The Vallejo Police Department has long had a reputation for being a little trigger-happy, but now the ACLU alleges the Vallejo City Attorney’s Office has been in on some cover-ups, and is calling for an independent investigation.

In recent months we’ve seen renewed interest in Vallejo’s 2015 Denise Huskins kidnapping case because of a Netflix documentary, which exposed how the Vallejo Police Department botched that case. But the Vallejo PD is notoriously no stranger to controversy, having shot a man 55 times while he was passed out, allegedly bent their badges to celebrate shooting people, and of course, the Sean Monterrosa shooting where they may have destroyed a little evidence here and there.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta already has that department under state oversight, and the Vallejo Sun points out that “From April 2001 to June 2020, Vallejo police officers shot 56 civilians, killing 30."

So the department has had third-party adults come in to look over their shoulders. But the ACLU of Northern California sees some misconduct by the Vallejo City Attorney’s Office in helping the department bury some of these misconduct cases, and NBC Bay Area reports that the ACLU is calling for an independent investigation into Vallejo City Attorney Veronica Nebb.  

That Vallejo Sun reports details five separate police shooting cases where the City Attorney’s Office "inadvertently" lost or destroyed evidence, the firing of the whistleblower in the badge-bending scandal, and some seemingly quite inadequate background checks on new police officer hires.

“Numerous, credible sources have provided concerning evidence of serious misconduct by City Attorney Veronica Nebb and her staff,” ACLU senior attorney Allyssa Victory said in a letter to Vallejo City Council. “Accumulating evidence that the City Attorney has conspired to conceal, allow, and thereby enable such police misconduct can only deepen public perception that its policing problems are intractable, and that its government is corrupted. Public safety is seriously imperiled when these sentiments take hold.”

The Vallejo City Attorney’s office, not surprisingly, is dismissive of the request.

"The ACLU’s letter contains numerous statements and allegations relating to the City Attorney’s Office which are not factual,” that office said in a statement to NBC Bay Area. “The City Attorney’s Office continues to be committed to serving the City of Vallejo with the utmost honesty and integrity."

No one on the Vallejo City Council has commented on the ACLU request. Though the Vallejo Sun reports that new Vallejo Mayor Andrea Sorce has spoken in favor of some independent investigations.

Related: Vallejo Approves Largest-Ever Settlement for a Police Shooting, $5.7 Million, for the Family of Ronell Foster [SFist]

Image: Vallejo Police Department via Facebook

A pair of Sonoma County farm owners say that county’s drone surveillance program is unconstitutional, and they’ve enlisted the ACLU to bring a lawsuit, which could set a legal precedent affecting SFPD’s new drone-happy policies.  

Thursday morning, Mayor Daniel Lurie and crypto mogul Chris Larsen had themselves a press conference touting Larsen’s $9.4 million gift to the SFPD to buy several multiple-hundred-thousand-dollar, high-end drones. And the police department says these drones are very effective at catching car thieves and break-in artists. So it sure seems we’re moving full-speed ahead on cities using surveillance drones, and the general public coming to accept this.

Or are we? KTVU reports that the ACLU is suing Sonoma County over its drone use. In this case, they're suing over the county's Code Enforcement Division using drones, which they use primarily to try to identify illegal cannabis grow operations. But two women who own farms in Sonoma County say the drones are surveilling them in their everyday lives, including taking video of them naked in their hot tubs.

"This horrible experience has shattered my sense of privacy and security," plaintiff Nichola Schmitz said in a press release announcing the lawsuit. "I'm afraid to open my blinds or go outside to use my hot tub because who knows when the county's drone could be spying on me."

The second plaintiff is also a woman who complained of hot tub privacy violation issues. Obviously, outdoor hot tubs are far more common in Sonoma County than they are in San Francisco. But the ACLU says the civil liberties drawbacks of drone surveillance apply to all Californians, and all Americans.

