LOS ANGELES - A California Court of Appeal today held that a law criminalizing "false" complaints against police officers violates the First Amendment. This is the first court of appeal decision to address the constitutionality of Penal Code ﾌ_148.6, which the ACLU has been fighting because of its chilling effect on legitimate citizen complaints of police misconduct

"This is a great victory for free speech," said Dan Tokaji, staff attorney with the ACLU of Southern California who submitted an amicus brief and argued the case. "Today's decision clarifies that Californians have right NOT to remain silent. This ruling clears the way for victims and witnesses of police abuse to inform authorities, without fear of being criminally prosecuted."

Penal Code ﾌ_148.6 makes it a crime to file a knowingly false complaint of police misconduct. Though ostensibly targeted only at false complaints, today's decision in People v. Stanistreet recognizes that the law has a tendency to chill truthful complaints of police misconduct - especially since the very police departments accused of misconduct will be determining the truth or falsity of such complaints.

Today's decision holds that Penal Code ﾌ_148.6 discriminates based on content, by targeting citizen complaints about the police for unfavorable treatment. By selectively targeting citizen complaints against police officers -- and not firefighters, paramedics, teachers, elected officials or anyone else ? the law violates the First Amendment.

The ACLU has been fighting against laws that target citizen complaints against police officers since 1997. So far, three federal district courts have held unconstitutional either Penal Code ﾌ_148.6 or its companion civil statute, Civil Code ﾌ_47.5 which allows civil defamation actions against those who complain about police misconduct.

"We are very pleased with today's decision," stated Daniel Tokaji. "This law was a crude attempt to turn back the clock on progress toward improving communication between the police and the community. It is very important that we continue the fight to preserve the open channel of communications between citizens and the police departments that serve them, by making sure that people who file citizen complaints are not subject to retaliatory civil or criminal actions."

LOS ANGELES - The American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California clarified to Los Angeles City Council today its stance on the collection of racial profiling data by the LAPD, which is a requirement under the federal consent decree.

Staff Attorney Catherine Lhamon provided the following statement to members of the City Council:

I wish to clarify the ACLU of Southern California's position on the collection of LAPD racial profiling data, which was mischaracterized in yesterday's Daily News. The ACLU-SC strongly supports collection of LAPD racial profiling data as quickly as practicable, as well as full compliance with the terms of the consent decree negotiated between the City and the United States Department of Justice. As we have repeated time and again, we believe the persons living, working, and traveling in Los Angeles deserve review of police practices to ensure that race does not determine their treatment at the hands of our police. It is essential that data collection not be delayed.

As the consent decree requires, the LAPD must collect comprehensive data concerning the putative reason for a motorist or pedestrian stop. The LAPD must record not only the apparent race of the persons stopped, but also identifying information for the officers involved and the date and time of the stop, the reason for the stop, and the circumstances of the stop, including whether the persons were searched and why and whether the persons consented to such a search. This crucial information begins the important process of monitoring police practices to hold our officers accountable to the public.

Certainly the methods for analysis of the data, once collected, are also critically important, and the public deserves information regarding the various options for data analysis, including information concerning which data collection methods are already in use in other cities and states. We remain bewildered by closed-door exclusionary practices that prevent the community from participating in key components to implementing meaningful police reform, and we expect that the LAPD and the City will immediately begin involving community members in the process of determining how to analyze the data to be collected. But that imperative to involve the community cannot impede the progress of the actual collection. The consent decree mandates that the collection begin by November 1, 2001, and our community deserves nothing less.

LOS ANGELES - The American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California today announced a suit on behalf of Los Angeles mural artist Mike McNeilly against the City of Los Angeles demanding that the city allow the artist's patriotic murals to remain on display. The ACLU/SC suit on behalf of the artist cites his First Amendment right to engage in non-commercial political speech.

"Since the tragic events of September 11, 2001, we have seen Americans reaching out to each other as never before. In our own ways, many of us have sought to display both our shared love for this country, our concern for those who lost their lives, our admiration for those who have displayed uncommon courage in the midst of the chaos that surrounds us, and our devotion to the principles of freedom and democracy at the heart of our Constitution. Mike McNeilly is one such person," said Dan Tokaji, staff attorney at the ACLU of Southern California.

A few days after the tragedy of September 11, 2001, McNeilly erected a large mural entitled "9-11" with the words "God Bless AMERICA" beneath the images of a New York City firefighter, an American Flag and the face of the Statue of Liberty. The mural was erected on a privately owned building in Westwood with the consent of the building's owner. On September 21, 2001 the City of Los Angeles issued an order asking the artist to remove the "9-11" mural. McNeilly refused to take down the mural and has recently erected a new mural entitled "Liberty and Justice 9-11".

"There is no justification for such infringements on private noncommercial speech," said Tokaji. "This is especially true when the City not only tolerates but welcomes both commercial and noncommercial artworks of comparable size on other buildings, from the many lively paintings on buildings lining Sunset Blvd., to paintings of classical musicians next to the 110 freeway downtown, to giant-sized paintings of Shaquille O'Neill and Wilt Chamberlin on a hotel near the Staples Center."

"If there is anything that we should learn from our history," said Tokaji, "it is that the values that people are so talking about these days ? freedom and democracy ? are most in jeopardy in times of crisis. Now is a time when we should be most vigilant to protect those freedoms that make this country great and that unite us as Americans."