Despite the Los Angeles City Council's Sept. 20 decision to reject a hard-fought compromise designed as a first step toward providing true help for downtown's homeless population, the ACLU of Southern California's efforts to advocate on behalf of this vulnerable population continue.

This spring, the ACLU/SC won a historic victory for homeless rights when the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Jones v. City of Los Angeles that the city's anti-homeless ordinance was unconstitutional, and that arresting homeless people lying, sitting or sleeping on the sidewalk when no shelter space is available was cruel and unusual punishment.

Under the guidance of a court mediator, ACLU/SC staff worked with the offices of Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, LAPD Chief William Bratton and City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo to reach a compromise all could stand behind.

That compromise would allow police to enforce the city code only during the day in the area bounded by Central Avenue and Main, Third and Seventh streets, and allow the homeless who have no place else to go to sleep on sidewalks from 9 p.m. to 6 a.m., provided they are not within 10 feet of any business or residence. During those times, police would not be allowed to round them up and jail them.

'Together we proposed a first step to solving L.A.'s homeless crisis and not criminalizing the homeless,' said Ramona Ripston, ACLU/SC executive director. 'Any day you can get L.A.'s leaders on the same page about homelessness is a hopeful one. But what's most unfortunate is that we are not helping those most in need. The fight over the city code should shame us with the fact that thousands of people are forced to sleep outside every night.'

But at the 11th hour Councilwoman Jan Perry, armed with a secret report from outside counsel, announced a proposal that the city buck the proposed settlement and continue with plans to appeal the 9th Circuit decision and monitor homeless activity for 90 days. All but three of the 15 council members agreed to this last-minute addition and voted against the settlement.

There are at least 88,000 men, woman and children homeless in Los Angeles County, with 8,000 to 10,000 of them located in downtown. The county provides enough beds to serve less than half the region's homeless. In lieu of adequate comprehensive services, the county's jails are routinely used to substitute for mental health facilities.

'Thoughtful negotiations unraveled in favor of halting progress on skid row,' Ripston said.

'We must ask ourselves what kind of Los Angeles we want to live in. I, for one, do not want to live in a society that metes out punitive punishment to the homeless simply because they have no other place to go. We will all be better served by more affordable housing, comprehensive mental health and other medical care and job training.'

The ACLU/SC, acting in conjunction with the National Lawyers Guild, originally filed the suit in February 2003 on behalf of six homeless persons. It was argued before the 9th Circuit in December 2005.

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."