"We all have the right to go about our lives in privacy in and around our homes without having to worry about a government drone flying overhead and recording us without a warrant or our knowledge," ACLU of Northern California senior staff attorney Matt Cagle said in the same press release. “For too long, Sonoma County code enforcement has used high-powered drones to warrantlessly sift through people's private affairs and initiate charges that upend lives and livelihoods. All the while, the County has hidden these unlawful searches from the people they've spied on, the community, and the media."

Though it probably should be noted that both of the women plaintiffs were cited by the county after the drones flew over their properties — one for an unpermitted dwelling unit, and the other for unpermitted construction of barns.

"There was a single flyover from the public right of way (not over the property) on October 10, 2023, by Code Enforcement to confirm/deny the allegations of construction without permit for the sheds," a code inspector wrote to one of the plaintiffs, according to the lawsuit. "The flyover was conducted according to policy. Any other flyovers were not done by Code Enforcement. No warrant was obtained or required by law."

The ACLU’s lawsuit is seeking to have this use of drone surveillance declared unconstitutional, and have it discontinued. That would be quite a precedent, and one that could have ramifications here in SF, particularly with the police department.

Related: Meet the New Drones the SFPD Will Be Using (and Is Actually Already Using) [SFist]

Image: Jason Mavrommatis via Unsplash

The ACLU and the Coalition on Homelessness offered SF City Hall a settlement to end their nearly year-long lawsuit against encampment sweeps, but City Attorney David Chiu says no deal.

Update (Aug. 10, 2:55 p.m.): The Examiner reports that City Attorney David Chiu is rejecting the ACLU/Coalition on Homelessnes settlement offer. “If the Coalition on Homelessness actually wanted to reach a settlement agreement, this political stunt is certainly not the way to go about it and counterproductive to their stated goals,” Chiu's office said in a statement. “Legal parties do not engage in settlement negotiations via the press, particularly when confidential settlement discussions are required."

Original story (Aug. 10, 2:10 p.m.): It was almost an entire year ago when the ACLU, the Coalition on Homelessness, and a small handful of unsheltered people sued the City of San Francisco in seeking to halt encampment sweeps, claiming they’re unconstitutional. And from a legal standpoint, things have pretty much gone the ACLU and company’s way in court; the judge issued an emergency injunction to halt the sweeps last December, and city officials have been furious since.  

But on Thursday, as the lawsuit keeps dragging on, the Chronicle reports that the advocates for the homeless offered the city a settlement to end the lawsuit. The ACLU submitted the settlement proposal in a nine-page letter, and also held a Thursday press conference with the Coalition on Homelessness.

“Now is an opportune time to begin to work together on a future in which the City’s resources can be more fully directed toward our shared goal of ending street homelessness and tackling the City’s affordable housing crisis,” the ACLU letter says, per the Chronicle. “San Francisco must have an effective, lawful, and humane street response, fill the hundreds of vacant affordable housing units that remain empty due to bureaucratic red tape, expand access to shelter, aggressively spend the hundreds of millions of dollars already earmarked for affordable housing and rent protection, and ensure that the City provides the quality social services promised to taxpayers.”

The settlement proposes the plaintiffs will call off the lawsuit if the city fills all of an estimated 1,000 vacant affordable housing units, expand the funding from voter-approved homeless funding measures, and greatly expand shelter bed capacity. They also demand that SF “stop sending police to solve housing issues.”  

“Our commonsense settlement proposals would benefit the City and all of its residents and taxpayers,” the ACLU letter says.  

A spokesperson for City Attorney David Chiu’s office said in a statement to the Chronicle they were “very surprised” by the settlement offer, but did not elaborate further. Still, one senses it is highly unlikely the city will take the settlement offer as stands, as just the shelter bed demand alone would require the city to much more than double their shelter bed capacity. But we’ll see how City Hall responds, and whether this is the beginning of a legitimate bargaining and compromise process.  

