FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE               
CONTACT: media@aclu.org

ELON – The American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina Legal Foundation (ACLU-NCLF) today announced the successful resolution of a federal lawsuit filed on behalf of John W. Paylor, a resident of Elon and a 55-year-old grandfather who was shot twice with a Taser by Elon police officers on June 18, 2006. The officers had surrounded the home of Mr. Paylor in order to serve him with a misdemeanor arrest warrant for using profanity on a public highway and for reckless driving. A videotape of the incident shows that Mr. Paylor was unarmed, in his underwear, and presented no threat to the officers. Nevertheless, an Elon police officer shot Mr. Paylor with a Taser, causing him to fall from his porch. Then, while Mr. Paylor was lying on the ground, unable to move from the shock of being tased and from the fall down his steps, the officer tased him a second time. Mr. Paylor has sustained permanent physical scarring from the incident. The ACLU-NCLF filed a lawsuit against the Elon Police Department and the individual Elon police officers involved on behalf of Mr. Paylor for excessive use of force in March 2009.    

A settlement agreement was finalized and executed this morning, and cooperating attorneys for the ACLU-NCLF have filed papers in court ending the lawsuit. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, the Elon Police Department will implement measures designed to prevent excessive and unnecessary use of Tasers in the future. In particular, Elon police officers will undergo improved annual training on a new Taser policy and on Elon's more general use-of-force policy.  Elon's new Taser policy must be consistent with policies in place in other North Carolina localities that include protections the ACLU believes are important to safeguard against excessive use of Tasers. For example, these policies prevent the use of Tasers against individuals, such as Mr. Paylor, who are not actively resisting officers. These policies also prohibit the use of Tasers against individuals, such as Mr. Paylor, who could potentially receive a secondary injury resulting from falling off an elevated location, and they also limit the number of times an individual can be tased.  Other settlement terms include the following: (1) the officer who tased Mr. Paylor will undergo additional use-of-force and Taser training at the North Carolina Justice Academy; and (2) the Elon Police Chief will instruct all officers that anyone with a personal interest relating to the subject of a misdemeanor warrant shall refrain from serving such warrant in person, unless safety or exigent circumstances require that person to be present. Additionally, the Elon Police Department made a $50,000 settlement payment to Mr. Paylor for his physical, emotional and constitutional injuries.

"I am happy with this outcome," said John Paylor. "What these officers did to me was wrong, and my hope is that this settlement will prevent others from having to suffer what I suffered at the hands of Elon police."

The lawsuit named as defendants certain individual police officers of the Elon Police Department, including Officer Harold T. Dunn, and contended that the officer used his Taser to retaliate against Mr. Paylor for a verbal exchange that occurred between him and Mr. Paylor the day before. The lawsuit further alleged that the other officers who were present failed to intervene to stop Officer Dunn's unlawful actions and therefore likewise violated Mr. Paylor's constitutional right to be free from excessive force. Finally, the lawsuit contended that the Town of Elon bears responsibility for its failure to properly train its officers in the use of Tasers and for a pattern and practice of permitting its police officers to employ Tasers in an excessive and reckless manner. After the lawsuit was filed, other Elon residents came forward and described instances in which they too had been tased unnecessarily by the Elon Police Department.

"We are happy with the settlement, as this was a flagrant abuse of authority by members of the Elon Police Department," said attorney Mark J. Prak, Cooperating Attorney for the ACLU-NCLF, who represented Mr. Paylor. "John Paylor did nothing to deserve this treatment as the police videotape clearly demonstrates. This was a case of an officer abusing his position as a police officer to satisfy his own ego."

The ACLU-NCLF is a founding member of the North Carolina Taser Safety Project, a coalition of nonprofit organizations advocating for the proper use of Tasers by law enforcement and for better training for officers on the weapons' potential risks. These risks are especially pronounced when used on certain vulnerable populations, such as children, the elderly, the disabled, obviously pregnant women, and people in certain situations that place them at greater risk of harm, such as people standing atop a flight of stairs – as Mr. Paylor was here – who are at risk of injury from falling if shot with a Taser. The Taser Safety Project produced a report in 2008 which can be found online at http://acluofnc.org/files/NotThereYet.pdf.
 
"Tasers are becoming increasingly common in North Carolina and across the country," said Katy Parker, Legal Director for the ACLU-NCLF. "It is important that as officers employ these potentially deadly weapons, they do so only when necessary and that they exercise restraint. These weapons are not toys."

