LOS ANGELES - Students at Locke High School, who are routinely subjected to intrusive searches of their persons, papers, and belongings, took action today as plaintiffs in a suit filed on their behalf in federal court by the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California. The lawsuit, filed against various Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) officials, alleges that students' Fourth Amendment rights have been violated by the searches.

"Our society is moving toward treating every youth as a criminal suspect," said Ramona Ripston, Executive Director of the ACLU of Southern California. "Searches without reasonable suspicion are just one component in this trend �_ a trend that makes the false promise of providing safety in exchange for surrendering civil rights. The safety payoff never materializes, but in the meantime, students' rights do get taken away."

"By instituting repressive security measures in schools, we educate our students to be residents of a police state, not a democracy," said Ripston.

"School officials have a responsibility to treat the students in their care with respect and to provide them with a quality education," said Chris Tan, an ACLU of Southern California staff attorney and Skadden Fellow. "Instead, at Locke, they're taking time away from teaching and treating students like criminals. In so doing, they are blatantly violating the right of every student to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures."

At Locke, students are subjected to two kinds of searches, neither of which is based on reasonable suspicion. At the front gate of the school, some students who are late are chosen for searches. Students are scanned using a metal-detecting wand, and their jackets, book bags, pockets, and purses are searched. A second form of search is conducted during class time, when students are randomly selected for a search in front of the class. Students report being taken to the front of the room and patted down in front of their classmates.

Elizabeth Perea, a junior at Locke, described one of the searches:

"[A school official]...took the girls to the blackboard," said Perea. "We were told to face the blackboard. She told us to lift up our arms and open our legs. She patted down our pockets, ankles, and pant legs. She told us to untuck our shirts and to turn around. Nobody found anything on any of the students. Nobody explained why they were searching us. Instead, we each received a note afterwards explaining that we had been searched."

Perea noted that the searches humiliate and embarrass Locke students and waste time that could have spent learning.

"The searches make me very uncomfortable," said Perea. "It is absurd. We try to stay away from violence and gangs, and either way we are treated like gangbangers. They should not search us during our education time. Plus, girls have private things in our bags, like for when we get our period, and that shouldn't be shown for everyone to see."

Parents also objected to their children being treated like criminals. Nathaniel Ali-Perkins, of the African-American Parent/Community Organization, charged that the searches damaged students' self-esteem.

"We believe the searches are dehumanizing and damaging to our children's self-esteem - and, overall, program them for failure," said Ali-Perkins.

Moreover, the searches have failed as a security tool. Not once in the eight years since LAUSD instituted its random search policy has a gun been uncovered as a result of a random search.

LOS ANGELES - The American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California praised yesterday's 43-29 vote in the California Assembly approving a bill to provide ten key protections to couples who register as domestic partners with the State of California. The bill, authored by Assemblymember Carole Migden, is supported by a broad coalition of groups in California, including the California Alliance for Pride and Equality (CAPE), the ACLU of Southern California, People For the American Way, the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, and others.

"This vote is an enormous first step toward fairness," said Heather Carrigan, Director of the ACLU of Southern California's Department of Public Policy. "No other state in the nation has taken an equivalent step without the pressure of a lawsuit to force change. California is at the very forefront of political organizing for equal rights for gay and lesbian couples, and the passage of this bill is a clear sign of that progress."

"The rights and protections identified in AB 25 are critical, minimal protections," said Ramona Ripston, Executive Director of the ACLU of Southern California. "We all face losses and challenges in our family lives: the state should never set policy that makes those times more difficult than they already are."

AB 25 will provide domestic partners the right to sue for wrongful death, medical and financial decision-making when one partner is incapacitated, automatic inheritance in the absence of a will, inclusion in the state's simplified, pre-formatted will, the right to use one's sick days to care for a partner, and other similar protections.

Opponents of the bill attempted to influence legislators by taking out attack ads in targeted districts throughout the state. The effort appeared to backfire, as numerous legislators reported in yesterday's debate. The effort targeted legislators who are people of color, under the erroneous impression that communities of color are less likely than white people to support equal rights for gay and lesbian people.

