LOS ANGELES - The ACLU of Southern California will represent domestic violence and day laborer groups in a lawsuit defending a Los Angeles Police Department policy that is a cornerstone of community policing, a judge ruled Wednesday.

"The LAPD should be commended, not sued, for encouraging community policing," said ACLU/SC staff attorney Nora Preciado. "We are pleased that the judge is allowing members of the community affected by this case to participate in it."

Police officers credit the policy with improving relations between the department and vulnerable populations, according to an independent review in 2001. "Although immigrant trust of the LAPD remains an issue, many long-time LAPD officers stated that there is a marked difference in the attitude of the immigrant community respecting the LAPD since Special Order 40 was issued," the review panel reported.

Jessica Aronoff, executive director of Break the Cycle, one of the intervenors, said many of the women who seek help from her group are young Latinas, some of whom identify as undocumented residents.

'Many domestic violence victims are already terrified to talk to the police or take legal action to stop the abuse,' said Aronoff. 'For those who are undocumented or have a family member or a friend who is, the fear is compounded. Without Special Order 40, so are the odds that abusers will go free.'

Special Order 40, adopted in 1979, established that "undocumented alien status in itself is not a matter for police action" and that officers could not "initiate police action where the objective is to discover the alien status of a person."

LAPD leaders told the panel that Special Order 40 rules "strike an appropriate balance that meets LAPD's law enforcement needs, protect the rights of the immigrant communities" and allow for appropriate contacts between police officers and immigration officials.

Today, Los Angeles' foreign-born population is more than 40 percent of the city's total, according to the U.S. Census. In 1979, it was 27 percent.

The original lawsuit targeting the LAPD policy, Sturgeon v. Bratton, was filed in May in Los Angeles Superior Court. Special Order 40 is supported by Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, the police department, the City Attorney's office, the Los Angeles City Council, and many community and advocacy groups. The Institute of Popular Education of Southern California, Los Jornaleros and El Comite de Jornaleros are also interveners in the case.

SACRAMENTO - The first bill in the country to require privacy and security protections for the use of Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) tags in state government-issued ID's passed last night in the Senate with a strong bipartisan vote of 30-7 and is now heading for the Governor's desk. The bill passed out of the Assembly with a bi-partisan vote of 49-26 on August 21.

The Identity Information Protection Act (SB 768) is authored by Senator Joe Simitian (D-Palo Alto). The bill ensures that state-issued identification, such as a driver's license, will have adequate privacy and security protections. The bill also guarantees that Californians will be able to decide who and when others can access their personal information.

"RFID technology is not in and of itself the issue. The issue is whether and under what circumstances the government should be allowed to compel its residents to carry technology that broadcasts their most personal information," said Senator Simitian. "This bill provides a thoughtful and rational policy framework for making those decisions. I hope the Governor agrees."

Since the introduction of SB 768, the legislation has become even more salient as the vulnerabilities of RFID technology have become more public and the potential use of RFID technology in identification documents has become more widespread. In the past year, the security on the RFID-embedded Dutch e-passport and the VeriChip- the RFID chip approved for implantation in humans- were both breached and the U.S. Government Accountability Office released a report detailing privacy and security concerns with the use of RFID technology.

The California bill has drawn national attention following the federal government's decision to embed RFID tags in new U.S. passports. The bill is a model for other states considering the use of RFID tags because it provides safeguards and guidelines on how to protect the privacy rights of individuals.

RFID tags are tiny computer chips that can be embedded in public documents. The danger is that anyone with an RFID scanner can read the personal data stored on the chips. The chips do not alert the person that his or her personal information is being transmitted. The unknown disclosure of that information can put a person at risk of tracking, stalking and identity theft. Last year, more than 39,000 Californians were victims of identity theft and these devices would make that crime even easier to commit.

"There are some obvious privacy risks with the application of RFID technology, especially identity theft - one of the fastest growing crimes in the nation," said Ramona Ripston, executive director of the ACLU/SC. "That is exactly why the Governor must sign SB 768 into law - to protect Californians from harm to their privacy, financial security and personal safety."

ORANGE, Calif. - Members of a Vietnamese Buddhist temple may hold religious services at the medical building it owns despite Garden Grove's repeated attempts to prohibit worship at the site, a federal judge ruled Wednesday.

U.S. District Judge Cormac Carney asked both the city and the temple to create a compromise about how the temple and its congregants can use their building for religious services. The Judge gave both parties until Friday. If no agreement is reached, Carney will hold a hearing on the temple's request for an injunction to stop the city from enforcing its zoning laws.

'This is a great victory,' said Belinda Escobosa Helzer, ACLU/SC staff attorney. 'Yesterday's decision frees the monastics and the congregation to pray and worship together and breathes new life into the temple. We are pleased that the judge recognized the strength of the legal claims and the need for relief even before a final decision is made and encouraged that the temple congregants' will worship together again soon.'

Quan Am Temple, or the Vietnamese Buddhism Study Temple, filed a lawsuit in federal district court in Santa Ana earlier this month against the Garden Grove city council and planning commission for violating the Temple and its congregation's First Amendment rights to free religious exercise, their rights under the California Constitution and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000.

Quan Am Temple opened in Garden Grove in 1999, but by 2003 the congregation had outgrown its building. The Temple began looking for a larger permanent site to house a monastery and a place of worship for the congregation of 150 to 300 area residents.

Current Garden Grove statutes require religious institutions to be housed in residential zones or seek a zone change from the city and obtain a conditional use permit prior to practicing their religion in the city. In 2004 a congregant loaned Quan Am Temple $1.95 million to purchase a medical building on 1.8 acres in an area zoned Office-Professional that had been on the market for 3 years. Before purchasing the property, the Abbot and two followers received assurances from members of the city council that the city would support the project, but despite a recommendation from city staff the planning commission and the city council denied permits for the project.

The city has routinely allowed non-religious non-profits, including the Boy's and Girls Club, which neighbors the temple site, to be housed in commercial areas, and has granted zone changes to some religious groups in the city, Escobosa Helzer said.