Mr. Paylor was represented by Mark J. Prak, Charles E. Coble and Charles F. Marshall of Brooks, Pierce, McLendon, Humphrey & Leonard, L.L.P. in Raleigh, North Carolina, and C. Scott Holmes of Brock, Payne & Meece, P.A. in Durham, North Carolina, as Cooperating Attorneys for the ACLU of North Carolina Legal Foundation, as well as by Katherine Lewis Parker, Legal Director of the ACLU of North Carolina Legal Foundation. A copy of the settlement agreement is available upon request.

President Obama's address on the end of the combat mission in Iraq has left open the question of what will happen to the massive biometric databases on Iraqis, assembled by the United States, during the course of the conflict. In 2007, EPIC, Privacy International, and Human Rights Watch wrote to Defense Department Secretary Robert Gates to express concern about the creation of secret profiles on hundreds of thousand of Iraqis, tied to unique biometric identifiers, including digital fingerprints, photographic images, iris scans, and even DNA. Citing misuses of secret files and personal data in other conflicts, the organizations warned that the identification practices "contravene international treaties and could lead to potentially devastating consequences." EPIC, PI, and HRW urged the Defense Department to "adopt clear guidelines that incorporate strong privacy safeguards to ensure that Iraqis are afforded basic human rights in their personal information." For more information, see EPIC - Iraqi Biometric Identification System.

EPIC has filed an appeal with the Transportation Security Administration, challenging the agency's denial of expedited processing and fee waivers for an EPIC Freedom of Information Act request. EPIC's is seeking documents from the TSA concerning full body scanner radiation risks and testing. EPIC challenged the TSA's denial of expedited processing, arguing that by delaying to release of the records, the agency was risking the health of travelers and its own employees. EPIC also argued that the record request was particularly timely, as three US Senators recently wrote to the Department of Homeland Security about the safety of the airport body scanners and the risk to air travelers. Separately, EPIC has urged a federal court to suspend the program, pending an independent review of the health risks and privacy impact. For more information, see EPIC: Body Scanners and EPIC v. DHS (suspension of program).

ACLU And CCR Charge That Practice Violates The Constitution And International Law

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2689; media@aclu.org

NEW YORK – The American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) today filed a lawsuit challenging the government's asserted authority to carry out “targeted killings” of U.S. citizens located far from any armed conflict zone.

The authority contemplated by the Obama administration is far broader than what the Constitution and international law allow, the groups charge. Outside of armed conflict, both the Constitution and international law prohibit targeted killing except as a last resort to protect against concrete, specific and imminent threats of death or serious physical injury. An extrajudicial killing policy under which names are added to CIA and military “kill lists” through a secret executive process and stay there for months at a time is plainly not limited to imminent threats.

“The United States cannot simply execute people, including its own citizens, anywhere in the world based on its own say-so,” said Vince Warren, Executive Director of CCR. “The law prohibits the government from killing without trial or conviction other than in the face of an imminent threat that leaves no time for deliberation or due process. That the government adds people to kill lists after a bureaucratic process and leaves them on the lists for months at a time flies in the face of the Constitution and international law.”

The groups charge that targeting individuals for execution who are suspected of terrorism but have not been convicted or even charged – without oversight, judicial process or disclosed standards for placement on kill lists – also poses the risk that the government will erroneously target the wrong people. In recent years, the U.S. government has detained many men as terrorists, only for courts or the government itself to discover later that the evidence was wrong or unreliable.

According to today’s legal complaint, the government has not disclosed the standards it uses for authorizing the premeditated and deliberate killing of U.S. citizens located far from any battlefield. The groups argue that the American people are entitled to know the standards being used for these life and death decisions.

“A program that authorizes killing U.S. citizens, without judicial oversight, due process or disclosed standards is unconstitutional, unlawful and un-American,” said Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the ACLU. “We don’t sentence people to prison on the basis of secret criteria, and we certainly shouldn’t sentence them to death that way. It is not enough for the executive branch to say ‘trust us’ – we have seen that backfire in the past and we should learn from those mistakes.”

CCR and the ACLU were retained by Nasser Al-Aulaqi to bring a lawsuit in connection with the government's decision to authorize the targeted killing of his son, U.S. citizen Anwar Al-Aulaqi, whom the CIA and Defense Department have targeted for death. The complaint asks a court to rule that using lethal force far from any battlefield and without judicial process is illegal in all but the narrowest circumstances and to prohibit the government from carrying out targeted killings except in compliance with these standards. It also asks the court to order the government to disclose the standards it uses to place U.S. citizens on government kill lists.

Today’s lawsuit was filed against the CIA, Defense Department and the president in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Attorneys on the case are Jameel Jaffer, Ben Wizner and Jonathan Manes of the ACLU; Pardiss Kebriaei, Maria LaHood and Bill Quigley of CCR; and Arthur B. Spitzer of the ACLU of the Nation's Capital. Co-counsel in Yemen is Mohammed Allawo of the Allawo Law Firm and the National Organization for Defending Human Rights (HOOD).

