LOS ANGELES - The ACLU of Southern California filed a friend of the court brief on behalf of attorney Tony Capozzola, who represents Marie Elise West, in People v. West. Ms. West is charged with murder and hate crimes after allegedly using her car to run down and kill a Latino man in Van Nuys earlier this year. The gag order prevents Capozzola from discussing the case or related issues with the media.

"The public has an interest in a full discussion of the difficult issues raised by this case," said Peter Eliasberg, staff attorney for the ACLU of Southern California. "Look at the facts: Ms. West has been involved in the county mental health system. Did the system work? Was there a breakdown in monitoring and treating her? Do mentally ill people receive adequate and timely treatment in this county, and, if not, how does that affect their own and the public's safety? These are compelling current issues - questions which this case urgently raises for the consideration of the public."

"A gag order stifles and undermines the free and full discussion which is so vital to the public good," said Eliasberg. "Imagine if the attorneys or plaintiffs in Rampart-related cases, for example, were laboring under a gag order - our understanding of the need for reform would be greatly diminished."

Eliasberg pointed out that concerns about pre-trial publicity prejudicing the jury pool must be considered in proper perspective.

"Courts have ruled that in a county as large as Los Angeles," said Eliasberg, "with a correspondingly large jury pool from which to select, the likelihood of prejudicing the entire jury pool through pre-trial publicity is generally too small to justify a gag order."

"The City of Los Angeles has not justified this gag order," said Eliasberg, "and a restriction of speech this severe requires the government to make the justification."

The gag order, already in effect, will be challenged in today's hearing before the Superior Court of the State of California.

On Sunday afternoon, the LAPD yet again trampled on the free speech rights of peaceful protesters, legal observers, and journalists at a demonstration of over 1,000 people held at LAPD headquarters in downtown Los Angeles. Ironically, the demonstration was against police brutality. Instead of dealing with the handful of individuals engaged in illegal behavior, the LAPD attacked indiscriminately. The police - who did not declare an unlawful assembly - intervened with a heavy hand and without warning, on horseback and in riot gear, dispersing the crowd by indiscriminately using batons and shooting rubber bullets. Two people who were wearing the brightly colored, clearly marked hats of official legal observers were standing on a public sidewalk when they were rammed by two officers on motorcycles.

Instead of cooperating with the rally organizers, the police responded with violence, turning a tense situation into a volatile one.

We already know that several people were hurt in yesterday's actions by the police and only hope that no one was seriously injured by the LAPD's extreme use of force and its undifferentiated attacks on a crowd of people, most of whom were trying to leave the scene.

Once again the LAPD's actions point out that the department is out of control, and underscores the critical need for truly independent, outside civilian oversight of the police department.

LOS ANGELES - In a ringing endorsement of free speech, a federal court judge today made clear that he would issue a preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of Los Angeles Municipal Code �_ 80.75, which prohibits placing "For Sale" signs in cars parked on Los Angeles city streets. The ruling came in a case brought by the ACLU of Southern California in June 2000 on behalf of Edward Burkow, a man who was fined by the City of Los Angeles in September of 1999 for placing a "For Sale" sign in his white Volkswagen while it was parked on a city street.

"Every Southern Californian knows that automobiles are also vehicles of self-expression," said Peter Eliasberg, staff attorney at the ACLU of Southern California. "We use our cars as platforms to pitch our web-sites and herbal formulas, to argue about whales and fetuses, to joke with each other, to promote our acting careers, to advertize our tastes in music, fast food, politicians, deities, and sexual partners -- in short, to engage in virtually every kind of conversation that can be imagined, from the inane to the profound. The city's ill-conceived scheme to regulate one aspect of this vehicular open forum has been dealt a blow today."

Geoff Thomas, of Paul Hastings, Janofsky & Walker LLP, pro bono co-counsel in the case, emphasized that today's preliminary injunction was a victory for individuals' rights to engage in commercial free speech.

"While it's true that different standards apply to commercial speech, the Constitution protects individuals' commercial as well as other speech rights," said Thomas. "Too often, regulation of commercial speech means that only those with the resources to challenge a restriction are truly free. That's why it's so critical to stand up for individuals' rights to exercise commercial speech freely."

Judge A. Howard Matz rejected the city's justifications of the law, which included traffic safety and aesthetic concerns.

"Under L.A.M.C. .ﾌ_ 80.75," wrote Judge Matz, "commercial advertisements on cars could offer anything for sale, such as ads depicting jewelry, drugs, or sexually explicit magazines, except the car on which the sign is mounted."

"The court," wrote Judge Matz, "cannot fathom how a sign in a parked car is more dangerous than the same sign in a moving car."

"As to the indisputably important 'aesthetic' concerns," wrote Judge Matz, "Defendant could minimize alleged harms with measures far short of outright prohibition."

Since filing the lawsuit on June 1, 2000, the ACLU has received numerous of calls from throughout the Los Angeles region from individuals who have been fined for putting "For Sale" signs in their cars.

"This ruling is a red flag to all the cities in the region that enforce these 'For Sale' sign bans," said Michael Small, Chief Counsel at the ACLU of Southern California. "If you don't a want a losing battle on your hands, you better take get these ordinances off the books."