Related: Advocates for Homeless Population Sue San Francisco to End Encampment Sweeps [SFist]

Image: Joe Kukura, SFist

The American Civil Liberties Union has now filed a complaint with the California Department of Justice urging the attorney general to look in to the Oakland Unified School District's plan to close seven schools and merge two others next year, saying the plan disproportionately impacts Black families.

Oakland's school board voted in February to fully close seven schools, merge two other schools, and eliminate middle school grades at two others by next year in a cost-cutting measure. Much like the San Francisco Unified School District, Oakland Unified is facing extreme budget pressure due to declining enrollment, which in turn comes with declining funding from the state. Protests followed, but a week later the school board took another vote and decided not to delay the closures.

The ACLU is saying hold up, though, because four of the seven schools slated for closure serve predominantly Black student populations. And this is notable especially when Black children only represent about 20% of the student population across the district.

"Oakland Unified School District has a long history of discriminating against Black students and families who have borne the brunt of previous school closures,” said Linnea Nelson, a senior staff attorney for the Racial & Economic Justice Program at the ACLU of Northern California in a Monday statement. “By chronically underfunding and mismanaging small schools in predominantly Black neighborhoods, the district created the very conditions it now cites to justify disrupting tight-knit school communities and displacing hundreds of Black students."

In seeking an investigation by Attorney General Rob Bonta, the ACLU contends that OUSD "failed to analyze the racial equity of closing the selected schools, as required by a provision of the 'Reparations for Black Students Resolution' the school board adopted in March 2021."

The ACLU points to the issue of the Black community's waning political influence in Oakland, "in the birthplace of the Black Panther Party," which "mak[es] it difficult to challenge racist public policies." And this is due in part to a loss of 15,000 Black residents in the last decade, according to the 2020 Census.

Black members make up one-third of the current Oakland school board.

"The school district is trying to push Black students into the school-to-prison pipeline," says Rochelle Jenkins, a mother of 12-year-old twin daughters who attend Parker Elementary, a school in East Oakland that is slated for closure. "They don't care about educating our kids. They should be ashamed of themselves."

Jenkins, who works two jobs, says that she relies on having a school close to her house so her teenage son can walk the twins to and from school.

Azlinah Tambu tells the ACLU that she values the mostly Black staff at Parker, with whom her daughters, Nasirah and Samira, have formed special connections. She says she feels safer having her kids at a small school close to home, and if Parker closes, her daughters will be separated at two different schools farther away.

The protests over these school closures have been large and intense, and have included a weeks-long hunger strike.

The district says it has to cut $110 million, and its current school-closure plan is the best way to do so.

"OUSD is investing some of its newly available funding to better support students, prioritizing Black students in many areas,” the district said in a Monday statement, per the Chronicle. “The District has been, and continues to be, focused on addressing inequities that exist in student outcomes, and must make ongoing funding adjustments to do so.”

Photo: Google Streetview

Prominent privacy advocate and Apple executive Andreas Gal has teamed up with the ACLU on a lawsuit against the federal government concerning invasive practices by Customs and Border Patrol.

Gal writes in a Medium post about an incident in December in which he — a Hungarian immigrant and naturalized U.S. citizen who uses Global Entry to travel frequently — was directed by a Global Entry kiosk to a secondary inspection. He was detained by armed Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) agents, questioned about his former work for Mozilla and his travels, and ordered to unlock his laptop and cellphone for guards to search.

Gal was taken aback, and says that he wasn't sure what his responsibilities to Apple might be given that he had proprietary, unreleased software and other information on his devices — and he had signed a non-disclosure agreement. He requested that he speak to his employer or to an attorney, and he writes, "This request seemed to aggravate the customs officers. They informed me that I had no right to speak to an attorney at the border despite being a U.S. citizen, and threatened me that failure to immediately comply with their demand is a violation of federal criminal code 18 USC 111." Gal stood his ground and ultimately was allowed to leave with his devices, however CBP kept his Global Entry card as punishment.