For more information on the case, including fact sheets and legal papers, visit: www.aclu.org/targetedkillings and www.ccrjustice.org/targetedkillings.

The Center for Constitutional Rights is dedicated to advancing and protecting the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Founded in 1966 by attorneys who represented civil rights movements in the South, CCR is a non-profit legal and educational organization committed to the creative use of law as a positive force for social change. Visit www.ccrjustice.org.

The ACLU is our nation's guardian of liberty, working daily in courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties that the Constitution and laws of the United States guarantee everyone in this country. Visit www.aclu.org.

Terrorism Suspects Should Be Tried In Federal Criminal Courts

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org

NEW YORK – The revelation that the Obama administration is not planning to prosecute Guantánamo detainee Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri any time soon underscores the inherent unfairness of the military commissions, the American Civil Liberties Union said today. The disclosure that the prosecution of al-Nashiri has stalled came in a court filing earlier this week and was first reported in the Washington Post.

Earlier this week, defense attorney Navy Lt. Cmdr. Stephen C. Reyes requested the appointment of a mitigation specialist to assist him in preparing a defense in anticipation of a capital military commission trial against al-Nashiri. Bruce MacDonald, the Convening Authority for the military commissions, denied the request because “at this time, charges have not been sworn against Mr. al Nashiri.”

However, the Defense Department issued a statement on Thursday saying that military prosecutors are “actively investigating the case against Mr. al-Nashiri and are developing charges against him.”

The following can be attributed to Jameel Jaffer, Deputy Legal Director of the ACLU:

“The current state of the al-Nashiri trial underscores the fact that the military commissions system is designed to get convictions – not to provide fair trials that result in real justice. In the military commissions, the prosecution has all the power and the money, while the defense remains severely under-resourced. While the prosecution is getting paid to perfect its case against al-Nashiri, his lone defense attorney has been denied much-needed resources and all but blocked from preparing a defense. This is one more reason the military commissions should be shut down for good, and terrorism suspects should be tried in federal courts that guarantee the right to a robust defense and uphold the rule of law.”

Use Of “Assault Intervention Device” Tantamount To Torture

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2582 or 2666; media@aclu.org

LOS ANGELES – The American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Southern California today sent a letter to Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca demanding that he not employ a high-tech ray gun built for the military against prisoners at the Los Angeles County Jail.

Sheriff’s Department officials announced last week they intend to begin using an “Assault Intervention Device” developed by the Raytheon Co. that fires an invisible heat beam capable of causing unbearable pain on inmates at the Pitchess Detention Center’s North County Correctional Facility.

“The idea that a military weapon designed to cause intolerable pain should be used against county jail inmates is staggeringly wrongheaded,” said Margaret Winter, Associate Director of the ACLU National Prison Project. “Unnecessarily inflicting severe pain and taking such unnecessary risks with people’s lives is a clear violation of the Eighth Amendment and due process clause of the U.S. Constitution.”

The ACLU’s letter dismisses claims made by Baca last week that the “Assault Intervention Device” is uniquely suited to address some of the more difficult inmate violence issues and will allow Sheriff’s Department officials to intervene in disturbances involving inmates without risking injury to jail staff or inmates. The ACLU letter highlights the fact that the military incarnation of the device was briefly fielded in Afghanistan in June and then withdrawn in July without ever being used. While the device was being tested by the Air Force, a miscalibration of the device’s power settings caused five airmen in its path to suffer lasting burns, including one whose injuries were so severe that he was airlifted to an off-base burn treatment center.

The ACLU’s letter also cites a 2008 report by physicist and less-lethal weapons expert Dr. Juergen Altmann that says the device has the ability to cause second and third degree burns over up to 50 percent of the body’s surface and that without reliable protections against the re-triggering of the device against the same target subject, it has the potential to produce permanent injury or even death.

“I’m extremely disappointed in the willingness of Sheriff Lee Baca to employ this weapon-like device without consulting with the ACLU, which has court-appointment responsibility to monitor the Los Angeles County jails,” said Ramona Ripston, Executive Director of the ACLU of Southern California. “Historically, we have found Sheriff Baca to understand that not everybody in county jail has been convicted of a crime. We have had advance discussions with Sheriff Baca about several different procedures, but we have not been consulted about this inhumane device.“

A copy of the ACLU’s letter is available online at: www.aclu.org/prisoners-rights/aclu-letter-los-angeles-county-sheriff-lee-baca-protesting-use-military-ray-run-aga

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

Additional information about the ACLU of Southern California is available online at: www.aclu-sc.org 

