LOS ANGELES - A judge 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 two years ago.

U. S. District Judge Virginia A. Phillips Thursday granted Ontario officers their motion for class certification writing: "A class action will permit proposed class members who remain OPD employees to prosecute claims they might otherwise hesitate to bring because they fear retaliation by the OPD (Ontario Police Department)."

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

"It's great the judge allowed all Ontario officers to pursue their rights collectively," said Trujillo, an officer with the Ontario Police Department. "All of our rights were infringed upon years ago and now we will have the chance to fix that. This is a good step forward."

The American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California, along with the law firms of Lackie & Dammeier LLP, and Bahan & Associates, filed the lawsuit last fall.

"It's just as important for the officers affected as it is for the safety of the community," said Peter Eliasberg, managing attorney with the ACLU of Southern California. "Class certification will allow police officers to seek accountability and answers about the illegal videotaping without fear of retaliation."

Around 1996 a police sergeant arranged for the installation of a hidden surveillance camera in locker room at the direction of the Chief of Police. The camera was concealed in the ceiling and provided a view of the door and the adjacent lockers and dressing area. The surveillance camera was connected to a video tape recorder located in a nearby office. The camera's installation was arranged by a sergeant within the Ontario Police Department and 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 names the City of Ontario, the former Chief of Police, and others as defendants.

LOS ANGELES - A federal district court ruled Friday that a proposed transfer of the federal land on which a Latin cross sits in the Mojave National Preserve to a private party is unconstitutional.

Judge Robert J. Timlin, who held in July 2002 that the cross situated on a prominent rock in the preserve violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, ruled that an obscure section of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act of 2004 Act designed to facilitate the exchange of the land on which the cross sits to the Veterans of Foreign Wars "violates (the) court's judgment ordering a permanent injunction" to remove the cross.

"The judge's decision sends a clear message that the federal government should not endorse one religion over another," said Peter Eliasberg, managing attorney for the ACLU of Southern California. "The courts have consistently held that the cross in the Mojave National Preserve violates the First Amendment."

In his ruling, Judge Timlin wrote: "It is evident to the court that the government has engaged in herculean efforts to preserve the Latin cross on federal land and that the proposed transfer of the subject property can only be viewed as an attempt to keep the Latin cross atop Sunrise Rock without actually curing the continuing Establishment Clause violation by Defendants."

Eliasberg said the decision clears the way for removal of the cross.

The Mojave Desert cross sits on a federal land preserve in southeastern California between the cities of Barstow, Calif. and Las Vegas, Nevada. The preserve encompasses roughly 1.6 million acres of the Mojave Desert. The cross itself is located in a section of the preserve known as Sunrise Rock and has been covered by a plywood box since 2002.

Last summer the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a previous decision by Judge Timlin that the presence of a cross located on the federal Mojave Desert Preserve is a sectarian religious symbol and violates the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The Ninth Circuit's opinion was written by Judge Alex Kozinski, a Reagan appointee. All three judges on the panel were appointed by Republican presidents.

The Ninth Circuit did not address whether Section 8121 of the Defense Appropriations Act of 2004 would allow the federal government to swap the land for other desert land or if the section "would pass constitutional muster."

The National Park Service (NPS), the agency that is charged with maintaining the cross, had been on notice about First Amendment violations since 1999 when the ACLU/SC sent a letter threatening legal action if the cross were not removed. In December of 2000, the U.S. House of Representatives added a rider to an appropriations bill that prevented the use of federal funds to remove the cross.

SACRAMENTO - A broad coalition of privacy rights, women, consumer, and conservative groups are supporting a bill introduced by Bay Area Sen. Joe Simitian that would prohibit any document created by the state, county, or municipal government from containing a radio frequency identification (RFID) tag or other device that can broadcast an individual's personal information. The tags are tiny devices with miniature antennae that can broadcast personal information or enable that information to be scanned remotely.

"This bill is all about protecting people's right to privacy, personal safety and financial security," Sen. Simitian said. "This measure will protect families and individuals from having their most private information broadcast to anyone who is able to collect it. My hope is that state and local government will be part of the solution, not part of the problem."

RFIDs are already widely used in the retail sector to track product inventory and chip readers are readily available to those outside government. The personal information that can be broadcast from documents like driver's licenses includes an individual's name, address, telephone number, date of birth, race, religion, ethnicity, nationality, photograph, fingerprint, social security number and any other unique personal identifier or number. Such personal information can then be read remotely without one's knowledge.

The information contained in the tags can also be used for the purposes of stalking or kidnapping and for 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. RFID's embedded in public employee identification tags and other official documents could also enable the government to track the movements of the document-bearer.

The legislation was introduced on Feb. 23, days after a company in Sutter, Calif. withdrew its pilot program from an elementary school when parents successfully petitioned to have the radio frequency identification tags removed. The students were required to wear the ID badges that included the device along with the student's name, photo, grade, school name, class year and the four-digit school ID number.

"We fully support this legislation that will protect families throughout California. We don't want to see our children treated like pieces of inventory with their personal information made available to anyone that has the right technology," said Jeffrey and Michele Tatro, parents of a thirteen-year old Sutter elementary student who had to wear the mandatory device. "No person should ever be forced to carry an RFID tag. It violates fundamental rights to privacy, it is demeaning, and it threatens our family's physical and economic security."

"These types of tracking devices lessen security," said Pam Noles, a policy associate with the ACLU of Southern California. "By allowing the bearer's personal details and location to be pinpointed with ease, RFID-enabled badges compromise safety."

Beth Givens, founder and executive director of the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, added: "This bill will protect students, families and individuals who are required to carry government issued IDs. In addition, public employees should not be put in a situation where their document enables them to be monitored and tracked by anyone who has the right technology."

The ACLU, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, Consumer Action, the California Commission on the Status of Women, California National Organization for Women, and the Statewide California Coalition for Battered Women are supporting the bill.