Reportedly, such aggressive questioning and detainment of American citizens at the border is becoming increasingly, disturbingly common. Gal cites this NBC News report from last month that CBP agents under the Trump administration now have a dossier of American journalists, activists, and attorneys whom they are ordered to submit to intense questioning if they are trying to cross the border back into the U.S.

Now, the ACLU has filed a civil rights suit against the federal government over what they say was Gal's unlawful detention at SFO in December. Also as KPIX/CBS SF reports, the suit demands an investigation of CBP search policies and a comprehensive review of those policies.

"CBP’s baseless detention and intrusive interrogation of Andreas Gal and the attempted search of his devices violated his Fourth Amendment rights," says William Freeman, ACLU of Northern California Senior Counsel, in a statement published Tuesday. "Furthermore, CBP’s policies lack protections for First Amendment rights by allowing interrogation and device searches that may be based on a traveler’s political beliefs, activism, nation of origin, or identity."

The ACLU further says in the statement, "The attempted unconstitutional search of Gal’s devices illustrates that CBP’s policies do not include the requirements necessary to safeguard the constitutional rights of people at the border."

Previously: ACLU Files Lawsuit Against Trump On Behalf Of Three Middle Eastern Students

The ACLU of Northern California filed a lawsuit Thursday on behalf of three students at California universities who have been living here legally with F-1 student visas who are now barred from traveling because of President Trump's January 27 executive order, and in one case trapped outside the country. Announced via the ACLU's site, the lawsuit seeks to establish the three plaintiffs as a class, "representing all people who are nationals of Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria or Yemen and who currently are, or recently have been, lawfully present in California and who would be able to travel to the United States or leave and return to the United States if it were not for the Executive Order." And the ACLU is asking the court to find the executive order unconstitutional, and have it invalidated.

Joining the suit as an institutional plaintiff is Jewish Family & Community Services East Bay (JFCS East Bay), which provides legal services and resettlement help to refugees.

The suit argues that the executive order is clearly a pretext for establishing a permanent preference based on religion when it comes to the issuing of visas or accepting of refugees. And, "As such, the government’s actions violate the First Amendment, the equal-protection and due process rights granted under the Fifth Amendment, the Immigration and Nationality Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act."

“The federal government has made it clear that it intends to favor Christian immigrants over Muslims in making decisions about who to detain, interrogate, deport, or entirely refuse entry,” says Julia Mass, Senior Staff Attorney with the ACLU of Northern California, in the release. “We are a diverse society. American Muslims, immigrants and U.S.-born alike, are part of the fabric of this nation.”

The three student plaintiffs are:

Hadil Al-Mowafak... a Stanford University freshman with an F-1 student visa who is now unable to travel to visit her husband in Yemen because of President Trump’s Executive Order. Plaintiff Wasim Ghaleb is a Yemeni student at Grossmont College in San Diego, California. He travelled to Saudi Arabia on January 15 to visit his family, fully intending to fly back to California two weeks later for the Spring semester. Though he possesses an F-1 student visa, he is now barred from returning. Plaintiff John Doe is from Iran and is currently a Ph.D candidate at University of California, Berkeley. He possesses a valid F-1 student visa and recently received and accepted a job offer at a top Fortune 50 Company in Silicon Valley, which is now in jeopardy because of the Executive Order.

The suit is Al-Mowafak v. Trump, and just a day after its filing we learned via another court proceeding in Virginia related to the travel ban that the US government has revoked at least 60,000 visas as a result of the executive order, though a lawyer representing the federal government first stated that the figure was 100,000.

Previously: ACLU Joins Incubator Y Combinator To Help Manage Its New Influx Of Wealth

Y Combinator president Sam Altman's heart grew three sizes today as he announced the American Civil Liberties Union would join his startup incubator in order to manage its massive influx of funding. The ACLU received $24 million in donations this weekend alone, and though it's far from a "startup," that's what's known in the tech biz as a very good seed round.