"The right wing's tactics in this case are completely misguided," said Heather Carrigan, Director of Public Policy at the ACLU of Southern California. "Opponents of the bill simply demonstrated their own ignorance and bias when they conducted a campaign based on the stereotype that communities of color are less supportive of equality for gay and lesbian people than white people are. In fact, in polling conducted immediately after the Knight Initiative shows that 62% of Latina women voters surveyed, a higher percentage than for any other group, support the concept of civil unions for same-gender couples, and a majority of all California voters - 52% - support legal unions for same-sex couples."

LOS ANGELES - On Wednesday, May 30th, a hearing will be held to determine whether Robert Rosenkrantz is illegally being denied parole by Governor Davis. Rosenkrantz, convicted of second-degree murder in 1985, has won the support of several members of the legislature, the judge who sentenced him, a member of the victim's family, and religious groups. The hearing will be held at 10:00 am in the Courtroom of Judge Paul Gutman (Department A), L.A. Superior Court - Van Nuys East Division located at 6230 Sylmar Ave. in Van Nuys, California.

On April 18, three religious denominations, represented by the ACLU affiliates of Northern and Southern California, and the law offices of Latham & Watkins filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of Rosenkrantz. The religious groups, along with Albert M. Leddy, former Chairman of the California Board of Prison Terms, say that Rosenkrantz is a victim of Governor Davis' no parole policy that violates state and federal law. The religious groups include the California Council of Churches, the Board of Rabbis of Northern California, and the California Province of the Society of Jesus.

"We urge Governor Davis to reconsider his policy of refusing to release inmates convicted of murder who have been recommended for parole and are not considered a danger to society," said Scott Anderson of the California Council of Churches. "The Governor's no parole policy takes away any incentive for rehabilitation and reform and only increases the prisoner's despair and hopelessness. The policy robs society of those inmates who are rehabilitated, remorseful and repentant and who want to return as productive members to their communities. Mr. Rosenkrantz is such a man."

Since his imprisonment, the 33-year-old Rosenkrantz has become a computer expert, and has received several job offers. He completed therapy and has had a spotless record since he's been at the state's medium-security prison in San Luis Obispo.

"Governor Davis' blanket policy of no parole for all those who have committed murder is clearly unconstitutional and unlawful," said Will Barnett Fitton, of the law firm Latham & Watkins. "The Governor's policy does not consider all of the individual's characteristics and his likelihood of reform and only looks at the facts of the crime. In the Rosenkrantz case, the Los Angeles Superior Court and the Court of Appeal ruled that the offense was not sufficient to deny him parole. Rosenkrantz is being held captive by the Governor's no parole policy."

On April 9, 1999 the Los Angeles Times reported about the possibility of parole in murder cases, and Governor Davis said, "If you take someone else's life, forget it."

That same year, the Board of Prison Terms held nearly 2,000 parole hearings for those serving life terms. The Board determined that only 16 were suitable for parole. In every case, Governor Davis reversed or recommended against parole. In 2000, the Board conducted a similar number of hearings, and deemed only 19 lifers suitable for parole. Governor Davis has reversed or recommended against parole in every instance last year except one.

"We are anxious to preserve the integrity of the state parole system," said Rabbi David Teitelbaum, of the Board of Rabbis of Northern California. "The state parole system is based on the principle of human reconciliation and renewal. The Governor's no parole policy violates this very principle."

Albert Leddy, who served for nine years as a member, Commissioner and then Chairman of the California Board of Prison Terms from 1983-1992, said, "The Governor's policy of denying parole to all prisoners who have committed murder eliminates hope and motive for improvement and creates increased tension within the state's prison walls. If an inmate has no hope of being released, then why should he respect the rules and regulations that govern the prison? The California parole system values redemption and rehabilitation, and Rosenkrantz is clearly a model prisoner who deserves to be released."

"The Governor's lock-down on parole is a matter of politics, not sound policy," said Mark Rosenbaum, Legal Director of the ACLU of Southern California. "The Governor's 'no parole' policy amounts to an administrative decree that all life sentences be converted to 'life without possibility of parole.' This decree is unjust and runs counter to our laws and our society's belief in the rehabilitative purpose of imprisonment."