Senate Must Make Final Push To Pass Crucial Bill    CONTACT: (202) 675-2312; media@dcaclu.org   WASHINGTON – The American Civil Liberties Union today celebrated Women’s Equality Day by renewing its call for the Senate to pass the Paycheck Fairness Act (S. 182), a bill that would finally close the wage gap between men and women. Women’s Equality Day this year marks 90 years since the passage of the 19th Amendment, which guaranteed to women the fundamental right to vote.   “As we mark the 90th anniversary of a watershed moment in American history, we are reminded that the struggle for women’s equality continues,” said Laura W. Murphy, Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. “Looking back on past victories highlights just how much further America needs to go. It’s unacceptable that nearly 50 years after the Equal Pay Act became law, women, on average, still make only 77 cents for every dollar earned by a man.”   The Paycheck Fairness Act would provide a crucial update to the Equal Pay Act of 1963 by closing loopholes in the current law and strengthening weak remedies. The Paycheck Fairness Act would also provide workers with the tools they need to ensure equal compensation, including fair remedies, additional enforcement tools and technical assistance and training for both employers and employees. Last year, the House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed the Paycheck Fairness Act; the bill currently has 40 co-sponsors in the Senate and is poised for passage.   “As the 19th Amendment gave women equality at the polls, the Paycheck Fairness Act will give women equality in the workplace,” added Murphy. “Passing this crucial legislation is the next step in the fight for equal rights, and the Senate must ensure that women today and for generations to come can bring home the pay they rightfully earn.”   “Women’s Equality Day not only commemorates the passage of the 19th Amendment, but also serves as an important reminder that though women have won political rights, we must still work to achieve economic rights,” said Deborah J. Vagins, ACLU Legislative Counsel. “In this economy, equal pay is not only fundamental to American ideals of fairness, it is necessary for families’ economic survival. We have never been closer to passing this crucial legislation; we urge the Senate to move this bill forward.”   A letter from the ACLU to the Senate in support of the Paycheck Fairness Act is available at: www.aclu.org/womens-rights/aclu-senate-letter-polling-data-support-paycheck-fairness-act-s-182   # # #

The Department of Health and Human Services has withdrawn its previously issued interim medical privacy rule after facing substantial criticism from privacy advocates. The old rules required that health-care providers and insurers report privacy breaches to patients only if the provider or insurer felt that there was a "significant risk" of harm. Privacy advocates criticized this language on the basis that it granted too much discretion to the firms responsible for safeguarding patient data. In previous comments to the FTC, EPIC recommended that notification of health data breaches be enhanced, that additional breach notification through means such as text messages and social networking sites be developed, and that companies obtain verification of receipt of notifications. EPIC has also testified in Congress that the "significant harm" standard, favored by the HHS for breach notification, is unfair to consumers. For more information, see EPIC: Medical Record Privacy.

Marc Rotenberg,
EPIC Executive Director

C-SPAN Washington Journal
August 26, 2010

Marc Rotenberg,
EPIC Executive Director

The Economist
Online Debate
August 25 - September 3, 2010

Searches Occur Routinely Despite Lack Of Suspicion Of Concealed Contraband

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org

DENVER – The American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Colorado are calling on officials at the Denver Women's Correctional Facility (DWCF) to immediately end a new type of degrading body cavity search in which correctional officers force prisoners to open their labia, and, according to some reports, even to pull back the skin of their clitorises.

In a letter sent this week to Ari Zavaras, the head of the Colorado Department of Corrections, the ACLU says the searches – which occur even when guards have no particular reason to suspect concealment of contraband – raise grave concerns under the Fourth and Eighth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. In its letter, the ACLU says that while courts have upheld visual inspections of prisoners, forcing women to hold open their labia for inspection on a routine basis is gratuitous and constitutes unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain and humiliation. 

“Given that prisoners at DWCF are already subjected to a strip search policy designed to uncover contraband, this new policy adds little to the search procedure other than additional humiliation and suffering,” said David Shapiro, staff attorney with the ACLU National Prison Project. “Prisoners have a constitutional right to be free from pointless and humiliating searches.”

Experts on mental health care in prison have estimated that as many as 80 percent of women who are in jail or prison have been the victims of domestic violence and physical abuse prior to their conviction, a reality that compounds the infliction of pain caused by the needless body cavity searches. According to the ACLU's letter, courts have found that the previous sexual abuse suffered by many female prisoners increases the trauma caused by invasive strip searches and heightens the constitutional violation. Indeed, the ACLU has received letters in recent weeks from prisoners at DWCF who complain that being forced to comply with the new search policy – under the threat of being doused with pepper spray – exacerbates prior sexual trauma.