Altman made the announcement today on the company blog. "The ACLU has always been important, but has a particularly important role right now," wrote Altman, linking to a post written by ACLU executive director Anthony Romero celebrating the group's success Saturday in securing a stay blocking President Trump's anti-immigration executive order.

In response to that executive order, Altman took personal action, joining a protest at San Francisco International Airport.

There's a degree of precedent to the ACLU's inclusion in Y Combinator, as Paul Graham, the incubator's original head honcho, announced that the incubator would begin including nonprofits "in every YC batch" starting in winter 2013. And so far, Y Combinator companies appear to have been welcoming to the new member of their cohort.

Can't wait to see what the ACLU will have for Demo Day, the big showcase for YC incubees. But there's also a bit of a conflict here in Altman and Y Combinator's association with Peter Thiel, an advisor to President Trump and high-profile supporter and donor to him during his campaign. In October, Altman said that he wouldn't cut ties to his pal because "diversity of opinion" is important.

As the Y Combinator president wrote in 2015 to announce Thiel's addition as a part-time partner: "We generally won’t bring on people that are involved with other investing firms given the obvious conflict, but Peter is so good we felt like we had to make an exception."

Gizmodo — no fans of Thiel, who secretly bankrolled the lawsuit that destroyed its original parent website Gawker — levels the charge that Altman is a "coward" who "won’t do the one thing within his power that could actually be construed as a rejection of the Trump Administration."

As they frame it, "It’s hard to know exactly why Altman refuses to do this—is it because it will eventually affect Y Combinator’s bottom line, or is it because Altman just can’t bear to cut ties with his friend?"

Probably both, and also because Thiel is Altman's escape pod from Trump's mess. "If the pandemic does come, Altman’s backup plan is to fly with his friend Peter Thiel, the billionaire venture capitalist, to Thiel’s house in New Zealand," the New Yorker revealed in a profile of Altman this past fall.

"I try not to think about it too much,” Altman said of apocalypse, as caused by anything from a synthetic virus to an AI takeover. “But I have guns, gold, potassium iodide, antibiotics, batteries, water, gas masks from the Israeli Defense Force, and a big patch of land in Big Sur I can fly to.” Good to know he'll be fine.

Related: Y Combinator President Sam Altman Is Prepping For The AI Apocalypse With Guns, Planes, Peter Thiel, And Elon Musk

Protesters are set to descend on the International Terminal at SFO for the second day in a row, at noon on Sunday, to express their outrage over Donald Trump's actions with regard to immigration last week. Protests continue, say organizers via IndyBay, because "travelers from Muslim countries are [still] being turned back at airports throughout the United States."

There were already 60 protesters at the terminal as of 6 a.m. Sunday according to CBS 5, and a duty manager at the airport tells the station they are expecting a much bigger turnout today.

As the New York Times is reporting, the White House has walked back some of Friday's executive order already, saying that the temporary ban will not affect green card holders as was previously stated.

Meanwhile, though, immigration lawyers at airports nationwide are reporting discrepancies in how Trump's order was being interpreted and enforced. Lawyers at Dulles International Airport outside DC on Saturday night said that US Customs and Border Control agents were violating the federal court order by keeping attorneys from accessing clients in holding areas.

Our sister site Gothamist spoke to immigration attorney Anthony Enriquez with the Immigrant Defense Project on Sunday, and he tried to unpack the narrow stay order issued by Judge Anne M. Donnelly Saturday night. While it was "heartening," he says, it nonetheless doesn't save the people who have already been detained, though there have been reports of some being released to their families. "At minimum," Enriquez say, "[these people] can be detained at least a month longer." That is unless a judge rules the detentions illegal, or unless Trump backs down further. The stay only prevents deportations of those detained, or of those who will be detained.

The stay is nonetheless significant, and it signals that the ACLU has a fighting chance of accomplishing something larger here. "Even though the order itself doesn't mean that the ACLU won the lawsuit," Enriquez says, "It means that if the case were to go to trial today, the ACLU would be substantially likely to win."

