Jersey Turnpike was still occurring.

The media campaign kicks off today with the posting of a 16 by 60 foot billboard along the New Jersey Turnpike, the site of many of the State Police's racial profiling infractions. The billboard shows two men of color. “Stopped or Searched by the New Jersey State Police?” the text reads. “They admit to racial profiling. You might win money damages. Call the ACLU hotline: 1-877-6-PROFILE.”

The billboard is located on the eastern spur of the New Jersey Turnpike between Exit 13 and Exit 12, near Newark Airport.

In addition to buying the billboard space, the group is preparing to run print advertisements in New Jersey newspapers and broadcast radio ads on stations in range of the I-95 corridor in New Jersey.

“This media campaign is part of the national ACLU's ongoing program to show that racial profiling is bad policing and the cause of much resentment,” said King Downing, Coordinator of the ACLU's Campaign Against Racial Profiling. “We hope the billboard will bring new lawsuits that will help the ACLU once and for all put the lid on racial profiling in New Jersey.”

The ad campaign grows out of two cases: Morka, et al. v. State of New Jersey, et al., which was filed in state court in 1997 and involves 12 individuals; and White, et al. v. Williams, et al., a federal case which was filed in 1999 in U.S. District Court in Camden on behalf of four individuals.

Since April 1999, when then-Attorney General Peter Verniero released a report admitting to the practice of racial profiling by New Jersey State Police, attorneys from both sides had been in settlement talks. However, attorneys for the victims of racial profiling said that while the State has admitted to the unconstitutional practice, it is simply unwilling to take responsibility or to compensate for the damage it has done.

Further, noted Neil Mullin, a cooperating attorney with the ACLU of New Jersey, in December 1999, New Jersey entered into an agreement with the Department of Justice, in which they agreed to remedy the problem of racial profiling in the state. “It is now two years later, the practice still continues and this administration is still resisting making amends to those the State has victimized,” he said.

The claims in both cases are disturbing, Mullin said.

According to legal papers filed in the state case, lead plaintiffs Felix Morka, a Nigerian national, and Laila Maher, an Egyptian American woman of color, were driving along the New Jersey Turnpike in January 1996, when they were pulled over to the side of the highway by the New Jersey State Police.

During the traffic stop, the complaint says, one of the officers began to strangle Morka and slam him repeatedly against his steering wheel. The other officer assaulted Maher by twisting her arm behind her back and throwing her against the car.

Although Maher and Morka tried to file a formal complaint, they were met with resistance by New Jersey police, the lawsuit states. At first they were denied the proper forms to file a complaint, and later the police failed to complete an investigation of their complaint.

“What happened that night has left me feeling uneasy and leery of the police,” said Morka. “Before this happened, I really thought that the police were here for our protection, but now I do not know what to think.”

Dr. Elmo Randolph, another lead plaintiff in the Morka case, is a dentist who drives a luxury car and has been stopped approximately one hundred times without ever receiving a ticket. During many of these stops Dr. Randolph was subjected to searches of his car and lengthy interrogations about his profession and how and where he bought his car.

“Troopers do not have the right to detain me simply because I'm an African-American who owns a nice car. Yet I have had to prove, time and again, that I truly am a dentist and not a thief or a drug dealer. It's humiliating,” Dr. Randolph said. “It's now reached the point where I no longer feel free to use the Turnpike and I avoid it whenever possible.”

The federal case involves Thomas White, a decorated Korean War Veteran and retired corrections officer; John McKenzie, also a retired corrections officer; Frederick Hamiel, a newspaper-advertising executive; and Tyrone Hamilton, a juvenile corrections officer. All of the plaintiffs, who are men of color, were stopped without cause in separate incidents on the New Jersey Turnpike between 1997 and 1999. According to the lawsuit, the men were targeted and stopped because of the color of their skin.

“These men could be our friends, neighbors and family members,” said Alan Yatvin, a cooperating attorney with the ACLU of Pennsylvania. “The fact that they were singled out for the indignity of roadside questioning or search of their cars because of their race should shock and horrify every freedom-loving American.”

The attorneys representing the plaintiffs in Morka and Maher v. State of New Jersey, et al., are William H. Buckman in Moorestown, NJ; Neil Mullin of Smith Mullin, P.C. in Montclair, NJ; Lawrence Lustberg and Risa Kaufman in Newark, NJ; and Edward Barocas and J.C. Salyer, of the ACLU of New Jersey in Newark. The attorneys representing the plaintiffs in White v. Williams are Alan Yatvin of the law firm Popper & Yatvin; Stefan Presser of the ACLU of Pennsylvania; David Rudovsky of law firm Kairys & Rudovsky, all located in Philadelphia and William H. Buckman in Moorestown, NJ.

Categories: Police Practices

ACLU Unveils New Ad in Campaign to End Racial Profiling in NJ

July 27, 2004

NEWARK, NJ — In the latest phase of its campaign to bring attention to the ongoing problem of racial profiling in New Jersey, the American Civil Liberties Union today unveiled a new advertisement aimed at raising awareness of the problem and informing victims of their rights.

“We want to send a message to the victims about their rights, and to the State about its obligations,” said Deborah Jacobs, ACLU-NJ Executive Director. “We need real police reform and we need to answer the suffering of the many victims of the New Jersey Turnpike.”

“Getting the State of New Jersey to stop racial profiling is like pulling teeth,” headlines the new advertisement unveiled today at a press conference in Newark.

The ad features Orange, NJ dentist Dr. Elmo Randolph, an African-American man who was pulled over approximately 100 times over a five-year period without ever receiving a ticket. In the ad, Dr. Randolph describes his experience with the police, stating that, “The police searched my car and I had to prove to the troopers that being an African-American man in a nice car doesn't mean that I am a drug dealer or car thief.”

The ad, which will premiere in the Newark Star-Ledger on Monday, October 29, encourages people who have similarly been victimized to contact the ACLU through its racial profiling hotline by dialing 1-877-6-PROFILE.

The ACLU has recently stepped up its efforts to call attention to racial profiling and enlist the public's help in holding police accountable for discriminatory and abusive practices. Those efforts include launching a paid advertisement campaign that incorporates a billboard and radio ads.

The ACLU has also created “Know Your Rights,” a pamphlet that offers guidance on how to behave when being questioned, detained, and investigated by police, INS, Customs or the FBI. The pamphlet should prove especially helpful now, when government officials are targeting many Muslim and Arab-Americans for investigation of the September 11 tragedy.

“As long as the practice continues, and as long as amends are not made to the victims, New Jersey will be known as a place of discrimination and fear of police,” said Jacobs.

Categories: Police Practices

Racial Profiling Case Can Include Claims that Officials Acted with 'Deliberate Indifference' to Discrimination

July 27, 2004

CAMDEN, NJ — The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey today scored a significant victory in its legal efforts to end racial profiling when a court refused to dismiss a claim that state officials acted with deliberate indifference to evidence of discrimination against minority motorists.

"This is an important step forward in our effort to hold the state and its leadership responsible for victimizing minorities," said Deborah Jacobs, Executive Director of the ACLU of New Jersey. "New Jersey has worn the stain of racial profiling for too long. It is time for victims to have their day in court and for the state to make amends to those targeted by police solely because of their skin color."

The ruling, issued today by United States District Court Judge Joel Pisano, permits the ACLU's clients to move forward in their racial profiling lawsuit against, among others, former Attorney General and current New Jersey Supreme Court Justice Peter Verniero and former Superintendent of State Police Clinton Pagano, both of whom had asked the court to dismiss the claims against them.

New Jersey officials first admitted to racial profiling on the New Jersey Turnpike in a report released on April 20, 1999. The report showed that racial profiling practices in New Jersey are not just a perception. "The evidence we have compiled clearly shows that the problem is real," officials acknowledged in the report. The report attributed the targeting of African American and Latino drivers to troopers who abused their positions by disregarding the rights of minority motorists.

The ACLU lawsuit, White v. Williams, involves minority motorists who were stopped on the New Jersey Turnpike based on racial profiling practices by the state police. ACLU clients include Dr. Elmo Randolph, a dentist who drives a luxury car and has been stopped by police approximately 100 times without ever receiving a ticket. Dr. Randolph was subjected to searches of his car and interrogations about his profession and how and where he bought his car on numerous occasions.

Visit the ACLU's "Arrest the Racism" website for more information on the fight against racial profiling, at http://www.aclu.org/profiling.

Categories: Police Practices

Appeals Court Blocks Enforcement of NJ Ballot Petition Deadline

July 26, 2004

NEWARK, NJ - A federal appeals court has reversed a lower court's refusal to issue a preliminary injunction against continued enforcement of New Jersey's April deadline for submitting nominating petitions submitted by alternative political party candidates for state office.

The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey had challenged the petition deadline on behalf of a broad coalition of voters, candidates, and alternative political parties, representing widely divergent viewpoints that span the political spectrum. The ACLU-NJ argued that the early deadline unconstitutionally restricted access to the November ballot.

Unlike Democratic and Republican candidates, who appear on the ballot by winning a primary election, New Jersey law allows independent and alternative political party candidates to appear on the general election ballot only by submitting petitions containing the signatures of the required number of registered voters.

These petitions must be submitted 54 days prior to the primary election. This year the deadline fell on April 10. State law prohibits any party that did not receive 10 percent of the vote in the last General Assembly election from conducting a primary election to nominate candidates.

The ACLU argued that the early deadline for filing ballot petitions prevents alternative political parties from responding to political developments that arise during the primary campaign, or to voter dissatisfaction with the major party candidates. The ACLU also argued that the early deadline restricts the number of candidates that alternative political parties may field, because signatures must be gathered during the coldest days of the year, when potential voters are least likely to be outside, least likely to be willing to stop to sign a petition, and when volunteer petition gatherers are least likely to be able or willing to stay outside for long periods of time.

"The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized that state laws that unjustifiably restrict access to the ballot violate the Constitution, because they deprive citizens of an opportunity to vote for a candidate who will represent their political views," said ACLU-NJ Legal Director Lenora M. Lapidus, who argued the case before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third District.

"New Jersey's early filing deadline is unconstitutional because there is no reason for it," Lapidus said. "Apart from challenges to signatures, which are resolved in a matter of days, no action is taken on the petitions until August, when the Secretary of State notifies the county clerks who will appear on the ballot."

Although U.S. District Judge Mary Little Parell found that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their constitutional claims, and would suffer irreparable harm if the injunction were not issued, she denied the requested preliminary relief on the basis that an injunction would disrupt the 1997 elections.

The ACLU appealed the Judge's order, arguing that since New Jersey allows independent candidates for President and Vice-President to file their petitions until 99 days prior to the general election, applying the same deadline for candidates for state or federal office would not pose an administrative burden.

The Third Circuit's order requires the Secretary of State to accept petitions submitted by any of the named plaintiff candidates for state office, or candidates for state office from any of the named plaintiff political parties on or before July 28, 1997. Further proceedings in the district court have not yet been scheduled.