The ACLU's letter also charges that body cavity searches also may have occurred after prisoner visits with their lawyers. Not only are the searches unwarranted after such visits because of the low probability that an attorney would ever agree to smuggle narcotics or weapons into a prison, but they also could deter prisoners from meeting with their lawyers, compromising legal representation.

The ACLU also asserts in its letter that DWCF's new policy could jeopardize the safety of communities across the state of Colorado by undermining the rehabilitation of prisoners and compromising the Colorado Department of Corrections' stated goal of “assist[ing] offenders' successful re-entry into society” and “reduc[ing] the likelihood of future victims.” The ACLU's letter charges that prisoners have refused visits from friends and family in order to avoid post-visit searches.

“The fact that these searches deter visits can have a devastating impact on prisoners' families, especially for prisoners' children, who can only see their mothers during visits,” said Mark Silverstein, legal director of the ACLU of Colorado. “Also, exacerbating mental illnesses through traumatic body cavity searches decreases the likelihood of re-entry into the community and could well lead to higher rates of recidivism.”

A copy of the ACLU's letter is available online at: www.aclu.org/prisoners-rights/letter-colorado-department-corrections-challenging-degrading-body-cavity-search-pol

At the Coca-Cola Village Amusement Park in Israel, visitors were recently issued bracelets with RFID chips that linked to their Facebook accounts, according to Adland. RFID readers scattered throughout the park updated the users' Facebook pages when the bracelets were scanned. On-site photographers also posted photos that were automatically tagged with the users' identities. Facebook had previously tested the use of RFID for location tracking at the f8 Developer Conference in April. Facebook has also just launched Places, which is designed to make users' location information widely available. For more information, see EPIC Facebook Privacy, EPIC Facebook Places.

Planned Parenthood And ACLU Praise Victory For Women's Health

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org

OMAHA, NE – The Nebraska Attorney General announced today that he has agreed to a settlement with Planned Parenthood of the Heartland acknowledging that the recently enacted Women's Health Protection Act is unconstitutional and will be permanently enjoined. Planned Parenthood Federation of America and the American Civil Liberties Union, co-counsel in the case, applaud the settlement, which acknowledges that the Women's Health Protection Act is unconstitutional based on the merits presented in Planned Parenthood of the Heartland v. Heineman.
  
"This is a victory for women and women's health in Nebraska," said Roger Evans, Planned Parenthood's Senior Director for Public Policy Litigation and Law. "As we have stated from the beginning, this statute is unconstitutional since the only way to comply would have been to cease providing abortions, which is unacceptable. We are gratified that Judge Camp issued a preliminary injunction, and that the Nebraska Attorney General has decided to settle the case and agreed to the Court's permanently enjoining this statute."

"We are very pleased with this outcome. This statute was about political interference in a woman's private health care decisions," said Alexa Kolbi-Molinas, staff attorney at the ACLU and co-counsel in the case. "The government should stay out of these difficult, private decisions and let physicians decide what information is best for a patient's individual situation."

In July, U.S. District Judge Laurie Smith Camp issued a preliminary injunction against the Women's Health Protection Act, noting in her ruling that "no such legislative concern for the health of women, or of men, has given rise to any remotely similar informed-consent statutes applicable to other medical procedures."

She also stated that complying with the law's requirements "would be impossible or nearly impossible," and would place "physicians who perform abortions in immediate jeopardy of crippling civil litigation, thereby placing women in immediate jeopardy of losing access to physicians who are willing to perform abortions."  

"Our patients rely upon our medical staff to provide honest, medically accurate, unbiased information. That's why we are pleased that Attorney General Bruning has agreed not to fight the court's determination that the Act is unconstitutional," said Jill June, President and CEO of Planned Parenthood of the Heartland. "Women and fairness in standards of care are the winners today."

The Act, which passed the Nebraska legislature in April 2010, would have required physicians who may perform an abortion to discuss the entire body of research literature about possible health risks related to abortion with their patients who are seeking abortions, even though much of this information may be outdated, false or misleading.

For instance, it would have required a physician to discuss flawed studies that purport to find a link between abortion and breast cancer, even though the leading medical organizations — such as the National Cancer Institute, the American Cancer Society and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists — have all flatly rejected any association between abortion and breast cancer.

Attorneys on the case include Mimi Liu, Jennifer Sandman and Evans of Planned Parenthood for America; Andrea D. Snowden and W. Scott Davis of Baylor, Evnen, Curtiss, Grimit & Witt LLP; and Kolbi-Molinas of the ACLU.

