LOS ANGELES, Calif. - The American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California called today for an independent investigation into the Pasadena Police Department's fatal shooting of Leroy Barnes Jr. during a Feb. 19 traffic stop.

The fatal shooting of the Pasadena resident -- and the shifting accounts provided by police following the incident -- raises troubling questions about whether the officers involved in the incident purposely provided false information.

Police initially reported that Barnes exited the vehicle and fired at officers, but those accounts were later conflicted by Pasadena Police Chief Bernard Melekian, who stated Barnes never left the vehicle and was actually in the back seat of the car when he was shot by at least one officer. Melekian also stated that Barnes did not shoot at officers, though he was armed and assaulted an officer.

The ACLU/SC is also concerned about disturbing reports from witnesses who allege that officers continued to shoot Barnes after he fell still on the street. News accounts of the incident further state that police fired their weapons into the air as crowds gathered around the scene of the shooting.

'The Pasadena Police Department has issued conflicting and, at best, incomplete information about the circumstances of this tragic shooting. This will raise doubts and questions in the minds of many people, and it should,' said Ramona Ripston, ACLU/SC executive director. 'Because of that, the department should stand aside and allow an independent investigation to take place that can focus on getting out the truth about this incident.'

Added Peter Bibring, ACLU/SC staff attorney: 'It's troubling that the Pasadena Police Department is changing its story; that raises questions as to why they gave out erroneous information to begin with, and whether officers initially lied about what happened. The residents of Pasadena must be given a clear account of what led to the shooting, and why the police initially made incorrect reports that the victim fired on them.'

LOS ANGELES, Calif. - Finding that federal agents illegally detained and arrested dozens of people during a work site raid in Van Nuys last year, an immigration judge terminated orders to deport Gregorio Perez Cruz in a ruling this week. The ruling is likely to influence the outcome of dozens of the remaining cases arising out of the same raid.

In a 19-page ruling, Los Angeles Immigration Judge A. Ashley Tabaddor found that on Feb. 7, 2008, armed immigration agents blocked exits at Micro Solutions Enterprise and forcefully ordered dozens of workers to stop working. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents then illegally detained and questioned Perez Cruz and dozens of others without reasonable suspicion that the workers were in the country unlawfully. ICE agents also denied food and water to Perez Cruz, along with dozens of other workers, for over 18 hours prior to interrogating him. He was never advised of his right to an attorney or told that his statements could be used against him.

The judge also found it critical that ICE agents indiscriminately arrested everyone at the factory, including dozens of citizens.

'We are pleased that the judge recognized the coercive and illegal tactics immigration officials used in carrying out this work site raid,' said Ahilan Arulanantham, director of immigrants' rights and national security for the ACLU/SC. 'The decision sends a strong message to immigration officials that they must not violate their own policy governing the rights of detainees, and that they cannot use intimidation and other illegal tactics when conducting enforcement operations.'

More than 150 workers, including pregnant women, were detained on suspicion of immigration violations during the raid of Micro Solutions Enterprise, a toner and ink manufacturing company. The agents had no arrest warrants for most of the workers and never individually established suspicion that those arrested were immigration violators. ICE agents subsequently barred attorneys from accompanying those detained during interviews in the days following the raid.

A coalition of groups -- including the National Lawyers Guild, National Immigration Law Center and the ACLU/SC -- immediately filed a lawsuit against ICE for repeatedly preventing attorneys from accompanying their clients at interviews with federal agents. That case was settled last March with an agreement that ICE would permit attorneys to accompany their clients.

'The U.S. government spent endless hours and an untold amount of taxpayer dollars to arrest hard-working people, almost all who had no criminal history. And in Gregorio's case, they accomplished nothing. The Van Nuys work site raid is one more example of how a zealous focus on deportation-only measures can run amok,' said Xiomara Corpe�o, director of community organizing at the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles.

Represented by the ACLU/SC and the Law Offices of Noemi Ramirez, Perez Cruz was the first of the dozens of those arrested to challenge ICE's arrest before an immigration judge. Tabaddor's ruling will provide an influential finding for other immigration judges dealing with cases from this raid, Arulanantham noted.

The workers detained at the raid have been assisted by a large coalition of private attorneys from the National Lawyers Guild, the American Immigration Lawyers' Association and several immigrants' rights organizations, including the Coalition for Humane Immigrants' Rights of Los Angeles, the Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law, the National Immigration Law Center, and the Central American Resource Center.

'This was an incredible moment in my life. I was afraid I would be torn away from my young son and family and they would lose my support,' Perez Cruz said. 'I am so thankful that I can continue to provide for them.'

LOS ANGELES, Calif. - The city of Ontario has approved a legal settlement with officers from its own police department who sued over being secretly and illegally videotaped while dressing and undressing in the department's men's locker room. The class-action lawsuit was brought on behalf of about 125 Ontario police officers by the ACLU of Southern California and the law firm of Hadsell, Stormer, Keeny, Richardson and Renick LLP.

The $2.75 million settlement, which includes attorney's fees, was approved by the Ontario City Council on Tuesday night and will be divided among the officers. The settlement brings the long-running case to a close and avoids a trial -- originally scheduled to begin in U.S. District Court in Riverside yesterday - to determine the amount of damages to be awarded, and whether the secret taping was authorized by then-Police Chief Lloyd Scharf and one of his lieutenants.

The ACLU/SC had already won a judgment that the locker-room surveillance violated the Fourth Amendment. That decision was affirmed in 2006 by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.

Peter Eliasberg, managing attorney for the ACLU/SC, said he's glad the city finally stood up and accepted responsibility for the illegal surveillance and attempts by city employees to cover it up after the video recording device was discovered. 'What was particularly outrageous about this case was that police supervisors would install video surveillance in a place that is obviously set aside for privacy, and that they would do it without a search warrant. Most members of the Ontario Police Department know from their academy training that you simply can't do that sort of thing,' Eliasberg said.

Ontario Police Detective Scott Anderson, one of the named plaintiffs in the case, said that he and his fellow officers 'are happy this is behind us, but disappointed that we won't be able to put on our case and show everybody the deception and violation of trust that occurred. It has been very stressful for the city to deny for the last four years what they did.'

The ACLU/SC and its legal partners filed a class-action lawsuit against the department and Scharf in 2004, one year after a hidden camera was found in the police department's men's locker room.

A member of the Ontario Police Department first arranged for the installation of the surveillance camera inside the locker room sometime around 1996, and later stated it was 'authorized' by higher ranking officers. The camera was concealed in the ceiling of the room which provided a view of the door, the adjacent lockers and a dressing area. The camera was attached to a videotape recorder in a nearby office. It remained there until it was discovered during the department's move into new headquarters in 2003.

All the persons identified on the single videotape that was found were represented in the lawsuit.

'This settlement agreement will bring closure to police officers who were put in the unfair and stressful position of confronting their own supervisors and department over something they knew was illegal,' said Anne Richardson, a partner with Hadsell Stormer. 'A locker room is not an appropriate place for secret surveillance, and police officers are entitled to the same privacy rights that we all have in such a location.'