In addition to numerous voters and candidates who seek to vote for or run as alternative political party candidates, the plaintiffs include the Green Party of New Jersey, the Natural Law Party, the New Jersey Conservative Party, the New Jersey Libertarian Party, and the U.S. Taxpayers Party of New Jersey. The plaintiffs are represented by Lenora M. Lapidus and David R. Rocah of the ACLU-NJ.

Categories: Elections & Voting

ACLU Declares Victory in Ballot Access Case

July 26, 2004

TRENTON, NJ - The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey today announced that the United States District Court has issued a final judgment declaring New Jersey's petition filing statute unconstitutional and blocking its enforcement.

The ACLU had challenged a New Jersey law that requires independent and alternative political party candidates to file signature petitions 54 days before a primary election to gain a place on the general ballot in November. This year, the deadline would have been today.

The ACLU filed the lawsuit - In Council of Alternative Political Parties et al v. Lonna Hooks - on behalf of a broad coalition of voters, candidates, and alternative political parties, representing widely divergent viewpoints that span the political spectrum. The plaintiffs include the Council of Alternative Political Parties, the Green Party of New Jersey, the Natural Law Party, the New Jersey Conservative Party, the New Jersey Libertarian Party, and the U.S. Taxpayers Party of New Jersey.

"The District Court applied well-established Supreme Court precedent, which has repeatedly recognized that state laws that unjustifiably restrict access to the ballot violate the Constitution because they deprive citizens of an opportunity to vote for a candidate who will represent their political views," said Lenora M. Lapidus, the Legal Director of the ACLU of New Jersey who was lead counsel in the case.

"New Jersey's early filing deadline was unconstitutional because it imposed a severe burden on alternative political party candidates and was not necessary to serve any State interest," Lapidus said. "Apart from challenges to signatures, which are resolved in a matter of days, no action is taken on the petitions until August, when the Secretary of State notifies the county clerks of the candidates who will appear on the ballot."

State law prohibits any party that did not receive 10 percent of the vote in the last General Assembly election from conducting a primary election to nominate candidates. Nevertheless, the statute required independent and alternative political party candidates to file their petitions 54 days prior to the primary election.

The ACLU argued that the early deadline for filing ballot petitions prevents alternative political parties from responding to political developments that arise during the election campaign, or to voter dissatisfaction with the major party candidates.

The ACLU also argued that the early deadline restricts the number of candidates that alternative political parties may field, because signatures must be gathered at a time of year when voters are not focused on the November elections and when the weather and hours of sunlight make it more difficult for candidates to gather signatures.

Last year, the United States District Court and Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled that the April deadline should not apply for the 1997 elections.

The plaintiffs are represented by Lenora M. Lapidus and David Rocah of the ACLU of New Jersey.

Categories: Elections & Voting

NJ High Court Says Ban on Gays in Boys Scouts Must Go

July 26, 2004

TRENTON, NJ - In a unanimous decision, the New Jersey Supreme Court today said that the Boy Scouts of America's practice of excluding or dismissing a member solely on the basis of sexual orientation is illegal under the state's anti-discrimination law. The Court also rejected the Scouts' claim that the First Amendment gives them the right to discriminate.

The American Civil Liberties Union, which filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case, hailed the decision as a tremendous victory for lesbian and gay rights. The ruling upholds a March 1998 state appeals court decision that prohibited the Boy Scouts from banning gay members.

"This decision debunks the notion that just because someone is gay he is unfit to serve in the Boy Scouts or any other civic group for that matter," said Lenora Lapidus, Legal Director of the ACLU of New Jersey. "The Court did the right thing in denying the Scout's claim that the First Amendment gives them the right to discriminate. People have the right to believe what they want, but that is no more a justification for discrimination now than it was in the South 40 years ago."

The case arose in 1990 after James Dale, a Matawan assistant Scoutmaster, was ousted from the Boy Scouts when leaders discovered he was gay. Prior to his expulsion, Dale, an Eagle Scout, had risen successfully through the ranks and earned 30 merit badges and other awards during his 12 years in the organization.

"Goverments and local charities have been increasingly unwilling to fund and sponsor Scout programs because the Scouts insist on discriminating," said Matthew Coles, Director of the ACLU's National Lesbian and Gay Rights Project. "This decision is bound to accellerate the trend against anti-gay policies."

The court ruled that because the Boy Scouts of America are "places of public accommodation" that "emphasize open membership," they must adhere to New Jersey's anti-discrimination law and cannot deny any person "accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges" because of sexual orientation.

While the Boy Scouts vowed to appeal today's ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court, the ACLU's Coles expressed doubt that they would hear the case. "The Court rejected a very similar argument that the United States Jaycees, a business association, made to justify excluding women," Coles said. "That was 15 years ago, and the Court ruled unanimously. I doubt they would revisit the issue now."

Today is not the first time the ACLU has taken legal action to halt unfair practices of the Boy Scouts. In May 1998, the ACLU blocked an Oregon school district from actively recruiting Cub Scouts since they are required by the Boy Scouts of America to refuse membership to boys who do not "profess a belief in God, recognize an obligation to God and declare a duty to God."

For similar reasons, this past April, the ACLU sued to end government sponsorship of Boy Scout programs in Illinois because they violated the constitutional requirement of separation of church and state.

The ACLU has been involved in other challenges to Boy Scout Bans in California and Washington, DC.

Categories: Gay & Lesbian Rights

U.S. Supreme Court Declines Lesbian 'De-Facto Parent' Case, Letting Landmark Gay Family Decision Stand

July 26, 2004

WASHINGTON, DC— The U.S. Supreme Court announced this morning that it will not hear a challenge to whether the former partner of a lesbian mother is entitled to visitation with the twins she helped raise since birth. At issue was a New Jersey Supreme Court ruling in April that the non-biological mother maintains legal rights after breaking up with the biological mother.

The American Civil Liberties Union, co-counsel for the non-biological mother in the U.S. Supreme Court proceeding, hailed today's decision as a victory for children, families and equality.

“The Supreme Court's decision not to hear this case certainly doesn't signify explicit approval of the lower court's decision. But the Court's decision not to intervene left an important victory for lesbian and gay parents intact, so we're very pleased,” said Lenora Lapidus, Legal Director at the ACLU of New Jersey.

The case, M.J.B. v. V.C., revolved around twins who were raised jointly by their biological mother and her partner, known in court records as “V.C.” She and her partner, who began dating in 1993, purchased a home together and committed to each other in a religious ceremony. They raised the children together until their breakup in 1996. An appellate court granted V.C. the right to visitation with the twins. In a landmark ruling in April, the New Jersey Supreme Court upheld that decision, and also outlined broad standards for non- biological parents recognizing that “psychological parenthood” could entitle them to visitation or custody of children.

The ACLU has argued that when an adult fills a parental role, the children's bond with the adult should be respected. Several states (including Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Wisconsin) have legal frameworks for “psychological parenthood” similar to New Jersey's and other states are grappling with how to protect children's bonds with people who act as parents.

“The U.S. Supreme Court's decision not to hear this case tells states that they must resolve this important aspect of family law,” said Leslie Cooper, staff attorney at the ACLU Lesbian and Gay Rights Project. “As we have for years, we will help them do this in a way that strengthens families and ensures equality.”

The ACLU of New Jersey was co-counsel with the ACLU Lesbian and Gay Rights Project in the case. Robin Wernick, V.C.'s personal attorney, and David Wildstein were also co- counsel.

Categories: Gay & Lesbian Rights

NJ Supreme Court Grants Visitation To Former Partner of Lesbian Mom, Establishes 'Psychological Parenthood'

July 26, 2004

TRENTON, NJ — In a landmark decision, the New Jersey Supreme Court today unanimously ruled that the former partner of a lesbian mother is entitled to visitation with the twins she helped raise since birth. In today's ruling, the state Supreme Court also outlined broad standards for non-biological parents establishing "psychological parenthood" that could entitle them to visitation or custody of children.

The historic decision legally recognizes the important child-parent relationships that gay men and lesbians form with the children they raise. The American Civil Liberties Union argued the case as a friend-of-the-court in October.

"Today's ruling is a watershed," said Leslie Cooper, an ACLU Lesbian and Gay Rights Project attorney. "The state's highest court has recognized that families take many forms — and that lesbians and gay men are equal under the law in determining 'psychological parenthood' of non-biological parents."

Lenora Lapidus, Legal Director of the ACLU of New Jersey, said today's ruling is a "victory for children" and a clear recognition of the relationships they have with adults in parental roles. "The New Jersey Supreme Court has further established itself as a leader on these issues. Children's relationships with people who function as their parents have to be protected, and the court has provided a framework for how that can be accomplished," Lapidus said.

The New Jersey Supreme Court said that for psychological parenthood to be established, the legal parent must consent to and foster the relationship between the psychological parent and the child; the psychological parent must have lived with the child; the psychological parent must perform functions for the child to a significant degree; and a parent-child bond must be forged.

Today's ruling upheld an appellate court decision that granted a woman known as "V.C." visitation with her former partner's five-year-old twins. V.C. and her partner, who began dating in 1993, purchased a home together and committed to each other in a religious ceremony. They raised the children together until their breakup in 1996.

Although V.C.'s partner is the biological mother of the twins, the ACLU argued that when somebody fills the role of a parent, the children's bond with her should be respected. The New Jersey Supreme Court agreed today, noting, "Once a third party has been determined to be the psychological parent to a child, under the previously described standards, he or she stands in parity with the legal parent."

Today's ruling comes as courts are increasingly examining the evolving nature of families. In January, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in Troxel v. Granville, a case challenging a Washington state law that allows grandparents (and others) to petition courts to allow or deny visitation based on loose legal standards. The ACLU filed a friend-of-the-court brief in that case, which the U.S. Supreme Court will decide shortly.

Today's case in New Jersey is V.C. v. M.J.B. The ACLU of New Jersey, Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, the National Center for Lesbian Rights and Lambda Families of New Jersey also filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case. David Wildstein of Wilentz, Goldman and Sptizer is a Cooperating Attorney in the case.

Categories: Gay & Lesbian Rights

ACLU Applauds the NJ Supreme Court's Actions Against Anti-Gay Bias in the Courts

July 26, 2004

The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey today applauded the New Jersey Supreme Court's response to the Final Report and Recommendations of the Court's Task Force on Gay and Lesbian Issues. The Court accepted the report, which found that most gay and lesbian people who have had contact with the Court system and who responded to a survey of the Task Force, had either directly experienced bias in the court system or believed that such bias exists. In doing so, the Court has recognized the importance of the concerns of the most likely targets of sexual orientation bias, gays and lesbians. The full text of the Final Report as well as the Supreme Court's Determinations can be found at the New Jersey Judiciary's website at http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/pressrel/pr010926.htm.