The order and final judgment in the case can be viewed at: www.aclu.org/reproductive-freedom/planned-parenthood-heartland-v-heineman-order-and-judgment

Group Calls For Reform To Address Human Rights Violations

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org

NEW YORK – The U.S. government today submitted its first-ever Universal Periodic Review (UPR) report to the U.N. Human Rights Council (HRC). As part of the UPR process, nations report to the HRC on their efforts to strengthen human rights commitments and comply with international human rights standards. The American Civil Liberties Union welcomed the U.S. participation in the UPR process as an important step toward turning the Obama administration's stated commitment to protecting human rights into tangible policies. However, the group said the report omits many issues that need significant improvement and doesn't present a full picture of the state of human rights in the U.S. The ACLU called on the Obama administration to address existing human rights violations and urged policy reform in order to comply with U.S. human rights obligations.

"While this report demonstrates the Obama administration's willingness to recommit to engagement on international human rights, the administration must now prove that it is prepared to not only talk the talk, but also walk the walk," said Jamil Dakwar, Director of the ACLU Human Rights Program. "It is time for the U.S. to match its human rights rhetoric with concrete domestic policies and actions and create a human rights culture and infrastructure that promote American values of equality and justice for all."
 
According to the ACLU, the U.S. report correctly acknowledges the need for improvement in several key areas, including racial justice, women's rights, LGBT rights and discrimination against Muslims and Americans of South Asian and Arab descent. However, the report neglects to address other key areas where the U.S. has failed to meet its human rights obligations, including felon disfranchisement, inhumane prison conditions, racial disparities in the death penalty system and deaths and abuse in immigration detention. The report also defends the use of military commissions to try terrorism suspects, despite the fact that military commissions pose significant human and civil rights violations.

"The UPR process provides an opportunity for the United States to identify human rights violations, develop real solutions and bring our policies in line with international human rights standards," said Laura W. Murphy, Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. "There is no better time to reflect honestly and exhaustively on our country's human rights record and to find a path forward toward correcting our faults. The administration should continue to work with all relevant federal agencies and Congress until we can safely say the U.S. is beyond reproach when it comes to human rights."

As part of the UPR process, U.S. officials from various federal departments and agencies including the Departments of State, Justice, Homeland Security, Education and Health and Human Services, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Environmental Protection Agency and the White House met earlier this year with human rights advocates, including representatives of several ACLU offices across the country, to identify and address the nation's most pressing, ongoing human rights issues.
 
The ACLU also submitted a report on the state of human rights in the U.S. to the HRC in April 2010. The report, which focused on access to justice for all people and the lack of effective remedies for human rights violations, is available online at: www.aclu.org/human-rights/un-universal-periodic-review-submission

The UNHRC will review the U.S. report in November.

Dramatic Improvements In Medical And Mental Health Care Will Ensure Female Prisoners Receive Same Levels Of Care As Men

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org  

MILWAUKEE – The American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Wisconsin and the law firm Jenner and Block today filed papers seeking court approval of an agreement to settle a longstanding class-action lawsuit charging that grossly deficient medical and mental health care jeopardized the lives of prisoners at the state's largest women's prison.

As part of the agreement, filed today in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, state officials have agreed to implement a number of significant structural improvements aimed at ensuring that constitutionally adequate levels of care are provided to all prisoners at the Taycheedah Correctional Institution (TCI), and that female prisoners receive the same levels of mental health care as the state's male prisoners.

"Today's settlement is a real victory for all female prisoners at TCI who will no longer have to suffer needlessly in a system that fails to comply with the requirements of the U.S. Constitution," said Gabriel Eber, staff attorney with the ACLU National Prison Project. "This settlement will lead to dramatic improvements in the quality of health care prisoners will receive."

Under the terms of the settlement agreement, state correctional officials must hire a full-time medical director who will oversee all health care at TCI, be on site five days a week and be devoted to administration and patient care. State officials will also be required to hire a consultant charged with regularly monitoring the medical care being provided to prisoners, provide recommendations about how to improve care and analyze TCI's compliance with agreed-upon health care performance standards.  

State officials must also complete construction by June 2012 of an off site women's resource center that will accept prisoners from TCI who need inpatient-level psychiatric services. Construction of planned annexes at TCI which will provide space for out-of-cell therapeutic activities and group and individual therapy for prisoners with serious mental illnesses must also be completed by June 2012.

Additionally, state officials must make a number of improvements to ensure the safety and access to core programs and services of prisoners with disabilities, including providing prisoners with hearing impairments access to sign language interpreters, reading assistance and Braille materials for prisoners with vision impairments and increased maintenance of paths, walkways and thoroughfares between buildings.

