LOS ANGELES - The ACLU California affiliates provided school districts across the state with information about students' free speech rights and school discipline in the wake of recent walkouts.

In the last few weeks, thousands of students have participated in walkouts throughout the state protesting proposed immigration legislation in Congress. More protests are expected in the upcoming weeks.

"We sent information to more than 1,000 school districts today and have been distributing similar information to public school students in Southern California to help ensure students' rights, under California law, are protected," said Ramona Ripston, Executive Director of the ACLU of Southern California. "We hope this information will help guide school administrators in responding to possible walkouts and free speech activity and students in their decisions in how to best and most appropriately express themselves in the coming weeks."

The information provided to school districts includes the following:

' Students who miss school in order to participate in a political protest may not be punished more harshly than those who miss school for any other unapproved purpose.

' When school administrators lock exits to prevent students from walking out of school it can pose serious safety concerns for students and staff.

' Students are allowed to express their political views while in school. Under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article 1, Section 2 of the California Constitution, student's free speech rights are guaranteed. This includes the right to wear buttons, hand out leaflets, write in "underground" or unofficial newspapers, distribute petitions and leaflets, and put notices on school bulletin boards.

The ACLU of Northern California, the ACLU of Southern California and the ACLU of San Diego and Imperial Counties sent the letter, along with a four-page document explaining students' free speech rights.

LOS ANGELES - A federal judge ruled late Tuesday that Ontario police officers' rights under both federal and state law were violated when a police detective installed a video camera in a men's locker room to spy on the officers.

U.S. District Judge Virginia A. Phillips held that Ontario Police Detective Brad Schneider, who arranged for the camera to be installed, violated the officers' rights under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the state constitution's right to privacy.

"We are very pleased that the Court recognized the serious infringement on the rights of these police officers not to have a hidden camera filming them in the locker room. The violation is all the more outrageous since police officers, more than any other government employee, should know what limits the Constitution imposes on installing a hidden camera," said Peter Eliasberg, Managing Attorney at the ACLU of Southern California.

The judge ruled that a jury must consider the evidence to decide whether then Chief of Police Lloyd Scharf authorized the surveillance. If the jury concludes he did, then both Scharf and the City of Ontario would be liable under the U.S. Constitution. The case will proceed to a jury trial unless it is appealed by the city.

Sgt. Steven Trujillo, said he sees a better future for the police department and was pleased with the decision.

'It's a great feeling to know that the judge agreed with us,' said Trujillo, who has been a member of the department for 21 years. 'We feel vindicated. We knew since the beginning that our Fourth Amendment rights had been violated and now we are ready to proceed to trial to show that the Chief Scharf authorized it.'

In April 2005 Judge Phillips certified a class action lawsuit affecting more than 100 Ontario police officers after they discovered a hidden camera in the police department's men's locker room in 2003. The lawsuit, which was filed in 2004, is known as Trujillo v. Ontario.

Around 1996 a hidden surveillance camera was installed in a locker room and concealed in the ceiling. The camera provided a view of the door and the adjacent lockers and dressing area and was connected to a video tape recorder located in a nearby office. It was discovered when the Police Department began the process of moving to a new headquarters.

Approximately 125 persons have been identified on the one videotape that the plaintiffs have seen. The suit named the City of Ontario, the former Chief of Police, and others as defendants.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California, is representing the plaintiff class along with the law firm of Bahan & Associates.

LOS ANGELES - A Sri Lankan Tamil torture victim was released late Monday night after spending more than four and a half years in a federal detention center despite being granted political asylum by an immigration judge and withholding of removal by a federal appeals court.

Saluja Thangaraja, who was released on her twenty-sixth birthday, fled Sri Lanka in October 2001 after being tortured, beaten and held captive there. She was detained on the U.S.-Mexico border later that month on her way to reunite with relatives in Canada and has been held in a federal detention center in Otay Mesa near San Diego since then.

"Although she won withholding two years ago and then asylum, the government kept her locked up for no reason simply because it was appealing her case. She did nothing wrong; she just came to this country seeking asylum from persecution," said Ranjana Natarajan, her attorney at the ACLU of Southern California.

Thangaraja's release comes after the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously ordered the release of Ahilan Nadarajah, a Sri Lankan Tamil torture victim who also escaped persecution and had been imprisoned by the U.S. government for nearly five years despite being granted asylum twice. Thangaraja and Nadarajah fled Sri Lanka in the same group, though they did not know each other previously.

Upon her release from detention, Thangaraja said, "I'm very happy. I'm relieved this day has finally come."

The Ninth Circuit ruled that Nadarajah's detention violated the law because of its extreme length and because there was almost no chance the government would remove him to another country. Judge Sidney R. Thomas writing for the three-judge panel said, "...we conclude that the general immigration detention statutes do not authorize the attorney general to incarcerate detainees for an indefinite period."

The Court went on to say that, consistent with Supreme Court precedent, arriving immigrants like Nadarajah who are in immigration proceedings can be detained only "for a reasonable period and only if there is a significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future." Nadarajah was also represented by the ACLU of Southern California.

"Ms. Thangaraja's case is remarkably similar to the case of Mr. Nadarajah. Both were torture victims, both were detained for almost five years, and both were in detention despite winning their cases," Natarajan said. "In Ms. Thangaraja's case, moreover, she won her case from a federal court two years ago. Like the Nadarajah case, her release shows that the government cannot detain people for years and years without very good reason."

Saluja Thangaraja is a member of the Tamil ethnic minority in Sri Lanka. In the mid-1990s, during years of civil unrest and turmoil, her family was displaced from their home and forced to live in a police camp after conflict broke out in her small town between the Sri Lankan Army and the separatist group, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. After finally returning to their home Thangaraja was twice abducted, beaten, tortured and accused by the army of being an LTTE member, which she is not. Both times she was held for weeks and both times her family had to bribe the army for her release. After her second abduction, Thangaraja went into hiding before her family decided she was not safe in Sri Lanka and she must leave the country to protect her life.

Since fleeing Sri Lanka in October 2001, Thangaraja's case has been in limbo in immigration courts. She was charged with being present in the U.S. without a valid visa and she applied for political asylum under the Geneva Convention Against Torture. Over the last four and a half years her case has worked it's way up to the Ninth Circuit and back down to an immigration judge again where she was granted asylum in June 2005, but has continued to be detained until Monday.