The Supreme Court decided to act in some way on each of the recommendations of the Task Force. The most laudable step being taken by the Supreme Court is to install an Equal Employment Opportunity/Affirmative Action Officer for each county courthouse. This action, which goes beyond the specific recommendation of the Task Force, will help to monitor and discourage discriminatory work place practices in the judicial system on the basis of gender, race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, and other unlawful bases. The Supreme Court is setting a strong example for other employers in the State for policing internal work place practices.

The Court will also distribute copies of the full Final Report or a summary of the Final Report to all judges, judiciary supervisors, bar associations, judiciary employees, as well as the public. The Court will review the bias and discrimination components of judge and judicial employee training. Finally, the Court has appointed an individual to oversee the implementation of these actions.

The ACLU-NJ supports all efforts of the Supreme Court to prevent bias or discrimination on any unlawful basis within the judicial system. We believe that the steps that the Court has chosen to take will make the judicial system more accessible to all who wish to utilize the courts in New Jersey and especially lesbians and gays.

Categories: Gay & Lesbian Rights

ACLU-NJ Praises NJ Companies Offering Domestic Partnership Benefits to Employees

July 26, 2004

NEWARK — In honor of Labor Day, the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey today commends the more than 100 companies with operations in New Jersey that provide some type of domestic partnership benefits to their employees.

“We applaud these companies for having progressive and inclusive policies that make them leaders in corporate America today,” said Deborah Jacobs, Executive Director of the ACLU of New Jersey. “These are companies that care about their employees, their business practices, and company morale.”

In the American workplace today, employee benefits compromise about 40 percent of total employee compensation. As a result, married employees who receive benefits for their spouses are, in effect, paid more than their co-workers with unrecognized partners. This is an undemocratic and unfair method of employee compensation. Domestic partner benefits equalize employee compensation policies by recognizing unmarried workers in committed life partnerships.

Companies offering domestic partner benefits possess a competitive edge over employers who do not offer such benefits-employees who are treated equally, fairly compensated, and valued for their work will be more productive and happier than those who are not.

While all of the companies listed below offer domestic partner benefits to employees, the beneficiaries and the benefits offered vary from company to company. The majority of the companies offer benefits to both same-sex couples and unmarried heterosexual couples, but some only offer them to same-sex couples.

Health insurance is the centerpiece of almost all domestic partner benefit plans. But many times companies offer more robust benefit packages including: dental insurance, disability and life insurance, pension benefits, family medical and bereavement leave, membership in health clubs and credit unions, education and tuition assistance, relocation and travel expenses, and day care.

Currently, more than 4,285 U.S. employers offer domestic partner benefits: 145 Fortune 500 companies; 3,872 private companies, non-profit organizations and unions; 155 colleges and universities; and 113 state and local governments.

For more information on domestic partner benefits around the country, go to http://www.aclu.org/issues/gay/hmgl.html.

List of companies operating in NJ offering domestic partner benefits:

Aetna Life & Casualty Insurance
Allstate Insurance Group
American Express Company
AOL Time Warner Incorporated
Apple Computer
Applied Materials
AT&T Corporation
Avaya Incorporated
Aventis Pharmaceuticals
Bank of America Corporation
Bank One Corporation
Barba Arkhon International
Barnes & Noble
Berlex Laboratories
Besam Automated Entrance System
Bloomfield College
Boda Industries
Bristol-Myers Squibb
Carbone of America
Castrol Consumer North America
Cendant Corporation
Charles Schwab & Company
JP Morgan Chase
The Chubb Corporation
Cigna Corporation
The Coca-Cola Company
Computer Associates International
Continental Airlines
Costco Wholesale
Crum and Forster Insurance
Sarnoff Corporation
Dell Computer Corporation
Eastman Kodak Company
EMC Corporation
Episcopal Diocese of Newark
Estee Lauder Companies
Federated Department Stores
First Union Corporation
Fleet Boston Financial
Ford Motor Company
Foundation Health Systems
Gap Inc.
General Motors
Goldman Sachs Investment Banking
Grignard Company
Hartford Financial Services
Hewlett-Packard
Honeywell
International Business Machines Corporation
IKON Office Solutions
Intel
I-Stat Corporation

John Hancock Financial Services
Knight-Ridder Newspapers
KPMG Peat Marwick
Lifecell Corporation
Lucent Technologies
Marriott International
Matting World
McGraw-Hill
Mediq Life Support Services Inc.
Medi-Type Transcription Service
Medtronic Inc.
Mellon Financial Corporation
Merrill Lynch
Microsoft Corporation
Morgan Stanley
Motorola
National Rail Passenger Corporation
NCR Corporation
Nextel Communications
Nextel of California
Nike
Nordstrom
Novartis Pharmaceutical
Oil and Chemical Atomic Workers Union
Omnicom (Diversified Agency Services)
Oracle
P.A. Consulting Group
Paine Webber Group
Pathmark Stores Incorporated
Pacific Gas and Electric Company
Princeton University
Principal Financial Group
The Prudential Insurance Company of America
R.C.C. Consultants
Science Applications International
Serco Management Services
Southwest Airlines
Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide
Subaru of America
Sun Microsystems
The Limited
The New York Times
Unisys Corporation
UAL Corporation
US Airways
Verizon Wireless
Viacom Incorporated
Whole Foods Market
Wild Oats
Xerox Corporation
Zoll Medical Corporation

This list is in no way a total representation of all companies offering domestic partner benefits

Categories: Gay & Lesbian Rights

VICTORY! NJ Becomes 5th State to Offer Domestic Partner Benefits

July 26, 2004

On January 12 Governor McGreevy signed into law legislation granting domestic partner benefits. The ACLU lauds the governor and those legislators who have shown leadership in granting protections to individuals who suffer hardship due to lack of legal recognition of their primary relationships. The Domestic Partnership Act is an important first step to such recognition, both to same-sex couples and to heterosexual couples over age 62.

Gay and lesbian couples in committed relationships have fought for decades for domestic partnership rights, with increasing successes in the U.S. and Canada. New Jersey's Domestic Partnership Act includes such fundamental rights as shared retirement programs and hospital visitations, rights that married couples take for granted. Anyone who knows people denied these fundamental rights knows how searing it is to be without them. The lack of recognition of these intimate committed relationships burdens not only the couples in these relationships, but their children as well. The ACLU-NJ is in fact currently involved in a related lawsuit where a child of a same-sex couple has been denied Social Security benefits following the death of his non-biological parent who was the bread-winner for the family but who died before adoption proceedings had taken place.

Legal recognition of same sex relationships is one of the burning social issues of our time, with change taking place through legislation and court decisions across the country. In addition to domestic partnership rights for unmarried couples, the ACLU also fights for equal rights in marriage. We are pleased that Americans have increasingly recognized that the government should support, not discourage, couples who want to share fully the rights, responsibilities and commitments of domestic partnership or marriage.

Categories: Gay & Lesbian Rights

Rutgers Law School-Newark ACLU Chapter to Protest JAG Recruitment on Campus

July 26, 2004

The Rutgers Law School-Newark Chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey today announced plans to protest JAG's efforts to recruit at the law school on Monday. The chapter objects to the military's ban on openly gay and lesbian men and women.

“By singling out openly gay and lesbian service members for discrimination, the National Defense Authorization Act (‘don't ask, don't tell’) violates the rights of gays and lesbians to equal protection of law, freedom of expression, and freedom of association,” said Joe Blaney, the chapter's president. “What's more, Rutgers is required to let them recruit here. All other on-campus interviewers must sign a statement that they will not discriminate against anyone on the basis of race, gender, ethnicity, or sexual orientation. 'Don't ask, don't tell' does exactly this. We believe that Rutgers should not be forced to allow any discriminatory employer to recruit at our law school.”

“By protesting JAG's presence, we seek to show our support for intelligent University policy and to express our commitment to the principles of equality embodied by our country's Constitution.”

The protest will be held in the atrium of the Rutgers law School in Newark, and will last throughout the day.

The RUCLU is joined by the Rutgers Law School Gay and Lesbian Caucus and the Rutgers Law School Women's Rights Forum in this endeavor.

Categories: Gay & Lesbian Rights

Immigrant Workers Seek Unpaid Wages and Overtime From Local 99-Cent Store Chain

July 26, 2004

On January 9, 2001, the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey announced the filing of a lawsuit on behalf of eight immigrant workers who are seeking unpaid wages and overtime from Universal Distribution Center, a locally-based corporation that operates a chain of 99¢ and bargain stores throughout the New York/New Jersey region. The workers' claims, brought on behalf of themselves and all current and former employees dating back to 1994, challenge the cruel and unlawful working conditions they faced while employed by Universal Distribution, including long hours without adequate wages or overtime, unsafe and unhealthy working conditions, discriminatory abuse and retaliation for speaking out about their rights.

“When a worker refused to work two or three days in a row without returning home, the manager would deceive us,” stated Fernando Islas, one of the plaintiffs. “They would tell us that they had some things to take care and would leave, locking us inside the store overnight and not returning until the next day.”

“This case shows that sweatshops are not a problem across the ocean or even across Hudson River,” explained Jennifer Ching, staff attorney for the ACLU-NJ's Immigrant Workers' Rights Project. “Sweatshops are thriving here in New Jersey, on every street corner, even in the 99¢ stores of our communities.”

Ching, further added, “Employees in New Jersey are protected by basic wage and hour laws. By asserting their legal rights, these immigrant workers are making the larger statement that we will no longer tolerate the blatant exploitation of our communities.” The lawsuit, Cruz et al. v. Universal Distribution Center, LLC et al. was filed in the US District Court for the District of New Jersey.

In August 1999, the workers filed a wage and hour complaint with the New Jersey Department of Labor. Over one year later, after a stalled investigation and negotiations, the workers decided to take their case to court. Their complaint outlines several typical instances of the abuse faced by the workers, including shifts spanning 24 to 72 hours at a time, being locked in the stores overnight by the defendants, and having to endure continual racial harassment.

Categories: Immigrant Rights

ACLU-NJ Anticipates Ewing Council Vote on Civil Liberties Resolution

July 13, 2004

The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey (ACLU-NJ) anticipates a favorable vote by the Ewing Township Council in support of a Pro-Civil Liberties Resolution that the Council will consider at its meeting tonight, February 10, 2004, at 7:00 p.m.

The Resolution calls upon the Ewing Township Council to affirm its commitment to securing national security, but without sacrificing the fundamental civil rights and liberties upon which our country has been founded. If passed, Ewing Township will become the fourth New Jersey community - following Willingboro, Princeton, and Highland Park Borough - to pass a resolution in reaction to the federal government’s controversial USA PATRIOT Act.

On a grass-roots level, over 235 communities and three states have passed resolutions condemning the Act. In Ewing Township, the campaign to pass a pro-civil liberties resolution was initiated by Ewing Township residents, Norma Saltz and Allan Willinger, who founded the group Ewing Citizens for Civil Liberties (ECCL).