"The health care system at TCI has been in crisis for years and today's settlement agreement is a monumental step toward achieving much-needed improvements and accountability," said Larry Dupuis, Legal Director of the ACLU of Wisconsin. "The measures that will be put in place will have a positive impact not only on the prisoners at TCI but on the communities to which prisoners will return upon release."

The first-of-its-kind class action lawsuit was filed in 2006 by the ACLU on behalf of women prisoners at TCI. The lawsuit charged that the state prison system put the lives of women prisoners at risk through grossly deficient health care, provided far inferior mental health treatment as compared to men and failed to provide reasonable accommodations to allow prisoners with disabilities to access basic prison services.

The lawsuit sought reforms to the system so that constitutionally adequate care be made available. In April 2009, U.S. District Court Judge Rudolph T. Randa entered a preliminary injunction ordering that significant changes be made immediately to TCI's dangerous system of administering medications to prisoners.

The ACLU's lawsuit charged that the prison's health system violates the Constitution's Eighth Amendment prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment and that the mental health care system violated the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee of equal protection, because the women received mental health care far inferior to what male prisoners receive.

A copy of today's settlement agreement is available online at: www.aclu.org/prisoners-rights/flynn-et-al-v-doyle-et-al-settlement-agreement

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org 

NEW YORK – A Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) employee at the T. Don Hutto immigration detention facility in Taylor, TX today was charged with sexually abusing numerous female immigration detainees. Donald Charles Dunn, a resident supervisor at the Hutto facility, is accused of abusing the detainees as he was transporting them to the airport after they had been released on bond and has allegedly admitted to telling the women that he was going to "frisk" them before touching their breasts and genital areas for his gratification, according to Sheriff's officials in Williamson County, TX. Dunn is charged with official oppression and unlawful restraint.

The American Civil Liberties Union is actively investigating the sexual abuse of female detainees at Hutto, where the detention of families was halted last year after the successful settlement of an ACLU lawsuit charging that children were being imprisoned in inhumane conditions while their parents awaited immigration decisions.

As part of its investigation, the ACLU has obtained via the Texas Public Information Act copies of both the Intergovernmental Services Agreement (IGSA) between Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), CCA and Williamson County, under which the Hutto facility is operated, and ICE's own transport policy. Both documents are being made available to the public and can be found online at: www.aclu.org/huttodocs. The opportunity for abuse was the result of a failure by CCA officials to abide by the IGSA that female immigration detainees not be isolated with male staff members.    

The following can be attributed to Vanita Gupta, Deputy Legal Director of the ACLU:

"The sexual abuse of numerous immigration detainees at Hutto underscores the systemic failures that continue to plague our nation's broken immigration detention system. The irony is that ICE touts Hutto as a flagship facility, emblematic of its commitment to reform. Clearly, that commitment is shallow. ICE has ignored repeated calls for increased and independent oversight and accountability of its immigration detention facilities and the private contractors like CCA who run them, and tragedies like this are the unfortunate result. It is time for ICE officials to live up to their promise of creating a ‘truly civil' immigration detention system that does not tolerate the abuse and degradation of its detainees."

The following can be attributed to Lisa Graybill, Legal Director of the ACLU of Texas:

"It is long past time to close the book on ICE's relationship with CCA. If this administration is serious about reform, it cannot continue to spend millions of taxpayer dollars every month on a private contractor that has proven over and again it is demonstrably incapable of running a safe and humane facility. Immigrant women, many of whom who have fled to the United States seeking refuge from sexual violence, should not fear more of the same in the hands of ICE and its contractors. Zero tolerance starts at the top. The only way for ICE to restore integrity to its system is to immediately sever its contract with CCA and begin a new era of transparency and accountability." 

The Chairman and Ranking Member of the Homeland Security Committee, along with four other Senators, have sent a letter to the head of the US Marshal Service to ask why the federal agency stored more than 35,000 images from whole body imaging scans taken at the Orlando federal courthouse. The letter follows a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, filed by EPIC, in which the Marshal Service was forced to disclose the fact that it had stored body scanner images. EPIC has also filed an emergency motion in federal court to suspend the program, pending a thorough review of the airport body scanner program. For more information, see EPIC: Whole Body Imaging Technology and EPIC v. DHS (Suspension of Body Scanner Program).

