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.'

LOS ANGELES, Calif. - The American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California and the Bear Valley Unified School District announced today that they will enter into a settlement that will protect students' right to free speech.

Under the agreement, the district will update its speech and dress code to reflect the constitutionally protected rights of free expression and speech that all students enjoy. In the spirit of promoting these constitutionally protected rights, the district and the ACLU/SC, will jointly organize a forum for teachers and students to provide them with accurate information about students' free-speech rights and California's nondiscrimination policies. At the request of district officials, the ACLU/SC will also provide training for teachers on California law governing nondiscrimination and student speech.

'We applaud the district for swiftly acting to ensure that every student is guaranteed his or her constitutionally protected right to free speech, especially on controversial political matters,' said Peter Bibring, ACLU/SC staff attorney. 'The new policy sends a strong message that the rights of students under California law will be respected, while helping to clarify those rights for students and educators.'

The agreement arose from an incident on Nov. 3, one day before California voters cast their ballots on Proposition 8. That day, Mariah Jimenez wore a T-shirt to school on which she had written, 'Prop. 8 Equals HATE.' The proposition sought to amend the state constitution and prohibit same-sex marriage.

During Jimenez' sixth-period class, a teacher objected to the shirt and sent Jimenez to the principal's office, who insisted Jimenez either take off the shirt or remain in his office. Jimenez took off the shirt and returned to class.

In a two-page letter to Jimenez, district Superintendent Carole Ferraud acknowledged that school officials violated the student's constitutionally protected free-speech rights by forcing her to choose between removing her T-shirt or staying in the principal's office.

'We know that students do not shed their rights to freedom of speech or expression when they enter the school grounds and the fact that you were put in a position to have to make a choice between removing your shirt or remaining in the administration office was, in fact, a violation of your freedom of speech,' Ferraud stated in the letter sent to Jimenez today. 'The district extends apologies to you for taking adverse actions based on your lawful right to free speech.'

Upon hearing about the settlement Jimenez said, 'I'm glad the district apologized and recognized that I was exercising my free-speech rights. As a student, it's very important to me to be able to express myself and my political views about discrimination. With this settlement, I believe I have done something to protect other students' rights.'

The district has agreed to revise its policy to include language that explicitly states the speech protections guaranteed to students under established state and federal law, including the right to exercise freedom of speech and press by using bulletin boards, buttons and other materials not sanctioned by the school, as long as the speech is not obscene, libelous or slanderous, or creates a clear and present danger.

'The school district should be commended for using this opportunity to educate both teachers and students about the importance of free speech and nondiscrimination,' said Lori Rifkin, staff attorney for the ACLU/SC.