Starting with a handful of concerned citizens, the group expanded after they held a public forum at the Ewing Public Library about the USA PATRIOT Act and other government actions since September 11, 2001 that threaten civil liberties.

“A major strength of the United States is our amazing toolkit for liberty, including our Bill of Rights. The USA PATRIOT Act includes measures that take away many of our tools for liberty,” said Jonathan Abolins, a Ewing resident and member of ECCL. “If we don’t speak up for civil liberties now, we will not be able to speak up for them later,” added John Bing, another Ewing resident and member of ECCL.

The USA PATRIOT Act threatens the very rights and freedoms that we are struggling to protect,” said ACLU of New Jersey Executive Director Deborah Jacobs. “I commend the people of Ewing Township for taking a stand and hope that the voices of these concerned citizens will be heard by the Township Council and other elected officials.”

Categories: National Security

ACLU Files Lawsuit Challenging State DNA Law

July 13, 2004

The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey (ACLU-NJ) filed a lawsuit today challenging the constitutionality of the New Jersey law that requires all persons convicted of a crime, including juveniles, to have their DNA collected by the State. The suit was filed on behalf of two individuals: A.A., who was 14 years old when he was arrested and sentenced to probation in juvenile court for what amounts to a fourth-degree crime, and Jamaal Allah, who was sentenced in 2001 to five to ten years in prison for two drug-related offenses.

“The first DNA law in New Jersey was limited to sexual offenders and the arguments for its passage were linked to the specific nature of those crimes,” noted Gitanjali Guttierez who, along with Lawrence Lustberg of Gibbons Del Deo Dolan Griffinger & Vecchione, represents the plaintiffs as volunteer cooperating attorneys for the ACLU-NJ. “I don’t think anyone then would have believed that the State would ultimately pass a law that would require a teenager or pre-teen to have his DNA extracted, catalogued, and maintained by the government for the rest of his life because of an act of delinquency committed before the law was even in existence,” she added.

The complaint filed today in Mercer County Superior Court alleges that the DNA law violates the United States and New Jersey Constitutions’ protections against unreasonable searches and seizures and against the imposition of retroactive punishment. The ACLU-NJ is asking the court to declare the law unconstitutional and to stop the Department of Corrections and the Probation Department from enforcing the law against the plaintiffs.

“Taking people’s DNA against their will is a serious privacy intrusion. Unlike fingerprints, DNA contains not only information related to one’s identity but also medical, genetic, and other private information,” stated ACLU-NJ Executive Director Deborah Jacobs.

The lawsuit is captioned A.A., et al. v. Attorney General of New Jersey, et al.

Categories: Criminal Justice

Federal Appeals Court Clears Way For ACLU Lawsuit Over FBI Censorship of Website

July 13, 2004

NEW YORK— The American Civil Liberties Union today said it will be moving forward in its First Amendment lawsuit over censorship of a controversial website by federal law enforcement officials, now that a federal appeals court has rejected the government’s attempt to dismiss the case.

“The government cannot bully controversial speakers into self-censorship,” said J.C. Salyer, a staff attorney at the ACLU of New Jersey who represents New Jersey artist Mike Zieper and his web host, Mark Wieger of Michigan. “Our clients believe they had the right to show the film without government intimidation, and they are now looking forward to having their day in court.”

Zieper’s film, a fictional six-minute video entitled “Military Takeover of Times Square,” portrayed a secret army plan to incite a race riot in Times Square at the millennial New Year's Eve celebration. The ACLU lawsuit charged that Zieper and Wieger were subjected to intimidating phone calls from an FBI agent and a federal prosecutor who wanted the film removed from the Internet. The FBI even went to Zieper’s home at night in their attempt to have his film censored. As a result of the government pressure, the film was removed from the website for a period of time prior to New Year’s Eve.

Up to this point, the ACLU lawsuit has primarily dealt with the government’s claims that law enforcement officials did not clearly violate the First Amendment and that they should be granted immunity for their actions, Salyer explained. In a ruling issued yesterday, the federal appeals court affirmed the trial court’s holding that the First Amendment allegations, if proved, would be a constitutional violation. The ruling also clears the way for the ACLU to have the merits of their clients’ case heard.

“As the Supreme Court has ruled, speech on the Internet is entitled to full First Amendment protection,” Salyer noted. “The government cannot directly order the censorship of a controversial website, nor can it use intimidation to suppress controversial speech on a website, as was done in this case.”

The case is Zieper et al. v. Ashcroft et al., Docket No. 02-618. The opinion by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals can be found online at http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov.

The attorneys in the case are Ann Beeson, Chris Hansen and Juan G. Villaseñor of the national ACLU and Salyer and Ed Barocas of the ACLU of New Jersey.

The previous news release about the case, with links to the original legal complaint as well as the Zieper’s website, is at http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=8803&c=83&Type=s.

Category: Uncategorized

NJ High Court Upholds State's 'Family Cap' Welfare Law

July 13, 2004

TRENTON -- Attorneys and advocates for women and children expressed disappointment with a ruling today by the New Jersey Supreme Court that the state can deny benefits to children born into families already receiving welfare. The groups vowed to hold the state to its promise to insure the "health and safety of families in need."

"We are extremely disappointed with today's decision upholding the Child Exclusion provision of New Jersey's welfare law," said Lenora Lapidus, Director of the Women's Rights Project of the American Civil Liberties Union, who argued the case before the court in January. "However, we are somewhat heartened by the court's finding that the state must stand by its guarantee to alleviate the economic hardships of families on welfare."

While finding the law constitutional, the court's 30-page opinion, authored by Chief Justice Deborah Poritz, concluded that the reproductive rights of New Jersey women were not threatened because of state's assurance that it would "insure the health and safety of families in need."

"While we believe that the evidence showed that the very survival of families is in fact threatened by the child exclusion law, we intend to hold the state to this promise," Lapidus said. "We will be vigilant to assure that the state keeps that promise, and if it does not, we pledge to be back in court fighting for the rights, and indeed, the very lives of our clients."

Today's ruling came in the class action lawsuit Sojourner A. v. New Jersey Department of Human Services, which was filed on behalf of a group of women and their children by the ACLU, the ACLU of New Jersey, the NOW Legal Defense and Educational Fund, and the law firm of Gibbons, Del Deo, Dolan, Griffinger & Vecchione in an attempt to overturn New Jersey's Child Exclusion policy, also known as the "family cap" law.

Under the federal welfare reform law passed in 1996, states have the option of denying welfare benefits to any child born into a family already receiving welfare. At least 20 states have already exercised this option; New Jersey enacted it as part of its "Work First" welfare program.

In their lawsuit, attorneys for the plaintiffs pointed to evidence that the law has caused many poor women to seek abortions. Despite today's decision, they said, the law remains unwise public policy. In arguments earlier this year before the court, Lapidus underscored this fact by citing a study conducted by Rutgers University which found that in the first four years after the law was enacted, there were 14,000 fewer births-and 1,400 more abortions-among women receiving welfare in New Jersey than would have occurred in the absence of the Child Exclusion law.

"New Jersey's Family Cap Law punishes the child because the state disapproves of the behavior of the mother, said Sherry Leiwant, Senior Staff Attorney with NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund. "As a result, some needy children are denied basic necessities of life."

The decision in the case is available online at: http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/

Category: Uncategorized

ACLU-NJ Commends Princeton for Passage of Pro-Civil Liberties Resolution

July 13, 2004

The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey today applauded passage by the Princeton Borough Council of a resolution calling upon Congress to scrutinize the USA PATRIOT Act and the manner in which its enforcement may imperil civil liberties. The pro-civil liberties resolution makes Princeton the second New Jersey community (following Willingboro) to register criticism of the federal government’s controversial USA PATRIOT Act.

"I’m proud Princeton Borough Council has joined cities and towns across the country in support of our guaranteed rights under the United States Constitution,” stated Karen Mazzola, a member of the Princeton Bill of Rights Defenders which, along with the ACLU-NJ, the Coalition for Peace Action and the Princeton Peace Network, promoted passage of the resolution. “When the federal government will not uphold the rights of all people in the United States, it is time to take a stance locally. There must be oversight of the government or there can be no democracy,” she added.

The Princeton Borough Council adopted the resolution when Mayor Marvin Reed, in favor of the resolution, broke a three-to-three deadlock in the Council. Princeton now joins 182 other communities in the United States denouncing the USA PATRIOT Act.

A number of borough residents testified before the Council in favor of the resolution. Resident Karen Pizarro observed: "We know it is up to each generation to win anew the freedoms we so take for granted. Those who expect to reap the benefits of those freedoms must be vigilant in protecting them." Jenny Crumiller, a local activist, noted, "When John Ashcroft makes librarians public enemy number one, I can guarantee it's a problem in Princeton.”

Congress passed the USA PATRIOT Act just 45 days after the September 11 attacks, with virtually no debate. Many parts of this sweeping legislation take away checks on law enforcement. For example, without a warrant and without probable cause, the FBI now has the power to access many private medical records, library records, and student records, while preventing those persons whose records the government reviewed from being informed of that fact.

“The Act threatens the very rights and freedoms that we are struggling to protect,” noted ACLU-NJ Executive Director Deborah Jacobs. “I commend the people of Princeton for taking a stand to ensure that we remain both safe and free.”

The resolution was also endorsed by a number of community organizations, including the Communications Workers of America, District One; the Arab-American Voters of NJ; District 1199J of NUHHCE, AFSCME, AFL-CIO; Micawber Books; and the South Jersey Campaign for Peace and Justice.

Categories: National Security

ACLU-NJ Wins $775,000 for Victims of Racial Profiling by State Troopers

July 13, 2004

Newark – The State of New Jersey has agreed to pay more than $775,000 to motorists who were victims of racial profiling to settle lawsuits brought by the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey, the group announced at a news conference today.

“In order to remove the stain of racial profiling, it is necessary for the State of New Jersey to compensate those victimized, and to ensure that such practices do not occur in the future,” said Deborah Jacobs, Executive Director of the ACLU of New Jersey, which became involved in Morka v. State of New Jersey in 1999. “The State has now, at least for the individuals in the present case, provided some compensation, but we also need to see much more in the way of reform – data collection, external oversight, more and better training, diversity recruitment, competitive pay, accreditation of police departments, and other steps to promote professional conduct among police.”

The ACLU brought the lawsuits on behalf of 12 motorists who were targeted for traffic stops based on their skin color. The ACLU will not receive any of the $775,370 awarded to the victims of racial profiling.

“These people could be our friends, neighbors and family members,” said Neil Mullin, a cooperating attorney with the ACLU of New Jersey. “The fact that they were singled out for the indignity of roadside questioning or searches based on their skin color should shock and horrify every freedom loving American.”

Two victims, Laila Maher and Felix Morka, will receive $200,000 each (half coming from the state and half from the Turnpike Authority).