The recently announced Facebook service Places makes user location data routinely available to others, including Facebook business partners, regardless of whether users wish to disclose their location. There is no single opt-out to avoid location tracking; users must change several different privacy settings to restore their privacy status quo. For users who do not want location information revealed to others, EPIC recommends that Facebook users: (1) disable "Friends can check me in to Places," (2) customize "Places I Check In," (3) disable "People Here Now," and (4) uncheck "Places I've Visited." EPIC, joined by many consumer and privacy organizations, has two complaints pending at the Federal Trade Commission concerning Facebook's unfair and deceptive trade practices, which are frequently associated with new product announcements. For more information, see EPIC In Re Facebook, EPIC In Re Facebook II, and EPIC Facebook Privacy.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

CHICAGO – Responding to a series of incidents in which individuals in four counties in Illinois have been charged with violating Illinois' eavesdropping law for making audio recordings of public conversations with police, the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois today asked a federal court to rule that the First Amendment bans such prosecutions. The ACLU lawsuit, filed in federal district court in Chicago, argues that individuals (and organizations such as the ACLU) may make audio (and video) recordings of police who are performing their public duties in a public place and speaking in a voice loud enough to be heard by the unassisted human ear.

The case is of particular import because the law is being used to arrest and prosecute those who want to monitor police activity in order to deter or detect any police misconduct. In Champaign a few years ago, for example, a group of community activists attempting to document police practices in predominantly African American neighborhoods were charged with violating the Illinois eavesdropping law when they filmed and recorded police interactions with citizens in the public way. (The charges were dropped only after the installation of a new states attorney.) In Chicago, State's Attorney Anita Alvarez currently is prosecuting an individual for violating the eavesdropping statute by recording police officers.

Illinois' eavesdropping law criminalizes the recording of certain non-private conversations, one of a small handful of states that does so. Similar prosecutions have occurred in other states, including Massachusetts and Maryland. Yet even as the Illinois law criminalizes civilians who audio record police, the law allows police to audio record civilians during traffic stops and in other situations.

The ACLU recently felt the limitation of this law. The media reported that Chicago police were conducting random searches of bags and backpacks of individuals who were passing by Chicago beaches on the pathway that runs adjacent to the beach and Lake Shore Drive. When the ACLU investigated, it could not use widely available audio/video recording devices – like the smart phones carried by millions of Americans – to document police activity and conversations, because doing so would risk arrest or prosecution.

“There is a lot of talk about the need for more transparency in government – we should demand that transparency from the police,” said Harvey Grossman, Legal Director for the ACLU of Illinois. “Organizations and individuals should not be threatened with prosecution and jail time simply for monitoring the activities of police in public, having conversations in a public place at normal volume of conversation.”

“Illinois' eavesdropping law does not permit individuals or groups such as ours to gather critical information about police activities – information that we share with our members, policy makers and the general public,” Grossman added.

The lawsuit was filed against Anita Alvarez as the State's Attorney of Cook County. She is sued in her official capacity as a prosecutor charged with enforcing the law. The ACLU of Illinois argues that the law infringes on the First Amendment right of individuals and organizations to gather information about the police, to share such information with the public, and to use such information to petition government for redress or grievances or policy changes. The ACLU seeks a court declaration and injunction against the application of Illinois' eavesdropping law to audio recording police performing their public duties in a public place while speaking in a voice audible to the unassisted ear.

“It is not acceptable that an organization such as the ACLU of Illinois is threatened with prison time for conducting legitimate investigations into police action in Illinois,” said Adam Schwartz, Senior Staff Counsel for the ACLU of Illinois. “We should not be forced to choose between fulfilling our mission and risking prison time for staff members.”

“If this law stays in force, it will remain difficult for many citizens in Illinois to monitor and seek reform of police practices,” added Richard O'Brien, a lawyer with the Chicago office of Sidley Austin LLP who is cooperating with the ACLU on this case. “It is time to change this law and let transparency shine into the practices of our law enforcement agencies.”

Assisting Grossman, Schwartz and O'Brien on the case are Linda R. Friedlieb and Matthew D. Taksin of Sidley Austin LLP and Karen Sheley of the ACLU of Illinois.

A copy of the complaint if available at http://www.aclu-il.org/featured/2010/Complaint-ACLUvAlvarez.pdf

Three U.S. Senators have objected to the Department of Homeland Security's expansion of the airport body scanner program. In a letter to DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano, Senators Collins (R-ME), Burr (R-NC), and Coburn (R-OK) have asked "why the Department continues to purchase this technology when legitimate concerns about its safety appear to remain unanswered." The Senators noted that "the issue of radiation associated with the backscatter x-ray AIT machines has not been adequately addressed by TSA." They urged the agency's Chief Medical Officer, working with independent experts, to conduct a review of the health effects on travelers and airport personnel. EPIC recently submitted a FOIA request to the DHS for all records of tests conducted by the agency regarding radiation impacts. EPIC has also filed an emergency motion in federal court to suspend the program, pending an thorough review of the airport body scanner program. For more information, see EPIC: Whole Body Imaging Technology and EPIC v. DHS (Suspension of Body Scanner Program).