In January 1996, Maher, an Egyptian American woman, and her co-worker Morka, a Nigerian national, who at the time headed the International Human Rights Law Group’s work on Africa, were driving along the New Jersey Turnpike, when they were pulled over to the side of the highway by the New Jersey State Police.

During the traffic stop one of the officers began to strangle Morka and slam him repeatedly against his steering wheel. The other officer assaulted Maher by holding a gun to her head, twisting her arm behind her back, and throwing her against the car.

Although Maher and Morka tried to file a formal complaint, New Jersey police met them with resistance. At first they were denied the proper forms to file a complaint, and later the police failed to complete an investigation of their complaint.

Another victim of police profiling, Dr. Elmo Randolph, will receive $75,000. Randolph is a West Orange dentist who drives a luxury car and has been stopped approximately 100 times without ever receiving a ticket. On numerous occasions, Dr. Randolph has been subjected to searches of his car and interrogations about his profession and how and where he bought his car. “Police have harassed African Americans and other minorities on NJ’s highways for years and it has created a climate where innocent people are afraid of police,” said Randolph, “Now, at least some of the victims will receive deserved compensation.”

Another ACLU client, Herbert Morton, will receive $50,000. Morton was pulled over by police for speeding, despite the fact that his cruise control was set at 55 mph. When he questioned the trooper about his speed, he was rebuffed and forced to get out of his vehicle. Mr. Morton was ultimately allowed to leave without being issued a ticket. The officer failed to make any record of the stop and therefore, in pursuing his complaint with the police, Mr. Morton had to identify the officer who stopped him through a photo line-up.

The remaining eight plaintiffs will share $250,370.

In April 1999, then-Attorney General Peter Verniero admitted that citizens were stopped and/or searched on the New Jersey Turnpike based on the color of their skin. The actions of troopers brought about a federal lawsuit against the State based upon civil rights violations. As a result of that lawsuit, police were required to adopt some reforms; yet minorities were still being stopped at vastly higher rates than white drivers despite the fact that searches of minorities are less likely to reveal evidence of a crime than searches of white drivers. Then, in accepting a plea bargain for the shooting of minority motorists in 2001, Troopers Hogan and Kenna acknowledged that racial profiling was taught by the State Police, that it was encouraged by supervisors, and that they and others tried to cover up the fact of racial profiling by providing false stop data. Two months later, the New Jersey Supreme Court, noting “widespread abuse of our existing laws,” outlawed “consent searches” where no reasonable suspicion exists.

The settlement of Morka follows on the heels of the resolution of two other racial profiling suits, one concerning the New Jersey Turnpike (for more information see: http://www.aclu.org/PolicePractices/PolicePractices.cfm?ID=10682&c=118) and one in Maryland.

Categories: Police Practices Discrimination

Successful Challenge for Student Journalist's Death Penalty Documentary Notes

July 13, 2004

Newark – The ACLU of New Jersey announced in a news conference today that on September 3, 2003, United States District Judge Joseph Irenas granted the ACLU-NJ’s motion to stop the forced disclosure of video-taped interviews that Rowan University student Jason Kitchen had created for a documentary about a New Jersey death row inmate.

“This ruling was a victory for not only a free press, but for student journalists in particular,” stated ACLU-NJ cooperating attorney Robert Balin of Davis Wright Tremaine. “Jason Kitchen was as much a reporter after his story as any other documentary filmmaker, and the State cannot decide to go rummaging through his materials any more than it can through the materials of someone working for a daily newspaper.”

The State of New Jersey had subpoenaed the material for their defense of Mr. Marshall’s federal petition challenging his death sentence based upon ineffective assistance of counsel. At issue in the case was whether student filmmakers such as Kitchen are covered by the journalists’ privilege, a public policy that shields the press from compelled disclosure of their newsgathering materials and whether the State could override, in this particular case, that presumption against disclosure.

Kitchen’s film, “Fatal Mistakes” is a 56 minute documentary about the case of Robert Marshall who was convicted in 1986 of hiring someone to murder his wife and was sentenced to death. In April 2003, Jason Kitchen, then a 22-year-old film student at Rowan University in Glassboro, N.J., decided to produce a documentary on Marshall as part of his Television Documentary Production course at the college. During the semester, Kitchen and his crew interviewed a number of individuals involved in Marshall’s case, including Mr. Marshall himself. This was the first filmed interview of Marshall since his conviction in 1986.

On July 7 and 9, 2003, respectively, the State served subpoenas on Rowan and then on Kitchen. The subpoenas sought “all videotapes, notes and documents pertaining to interviews” that Kitchen conducted of Marshall, his son, his trial attorney, the trial prosecutor and the chief investigator. On August 1, the state narrowed its subpoena to only the Marshall interview materials and, realizing that the law requires the state to seek alternative sources for the information, made a motion to take Marshall's deposition.

As argued in the ACLU-NJ’s brief in support of the motion to quash the subpoenas, federal courts have recognized a qualified privilege protecting journalists from the compelled disclosure of both confidential and non-confidential sources and newsgathering information. In recognition of the important First Amendment interests in protecting such materials from compelled disclosure, the qualified privilege requires those seeking to subpoena such information from a journalist to satisfy a demanding three-part test before compelled disclosure will be allowed. In order to overcome the privilege, the party seeking disclosure (here, the State) must make a “strong showing” that 1) the information sought is relevant; 2) the information is “necessary” and “crucial” to the claim; and 3) there is “no other source for the information requested.” The courts have also consistently held that the privilege is not limited to members of the traditional print and broadcast news media, but may be invoked by anyone who engages in investigative reporting with the intent to disseminate the information to the public, including documentary filmmakers and student journalists such as Kitchen.

Judge Irenas ruled that Kitchen’s work was protected by the press privilege. He further held that the state could not make a strong showing on any of the three criteria needed to overcome that protection. The judge referred to the state's subpoena as a "fishing expedition.”

“I’m extremely pleased with the decision,” said Jason Kitchen. “It will help ensure the ability of students with creative intentions to conduct projects in the future.”

ACLU-NJ cooperating attorneys in the case are Bruce Rosen of McCusker, Anselmi, Rosen, Carvelli & Walsh in Chatham, New Jersey, and Robert Balin and Matthew Leish of Davis Wright Tremaine in New York City. The case is captioned Robert O. Marshall v. Roy Hendricks.

Categories: Free Speech

ACLU Sues to Secure Right to Speech for Pleasantville Peace Protestors

July 13, 2004

The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey (ACLU-NJ) filed a free speech lawsuit today against the City of Pleasantville on behalf of the Coalition for Peace & Justice, a citizen group that was barred from holding protests against U.S. bombing in Afghanistan in October 2001.

“Freedom of speech is a founding American ideal, it’s what makes our country great,” said Norman Cohen, President of the Coalition. “We have a right to express ourselves, even if what we say is critical of the government.”

The Coalition for Peace & Justice, an advocacy organization that promotes non-violent solutions to national and international problems, was originally prohibited from conducting a vigil in October 2001 and, again, in December 2001, under a prior Pleasantville ordinance.

In response to ACLU pressure, Pleasantville revised its speech ordinance. However, the new ordinance maintained many of the same unconstitutional restrictions that were present in the original, the ACLU said in legal papers. The ordinance will now face judicial review, which the Coalition for Peace & Justice hopes will clear the way for them to conduct their free speech activities again this summer.

“We simply wish to convey to others our beliefs about peace and non-violence,” said Cohen. “But Pleasantville has placed us in a position of either being subject to onerous restrictions and financial payments we can’t afford, risk being arrested, or remaining silent. We can’t accept any of those options.”

The City of Pleasantville’s ordinance limits the right of groups to hold peaceful vigils or marches on public sidewalks. The ACLU lawsuit charges that the ordinance violates both the United States and New Jersey Constitutions by unnecessarily placing restrictions and improper financial requirements on those who exercise their free speech rights.

Specifically, the ordinance requires “speech permits” for even small groups such as the Coalition, requires a 30-day notice period, mandates disclosure of speakers’ identities and requires individuals to sign hold-harmless agreements indemnifying the city and to pay for

insurance. Individuals who speak without a permit are subject to criminal penalties. The lawsuit asks the court to declare the ordinance unconstitutional and to order Pleasantville to stop enforcing it.

“The members of the Coalition have a particular viewpoint on an important political and social issue, and the Constitution gives them the right to present that message to the public, without needing to seek government approval or to pay for the right to do so” said Frank L. Corrado, of the Wildwood firm Barry, Corrado, Grassi & Gibson, PC who represents the Coalition on behalf of the ACLU-NJ.

The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey in Camden, and is captioned Coalition for Peace and Justice. v. City of Pleasantville.

Categories: Free Speech

ACLU Files Lawsuit on Behalf of Waitresses Exploited at NJ Chinese Restaurant

July 13, 2004

NEWARK, NJ- Two immigrant waitresses at a Chinese restaurant in Wayne were exploited by their bosses because of their gender and ethnicity, deprived of wages and tips and housed in a crowded, substandard apartment, according a complaint filed today against the restaurant's owners and management by the American Civil Liberties Union.

"The former employers of our clients were unrelenting in their abuse. They drove these women to work more hours than most people can comprehend, required the waitresses to pay a daily kickback to keep their jobs, and did not even pay them a base wage," said Jennifer Arnett Lee, a staff attorney with the ACLU's Women's Rights Project who is serving as co-counsel with the ACLU of New Jersey in the case.

"Immigrant workers face a tremendous amount of exploitation, and female immigrant workers face the additional burden of being exploited based on their gender -- yet they have also been more reluctant to come forward," Arnett Lee noted. "Our clients faced threats of violence and retaliation for speaking out, and we applaud their bravery in seeking to end these exploitative conditions for themselves and others."

The ACLU's legal complaint recounts disturbing incidents of exploitation that took place between May 2000 and November 2001 at the King Chef Chinese restaurant in the northern New Jersey suburb of Wayne. During that time, the waitresses -- who are from Fuchow in southern China's Fujian Province -- worked an average of 80 hours per week, six days a week, and were never paid a base wage.

The restaurant's practices, the ACLU lawsuit charged, violated federal and state labor laws as well as federal and state civil rights laws. The ACLU seeks to recover for its clients all unpaid minimum wages and unpaid overtime compensation and has asked the court to award appropriate compensatory and punitive damages.

"Aside from the moral issue of treating our clients almost like slaves, these practices are unlawful under state and federal labor and discrimination laws," said Alix R. Rubin of the New Jersey-based law firm Lowenstein Sandler PC, who is serving as a volunteer attorney for the ACLU of New Jersey.

"The restaurant owners clearly discriminated against our clients on the basis of their Fujianese origin as well as their gender by creating a hostile work environment and not giving them the same opportunity to earn tips-their only income-as the male waiters from northern China," Rubin added.

According to the ACLU lawsuit, the only income the women received was tips, and they were required to pay a daily kickback of at least $15 to the employer to keep their jobs. In addition, King Chef enforced a discriminatory seating policy whereby the male waiters from northern China were given the choice tables and the female Fujianese waitresses were given the remaining, smaller tables to wait upon.

The employer also housed the waitresses and other employees in a substandard apartment, the ACLU said in legal papers. Approximately seven women lived in one bedroom, three men lived in a second bedroom and at least four people lived in a combined kitchen/living-room area. According to the ACLU's clients, the apartment was so crowded that residents had to crawl over each other in order to reach the bathroom, and the apartment was often without electricity or running water.

"When I came to America I expected to work hard, but I did not expect to be treated the way I and other Fujianese waitresses were," said Ms. Liu, a former waitress at King Chef and a named plaintiff in the case. "I have a family here and in China to support so I need to receive my wages after I work."

The lawsuit, Liu v. Oriental Buffet Inc., was filed in U.S. District Court in Newark, New Jersey. The lawsuit names An Na Zheng, Xiao Yang Zheng, Ben Liang Zhu, Frank Chan (who maintains numerous aliases) Jimmy Ching as defendants in the case.

Today's filing is an amended version of an original complaint, which was filed on May 22, 2003. Lenora Lapidus, Director of the ACLU's Women's Rights Project and Edward Barocas, Legal Director of the ACLU of New Jersey also serve as co-counsel in the case.

The amended legal complaint is available online at: http://www.aclu.org/WomensRights/WomensRights.cfm?ID=12776&c=175,

Categories: Discrimination

ACLU Urges Social Security Administration to Grant Survivor Benefits to Son of Lesbian

July 12, 2004

In a case that underscores the need for basic protections for lesbian and gay families, the American Civil Liberties Union today has filed a friend-of-the-court brief urging the Social Security Administration to provide survivor benefits to the child of a lesbian mother.

"While President Bush and the religious right are celebrating so-called 'Marriage Protection Week,' a five-year-old boy is being denied the financial support that his mother worked hard to provide because our laws don't respect same-sex relationships," said Deborah Jacobs, Executive Director for the ACLU of New Jersey. "As this case so clearly shows, lesbian and gay families, just like straight families, need legal protections to get through difficult times."

As described in ACLU legal papers, early in their seven-year relationship together, Eva Kadrey and Camille Caracappa, who lived in Rumson, NJ, talked about having a child. Camille was the principal breadwinner in the family, so they decided that Eva would carry their child. In March 1998, Eva gave birth to Nicolaj Sikes Caracappa. Camille continued to work full time as a freelance oncology nurse while Eva stayed at home with Nicolaj and helped out part time keeping the books for Camille's business. Shortly after Nicolaj was born, Camille made plans to adopt him and even contacted a lawyer to start the process. Camille died suddenly of an undiagnosed brain aneurysm at 38, before the paperwork for Nicolaj's adoption was completed.

At the urging of Camille's mother, Eva filed for Social Security survivorship benefits for Nicolaj in November 2000. Less than a month later, the Social Security Administration denied Nicolaj's claim because Camille and Eva weren't married and because Camille wasn't Nicolaj's biological mother.

The case is now up for review by an administrative law judge in Voorhees, New Jersey. If the couple had been allowed to marry, Nicolaj would be entitled to Camille's benefits. The Administration even allows the children of stepparents to receive survivor benefits, the ACLU noted.

"It wasn't until Camille's death that I realized how differently married couples are treated by our government. We are lucky because Camille's parents have always accepted me as family and they helped Nicolaj and me get back on our feet," said Eva. "But it's not easy being a single parent. Camille paid into the Social Security system just like everyone else, and now she's being treated like a stranger to her son. It's just not right that Nicolaj should lose the benefits she paid for because our government ignores same-sex families."

"My daughter had such hopes and dreams for Nicolaj's future," said Theresa Caracappa, Camille's mother. "While these survivor benefits could never replace his mother's love, they would at least help make some of her dreams for Nicolaj a reality."

Because Camille's and Eva's relationship is not recognized, Nicolaj is forced to rely on legal arguments that children of straight parents would not have to bother with. In the brief to the administrative law judge, the ACLU pointed out that under New Jersey law, Nicolaj is Camille's heir, even though his two mothers were not married. The New Jersey Supreme Court has recognized that people with no biological or formal adoptive tie to a child, but who have functioned as a parent, should be treated as a parent for all purposes, which would entitle Nicolaj to inherit from Camille.

"This case illustrates just one of the many ways in which same-sex couples are hurt by our government's refusal to respect their relationships," Jacobs added. "People are still being barred from partners' hospital rooms, shut out of emergency medical decisions about their partners' health care and left with nothing when their partners die."

The ACLU has launched a web-based public education campaign, http://www.aclu.org/getequal to encourage the LGBT community to work for equality. The website includes a number of tools that LGBT people can use to protect their relationships, ranging from a one-click action alert urging Congress to oppose the federal marriage amendment, to detailed instructions on how to encourage town and employers to adopt domestic partnerships policies, to information about the legal documents couples can use to protect their relationships.

Categories: Gay & Lesbian Rights

ACLU-NJ Challenges Government Grants to Two Religious Schools

July 12, 2004

The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey filed a lawsuit today to stop the State from distributing $250,000 each to two private Catholic schools, appropriations that were included in the annual state budget. We argue that the grants violate the principles of religious freedom described in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 1, paragraph 4 of the New Jersey Constitution.

“Having religious freedom means having a government that treats religious groups with neutrality, so that people aren’t favored or discriminated against based on their beliefs.” stated Deborah Jacobs, ACLU-NJ Executive Director. “And, with so many of our public schools in desperate conditions, how can our state justify giving tax payer’s money to private religious schools?”

The funds were designated for the two schools as part of the State’s budget, with $250,000 to go to Seton Hall Prep for “expansion” and $250,000 to go to St. Peter’s Prep for “field remediation.” The grant to Seton Hall Prep was initiated by Senate Co-President Richard Codey (D-Essex). The donation to St. Peter’s Prep was initiated by State Senator Bernard Kenny (D-Hudson) whose sons have attended the school.

Along with the complaint, the ACLU-NJ filed a motion for temporary restraints to ensure that the funds would remain with the State while the lawsuit is pending. In response, the State agreed not to disburse the funds without first providing two business days notice to the ACLU-NJ.

While the United States Supreme Court has upheld programs in which funds or benefits are made generally available to all schools or students and therefore end up in part going to parochial schools, the New Jersey legislature’s grant of direct funds solely to the two Catholic schools (to the exclusion of other non-secular and secular schools) lacks the essential element of “neutrality.” The Supreme Court has noted that conferring financial support to followers of one religion over another is the exact type of action against which the Establishment Clause was meant to protect.

The ACLU-NJ represents Madeline Houston, who has two children currently in the Montclair, New Jersey, public school system. Her daughter is about to enter eleventh grade and plays on the soccer and softball teams. Her son is at a Montclair middle school that rents out space in a church because it does not possess its own facilities. For use of a gym or library, the students at the middle school must walk to the YMCA or to the town’s public library.

“The First Amendment gives clear guidelines on government’s role in religion because our founders knew what religious strife could do to a society,” said Ed Barocas, ACLU-NJ Legal Director. “Our state and federal constitutions guard against the government giving financial support to certain favored religious groups to the exclusion of others.”

The case is being handled by ACLU-NJ Legal Director Ed Barocas and cooperating attorney Marc Stern of the American Jewish Congress.

Categories: Religious Freedom

Two More Jersey Towns Pass Pro-Civil Liberties Resolutions

July 12, 2004

The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey (ACLU-NJ) applauds the Township Councils of Ewing and Mullica for their unanimous vote in support of Pro-Civil Liberties Resolutions adopted at their Council meetings last night.

The Resolutions calls upon the Townships to affirm their commitment to securing national security, but without sacrificing the fundamental civil rights and liberties upon which our country has been founded.

By passing the resolutions, Ewing and Mullica Townships have become the fourth and fifth New Jersey communities - following Willingboro, Princeton and Highland Park Borough - to pass a resolution in reaction to the federal government's controversial USA PATRIOT Act.

Congress passed the USA PATRIOT Act just 45 days after the September 11 attacks, with virtually no debate. This 342-page piece of legislation allows for the broadest expansion of police and law enforcement powers in the recent history of our country. Some of the most troubling provisions of the Act enable the FBI to access private records, including medical records, library records and student records, without the need for a warrant or establishing probable cause that a crime has occurred or is about to occur. A "gag provision" within the Act makes it so that the person searched may never learn that he or she has been the subject of government surveillance.

On a grass-roots level, over 250 communities and three states have passed resolutions condemning the Act. These local votes come at a crucial time, as President Bush presses to extend the surveillance provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act beyond 2005 when they're scheduled to sunset.

The Ewing Township resolution, which will be sent to Senators Jon Corzine and Frank Lautenberg, calls for assurances that the surveillance provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act do in fact expire at their scheduled sunset date, and that no further expansion of government surveillance powers is taken that infringes upon individual rights and civil liberties.

The campaign to pass a pro-civil liberties resolution in Ewing Township was initiated by residents Norma Saltz and Allan Willinger, who founded the group Ewing Citizens for Civil Liberties (ECCL).

Jann Nielsen, a Ewing resident, said that she got involved with ECCL because "I did not want our freedoms to be whittled away bit by bit."

"A major strength of the United States is our amazing toolkit for liberty, including our Bill of Rights. The USA PATRIOT Act includes measures that take away many of our tools for liberty," said Jonathan Abolins, a Ewing resident and member of ECCL. "If we don't speak up for civil liberties now, we will not be able to speak up for them later," added John Bing, another Ewing resident and member of ECCL.

"Its great to be represented by a Township Council that is so concerned about the threat that the USA PATRIOT Act poses to our civil liberties. I hope citizens in other towns join the grass-roots movement to pass a resolution in their towns," said Allan Willinger, co-founder of ECCL.

Mullica Township, with a population of about 6,000, is considered to have generally conservative politics. Its Township Committee is made up of five Republicans. The Council's unanimous adoption of a resolution affirming its commitment to the U.S. Constitution demonstrates growing concerns from both ends of the political spectrum about expanded government power and the threat to checks and balances posed by the USA PATRIOT Act and other measures adopted since September 11, 2001.

"The USA PATRIOT Act threatens the very rights and freedoms that we are struggling to protect," said ACLU of New Jersey Executive Director Deborah Jacobs. "Communities across American are very concerned about the expansion of government powers. They see it limiting civil liberties and not keeping us safe from terrorism. I commend the people of Ewing and Mullica Townships for taking a stand to ensure that we remain both safe and free."

Categories: National Security

State Leaders Shouldn't Silence Public Dialogue

July 12, 2004

This op-ed piece ran in the Star-Ledger on July 17, 2003

With so many challenging economic and social issues facing state lawmakers, you have to wonder why they are taking up so much of their time - and taxpayers’ hard-earned dollars - trying to stifle speech critical of Israel. Whether people support such criticism or oppose it, I hope we can all agree on one thing: our lawmakers are supposed to be guiding the ship of state, not engaging in state censorship.

The first such item was the removal of Amiri Baraka from his appointed role as our State’s Poet Laureate whose 250+ line poem “Somebody Blew Up America” contained four lines that offended people who interpreted them as anti-Semitic. No fewer than 13 bills were introduced on this topic. But the solution was worse than the offense: to deprive future generations of New Jerseyans of a poet laureate.

Next, key leaders stepped forward to scrutinize and attempt to stop a conference at Rutgers University sponsored by a student group, New Jersey Solidarity, that supports the cause of Palestinian self-determination.

The law here is well established: Rutgers must give student groups common rights and privileges that it cannot deny based on disagreement with the subject or content of their activities.

In expending state resources in an effort to silence Baraka and the students involved with New Jersey Solidarity, our leaders disrespect and disregard America’s founding ideals of freedom and the law of our day. They also demonstrate a failure to understand why an open marketplace of ideas is necessary and essential to America’s well-being.

Diversity is without question one of America’s greatest strengths and it creates some of our biggest challenges. American people hold unlimited perspectives, experiences and beliefs, and New Jersey is a shining example of that diversity. We are all Americans, and Americans share the belief that we’re all entitled to express ourselves. Defending our neighbors’ freedoms is defending our own.

When someone expresses something disagreeable, others can respond. This creates a way for society to reject disagreeable ideas, as in the case of the appointment of racist Mark Moran to the Hopewell Council, which caused sufficient public outcry to prompt his resignation. This is an example of the open marketplace of ideas at work.

The open marketplace of ideas also creates increased dialogue and understanding among people. It works so well that organizations seeking to reduce bias and bigotry have developed programs that use facilitated dialogue to promote understanding. The Anti-Defamation League, which offers one such program, “A World of Difference,” describes the campus environment as a place where students must be able to “broaden their range of life experiences, non-violently challenge the social and political landscape, and learn from people with perspectives different from their own.” The New Jersey Solidarity conference could promote precisely this kind of environment.

What if instead of spending taxpayers’ resources on the demise of Baraka’s official position, concerned leaders held a roundtable meeting with community members to discuss the offending poem? Such a forum could debunk myths, elaborate on beliefs and build bonds between different New Jersey communities. Had ADL used its “World of Difference” philosophies to create such an environment for dialogue, rather than pressing for Baraka’s removal, then perhaps we could have reached a more satisfying result.

What if instead of trying to interfere with the conference at Rutgers, Governor McGreevey viewed a national student conference on the plight of the Palestinians as a feather in New Jersey’s cap - an opportunity to further civil dialogue in this crucial area. This could mark Rutgers as a leader in campus dialogue and student activism on issues of critical importance.

Historically, at times of national stress -- real or imagined -- First Amendment rights come under enormous pressure. During the Red Scare of the early 1920s, thousands were deported for their political views. During the McCarthy period, the infamous blacklist ruined lives and careers. In the politically tumultuous 1960s, academic freedom came under attack. Today, some of New Jersey’s top leaders are using their authority and the public’s resources to try to suppress dialogue about a critical political issue. What’s next?

The First Amendment exists precisely to protect even the most offensive and controversial speech from government suppression. Censorship cannot achieve the desired result because human beings will not be censored. Silenced ideas fester underground. Silenced people become dangerous. Open dialogue on the other hand lets people hear all perspectives on an issue, and accept or reject ideas on their own. Who are our government officials to decide which ideas we will or won’t hear? Who are they to deprive New Jerseyans of opportunities for dialogue and growth? Surely, they must have something better to do.

by Deborah Jacobs, Executive Director, ACLU of New Jersey

Categories: Free Speech

First Two New Jersey Towns Pass Anti-PATRIOT Act Resolutions

July 12, 2004

Two New Jersey towns have recently joined the list of 194 communities in 34 states that have passed resolutions denouncing the USA PATRIOT Act. On September 9, the Town of Willingboro passed the first in New Jersey. And, on October 7, the Borough of Princeton passed the second. Several ACLU-NJ members helped lead the effort to pass the resolution in Princeton.

"I'm proud that Princeton Borough Council has taken action in support of our guaranteed rights under the United States Constitution," said Karen Mazzola, a member of the Princeton Bill of Rights Defenders which, along with the ACLU-NJ, the Coalition for Peace Action and the Princeton Peace Network, promoted passage of the resolution. "When the federal government will not uphold the rights of all people in the United States, it is time to take a stance locally. There must be oversight of the government or there can be no democracy," she added.

The Princeton Borough Council adopted the resolution when Mayor Marvin Reed, in favor of the resolution, broke a three-to-three deadlock in the Council.

"The Act threatens the very rights and freedoms that we are struggling to protect," noted ACLU-NJ Executive Director Deborah Jacobs. "I commend the people of Princeton and Willingboro for taking a stand to ensure that we remain both safe and free."

The Princeton resolution was also endorsed by a number of community organizations, including the Communications Workers of America, District One; the Arab-American Voters of NJ; District 1199J of NUHHCE, AFSCME, AFL-CIO; Micawber Books; and the South Jersey Campaign for Peace and Justice.

Currently, the ACLU-NJ is working with community members in Bergen County, Highland Park, Montclair, Maplewood and Ewing Twp. trying to pass resolutions. If you're interested in working on a resolution in your town or county, contact the ACLU-NJ at info@aclu-nj.org or 973-642-2086.

Categories: National Security

Ex-Offender Voting Rights Advocate to Reclaim Vote on Primary Day

July 12, 2004

Zenon Quiles will take a long-delayed and much anticipated walk this Primary Day. Quiles had lost his right to vote due to a 2000 drug offense conviction, but was recently re-enfranchised after two years on probation. Quiles is an advocate for ex-offender voting rights and a plaintiff in an ACLU-NJ lawsuit, New Jersey State Conference/NAACP v. Peter Harvey, challenging the denial of the right to vote for people on probation and parole. Quiles will take back his vote at 10 AM, on June 8, at the Walnut Street Fire House in Montclair.

Voting rights of ex-offenders has never had more attention than today in New Jersey. In addition to the legal challenge concerning individuals on probation and parole, numerous organizations including the ACLU-NJ, ACORN and Common Cause have taken up the cause of educating ex-offenders about their right to vote, which is restored upon completion of a criminal sentence. The issue has become more urgent as New Jersey’s prison population has become increasingly dominated by minorities. Blacks, for example, make up some 13% of the general population and 60% of those in the criminal justice system.

“It is now well documented that, as a consequence of racial profiling, members of racial minority groups have been investigated, arrested, prosecuted and convicted in New Jersey in numbers totally disproportionate to their propensity to commit crimes.” said Deborah Jacobs, Executive Director of the ACLU-NJ. “The consequence is that members of the African American and Latino communities are denied an equal opportunity to influence the electoral and political process.”

Currently an outreach coordinator with the ACLU-NJ, Zenon Quiles runs his own cleaning and organizing business with his wife. Father of four children, he serves as vice-chair on the Policy Council of the Montclair Child Development Center and participates in the Male Involvement Group of Montclair. He volunteers for the Seth Boyden Resource Center in Newark and as an after-school basketball team coach. Active in his community, Zenon exemplarizes the ex-offender’s full participation as an active citizen.

The ACLU-NJ has a long-standing interest in felony disenfranchisement and voting rights issues. The ACLU-NJ distributes a Get Your Vote Back kit to ex-offenders who have finished their sentence and need direction to register to vote. In addition, the ACLU-NJ has advocated for voter registration in jails, where many of the prisoners are pre-trial detainees and maintain their right to vote barring a conviction.

On June 8, Quiles says he will cast his vote for all those men and women who are on parole and probation and not allowed to express their political viewpoints.

Categories: Elections & Voting

Rutgers Law & ACLU-NJ Challenge Denial of Voting Rights

July 12, 2004

Newark - The American Civil Liberties Union and Constitutional Litigation Clinic at Rutgers Law School filed a lawsuit today challenging the denial of voting rights to persons on probation or parole in New Jersey. The lawsuit, the first of its kind nationwide, maintains that becauseminorities are vastly over-represented in the criminal justice system, our laws denying probationers and parolees the right to vote result in a denial of the New Jersey Constitution’s guarantee of Equal Protection under the law.

“It is now well documented that, as a consequence of racial profiling, members of racial minority groups have been investigated, arrested, prosecuted and convicted in New Jersey in numbers totally disproportionate to their propensity to commit crimes.” said Professor Frank Askin, Director of the Constitutional Litigation Clinic. “The consequence is that members of the African American and Latino communities are denied an equal opportunity to influence the electoral and political process.” About 80% of parolees and some 60% of probationers in New Jersey are of African-American or Hispanic origin.

Plaintiffs in the suit are the New Jersey State Conference of the NAACP, the Latino Leadership Alliance of New Jersey, Councilwoman Patricia Perkins-Aguste and Councilman Carlos J. Alma, both of Elizabeth, and ten individuals on parole or probation.

The ACLU has a long-standing interest in felony disenfranchisement and voting rights issues. The ACLU distributes a “Reclaim Your Vote” packet to ex-offenders who have finished their sentence and need direction to register to vote. In addition, the ACLU-NJ has advocated for voter registration in jails, where many of the prisoners are pre-trial detainees and maintain their right to vote barring a conviction.

“Not only is it an injustice that minorities are disproportionately affected by felony disenfranchisement in New Jersey, but the State needs to give serious consideration to what interest it serves by denying these individuals the right to vote,” said Deborah Jacobs, Executive Director of the ACLU of New Jersey. “Allowing probationers and parolees the right to vote is beneficial to our society. It teaches responsibility, gives people a sense of belonging and contribution, and encourages participation in a civic responsibility that we can all agree too few engage in.”

The case was filed in Union County Superior Court in Elizabeth. The lead attorneys are Frank Askin, Director of the Rutgers Constitutional Clinic, assisted by the law students who work for the clinic, and Laughlin McDonald, director of the ACLU’s Voting Rights Project, based in Atlanta, Georgia.

Categories: Elections & Voting

Highland Park Council Votes Unanimously for Pro-Civil Liberties Resolution

July 12, 2004

The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey (ACLU-NJ) applauds the Highland Park Borough Council for its unanimous vote in support of a Pro-Civil Liberties Resolution adopted at the Council meeting last night.

The Resolution calls upon the Highland Park Borough Council to affirm its commitment to securing national security, but without sacrificing the fundamental civil rights and liberties upon which our country has been founded. For example, it calls upon law enforcement officials to give advance notice to individuals before executing a search warrant, and to make sure that a person is not subjected to a criminal investigation based solely on race, religion, or ethnicity.

By passing this resolution, Highland Park Borough has become the third New Jersey community – following Willingboro and Princeton – to pass a resolution in reaction to the federal government’s controversial USA PATRIOT Act.

On a grass-roots level, over 235 communities and three states have passed resolutions condemning the Act. The Highland Park vote has come at a crucial time, as President Bush presses to extend the surveillance provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act beyond 2005 when they’re scheduled to sunset. The Highland Park Borough resolution, which will be sent to Senators Jon Corzine and Frank Lautenberg, urges them to ensure that the “provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act that are schedule to expire on December 31, 2005, do expire without extension.”

Categories: National Security

ACLU-NJ Successful in Challenge to Government Funding for Religious School Expansion

June 30, 2004

The American Civil Liberties of New Jersey and the American Jewish Congress today successfully dismissed a lawsuit challenging the grant of $250,000 in State taxpayer funds to a private Catholic school, after the State agreed not to release the disputed funds. The ACLU-NJ had claimed that providing taxpayers’ funds for the expansion of a religious school violated the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution and the “No Preference” Clause of the New Jersey Constitution.

“Providing financial support to a private religious school through taxpayers’ funds is not only unconstitutional but, with so many of our public schools in desperate conditions, is wholly unjustifiable,” stated Deborah Jacobs, ACLU-NJ Executive Director. “We are pleased that the State has agreed not to release the funds and can now put that money to a more appropriate use.”

“Conferring financial support to followers of one religion to the exclusion of others is the exact type of action against which our state and federal constitutions were meant to protect,” stated Marc Stern of the American Jewish Congress, who served as cooperating attorney for the ACLU-NJ. “Funds are permitted to flow to religious schools from government programs that are both neutral and generally available to all schools or all students. The grant to Seton Hall, however, was neither neutral towards religion nor generally available.”

The funds in dispute were to go to Seton Hall Preparatory Academy, a private Catholic school located in West Orange, New Jersey. The ACLU-NJ had originally also challenged a similar grant to St. Peter’s Prep for “field remediation.” The ACLU-NJ dismissed the portion of the suit that challenged the grant to St. Peter’s Prep in December 2003, after it was determined that the funding would be used solely for environmental clean-up, which would protect the surrounding community from chemicals that could seep into the surrounding land and that had been present on the site before the school bought the land.

In addition to itself, the ACLU represented Madeline Houston, who has two children currently in the Montclair, New Jersey, public school system. Her daughter, a junior, plays on the soccer and softball teams. Her son attends a Montclair middle school that rents space from a local church because it does not possess its own facilities. For use of a gym or library, the students at the middle school must walk to the YMCA or to the town’s public library.

The case is captioned ACLU-NJ, et al. v. Librera, et al. and was filed in the New Jersey Superior Court, Mercer County, Law Division.

Categories: Religious Freedom

ACLU-NJ Calls Consent Decree End Premature and Vows to Fight for Police Accountability

June 30, 2004

Newark - The ACLU of New Jersey expressed disappointment today upon learning of the premature termination of parts of the Racial Profiling Consent Decree. Under the Decree, the State Police are subject to supervision and reporting requirements arising from their acknowledged policy of targeting minorities on the New Jersey Turnpike. In a court order signed by United States District Court Judge Mary Cooper, Department of Justice oversight of the Internal Affairs Division was terminated.

"If internal investigations practices have improved in the State Police, that's great, but it's not a reason to end oversight." said Deborah Jacobs, Executive Director of the ACLU-NJ. "Since oversight seems to be working, isn't it in New Jersey's best interest to stick with it and ensure that unethical practices do not resume? At a minimum it should remain in place until December 2004, which was earliest end date indicated in the consent decree."

The ACLU-NJ believes that termination of oversight of the Internal Affairs portion of the consent decree was imprudent. Police practices are not reformed overnight. If compliance with the decree is a burden on the State Police, it's a deserved and appropriate burden, and one which should continue in the interest of safe and ethical policing in New Jersey. Further, while the ACLU-NJ is pleased with improvements in this one area of police practices, the State Police have failed to substantially comply with other portions of the Consent Decree, and racial minorities continue to get stopped at higher rates than whites.

The State has undone the consent decree much in the matter that it was done: with little public notice and information. In April 1999, then-Attorney General Peter Verniero admitted that citizens were stopped and searched on the New Jersey Turnpike based on their skin color. The actions of troopers brought about the federal lawsuit against the State based upon civil rights violations. However, a joint Consent Decree was filed the same day as the lawsuit was filed, thus leaving no room for objections or time for affected organizations to become involved. This week, the motion to end the Internal Affairs Division oversight was filed by the Attorney General with little fanfare, and was signed by the judge on an expedited timeline.

The ACLU-NJ intends to work with the NAACP, the Black Ministers Council, and other concerned organizations to preserve the consent decree oversight at least until December 2004.

Categories: Police Practices

Swim Club Owners that Barred Minorities to Pay $1 Million Settlement in ACLU-NJ Lawsuit

June 30, 2004

NEWARK, NJ - Owners of a swim club in suburban Nutley, New Jersey who violated state discrimination laws when they turned away "black" and "brown-skinned" customers and guests will pay $1,000,000 to settle a lawsuit brought against them by the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey. The ACLU-NJ filed the case on behalf of six plaintiffs who were denied entry to the pool or who were retaliated against for defending the rights of others to enter.

"It's a tragedy that racism like this still persists in New Jersey today," said Anne McHugh, of Pellettieri Rabstein & Altman, who represented the plaintiffs on behalf of the ACLU-NJ. "We hope that this settlement will send a message to business owners that discrimination is not only wrong and illegal, but also very costly."

Marci Shepard, was a teenager when her father died and she was invited to live with Michael & Catherine Russo, of Nutley, for whom she had previously worked as a mother's helper. After joining Le Terrace in May of 2001, Catherine Russo and her children brought Marci to the club as their guest. An employee would not let Marci in, claiming that no more guests were being permitted that day. While Catherine Russo went to discuss the matter with the owner, the employee permitted a member and that member's white guest to enter the facilities. After Mrs. Russo continued to protest the treatment of Marci, Nardone ordered the family off the premises.

The ACLU lawsuit charged Patrick and Rae Nardone, owners of the Le Terrace Swim Club, with violation of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, which prohibits businesses from denying any individual the right to use their accommodations based on that person's race, creed, color, national origin, ancestry, marital status, sex, sexual orientation, or nationality. Swimming pools are listed as a specific example of a "public accommodation" covered by the law.

"While I'm happy to receive financial compensation, what's more important is to send a positive message to others to come forward and stand up for their rights," said Marci Shepard, a plaintiff in the suit. "Mr. Nardone humiliated me when he wouldn't let me into the pool, and the children of the family who brought me as a guest couldn't understand why I wasn't being allowed in with them. By coming forward and speaking out, we were able to expose the discrimination at Le Terrace."

The ACLU-NJ also represented Philip and Annmarie Giordano of Bloomfield, who scheduled their daughter's June 2002 birthday party at Le Terrace Swim Club, where Annmarie Giordano and her daughter were members. Patrick Nardone demanded a list of guests and asked whether the guest list included any "brown-skinned" or "black" children. When told that her child did have Asian and African-American friends who were guests, Nardone informed her that those children were not welcome at the club. He thereafter rescinded the Giordanos' membership.

Separately from the ACLU-NJ lawsuit, the State of New Jersey had filed an administrative complaint against Le Terrace Swim Club. The Nardones settled that case in 2003 by paying $25,000 and agreeing to various conditions for their continued operation of the pool, such as disclosing the racial make-up of members to the Division on Civil Rights and adopting a written non-discrimination policy. However, the Nardones sold the pool soon thereafter, making such conditions moot.

The ACLU-NJ lawsuit was captioned Shepard, et al. v. Le Terrace Swim Club, et al. The case was filed in Superior Court in Newark, New Jersey on August 22, 2002.

Categories: Discrimination

older posts »

Tell Trenton to Get it Right on Marriage

Marriage is the ultimate expression of love. Let’s make New Jersey the 7th state to recognize marriage for gay and lesbian couples. More »

Laughter & Liberties

Visit our cartoon page to take a lighthearted look at the serious business of civil liberties. More »

Department of Justice: We Need Your Help

On September 9, 2010, the ACLU-NJ filed a petition asking the DOJ to provide federal oversight of the troubled Newark Police Department. The petition outlined more than 400 cases of misconduct and abuse by police. More »

Become a Face of the ACLU-NJ

All of us are faces of the ACLU of New Jersey. Each of us has a story to tell. Share yours with us today. More »

American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey

Judge rejects city’s motion to dismiss parents’ group’s lawsuit

ACLU-NJ examines Christie’s record on respecting rights

Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association broke state’s discrimination law when it denied use of its pavilion for couple’s civil union ceremony

ACLU implores Dow to suspend use of faulty new form

Related Content

Related Content

ACLU-NJ pamphlets answer key questions about NJ’s sunshine and right-to-know laws

State illegally confiscated computers, signs and medicine from protesters

Related Documents

Top officials are using personal email to discuss Facebook and City of Newark refuses to release records

Related Content

Related Content

Step-by-step guide will aid New Jerseyans in assessing and documenting the treatment of citizens by police in their towns

Police Toolkit

Secondary Parent Council turns to court in response to Newark’s denial of request for public records about $100 million Zuckerberg donation

Related Content

Campaign is One of the Largest Coordinated Information Act Requests in American History

ACLU-NJ, Gawker challenged governor’s use of executive privilege

Related Documents

Governor's Office invokes "executive privilege" in rejecting records request

Related Documents

Newark Police violated Roberto Lima's First Amendment rights

Revised policy goes into effect for all law enforcement agencies today

Related Content

Amicus brief submitted on behalf of former New Jersey Attorneys General

Research led three counties to begin undertaking policy changes, adding to ACLU-NJ's efforts to reform NJ's criminal justice system

Related Content

Related Content

Related Content

Related Content

Point Pleasant Beach replaces Lord's Prayer with Sectarian Prayer Policy

Related Content

Related Content

Related Content

Case Highlights Urgent Need For Systemic Reforms

Related Content

Governor signs long-fought-for bill into law for a more transparent NJ

Related Content

Related Documents

Related Documents

More Information

Documents

Documents

Judges will now have discretion in sentencing for non-violent offenses

Pentecostal Minister Can Preach In Prison Following ACLU Lawsuit

Related Content

Related Content

Bust Cards

Legal Documents

Resources

'Pop Warner Three' held at gunpoint and told they had no rights

Related Content

Justice Department Documents Reveal Former U.S. Attorney Chris Christie Approved Tracking Whereabouts With No Warrant

Resources

NJ calls for reforms at city and state level in major march against police brutality

Related Content

Read the ACLU-NJ Amicus Brief

Further Information

Research led three counties to begin undertaking policy changes,
adding to ACLU-NJ's efforts to reform NJ's criminal justice system