Meanwhile, Bay Area companies have been quick to respond to the situation in various ways. Lyft announced they would be donating $1 million to the ACLU, as The Hill reports, clearly trying to capitalize on widespread anger at Uber over reports that they were trying to break the taxi driver strike at JFK airport on Saturday.

And Airbnb CEO Brian Chesky announced via Facebook Saturday night that any refugees or foreign travelers who are currently affected by the ban and far from home can email him personally, and Airbnb will find them a free place to stay.

Previously: Protesters Pack SFO To Decry Detentions Under Trump's Immigration Ban

Hundreds showed up at SFO and elsewhere Saturday to protest President Trump's executive order on immigrants from seven primarily Muslim nations, which had led to detentions of innocent people at airports nationwide who were trying to enter the country legally. As of 9 p.m. Eastern, a federal judge in Brooklyn sided with lawyers from the ACLU and stayed Trump's order, and national director of the organization Anthony Romero gave the speech above celebrating the judge's decision.

In a statement to reporters, Romero said, "Clearly the judge understood the possibility for irreparable harm to hundreds of immigrants and lawful visitors to this country. Our courts today worked as they should as bulwarks against government abuse or unconstitutional policies and orders. On week one, Donald Trump suffered his first loss in court."

As the Atlantic reports, "Dozens of immigration lawyers went to airports to assist refugees and visa holders, many of whom have been detained and questioned by authorities. The New York Taxi Workers Alliance also released statements decrying the ban and calling on its workers to strike in solidarity of the protesters, noting their membership is “largely Muslim” and “almost universally immigrant."

SF Mayor Ed Lee issued his own statement:

I commend the judge that granted the emergency stay today, allowing seven Muslim immigrants with valid visas to enter the United States.

As the son of Chinese immigrants, I am disgusted by the President’s Executive Order to target the Muslim community and ban immigrants from entering the United States.

Our country was built by immigrants in search of religious freedom and a life free of persecution and violence. These actions of are a direct betrayal of those American values.

We cannot turn our backs on those looking for a better, safer life for themselves and their children. Now is the time to be firm in our values of inclusion, compassion and liberty for all. In San Francisco, we stand shoulder to shoulder with our Muslim and immigrant communities and promise to continue to lift the lamp for all those in search of a better life.

Previously: Google CEO Sundar Pichai Calls Trump's Ban On Immigration 'Painful'; Zuckerberg Says He's 'Concerned'

If you don't Instagram it, did it really happen? By that logic, if you don't snap a photo of your ballot and post it on social media, does your vote even count?

Yes, of course it does, and maybe cool it with the constant photos. Still, the drive to document and share your civic engagement is real, and cool, and according to free speech advocates, a right protected by the First Amendment.

That thinking, however, is at odds with California law, which currently bans taking photos of marked ballots. Such is also the case in 18 states according to the Associated Press, and six others ban photography in polling places but allow photos of mail-in ballots.

While acknowledging that California doesn't actively enforce the ban — you've probably seen a lot of early voters violate it already with a Facebook post this election season — the ACLU filed a lawsuit against the state of California this week in federal court in San Francisco seeking an injunction to legally block the state from enforcing it. And yes, the litigation includes the colloquialism “ballot selfies.”

“People increasingly use photographs of their marked ballot as a way to express their support for candidates and issues,” senior staff attorney for the ACLU of Northern California Michael Risher said in a statement. “This is core political speech at the heart of the First Amendment.”

The suit names California Secretary of State Alex Padilla, who has issued a statement on the matter. As he points out, a law allowing for ballot photography has already been passed by state legislature and signed into law, but it doesn't go into effect in time for this election. "I agree that this outdated law needs reform," he writes. "That’s why I supported AB 1494 — passed this year by the legislature and signed into law by the governor — allowing voters to take ballot selfies starting January 1, 2017.”

According to the AP, Padilla's office believes a late change would potentially result in "voter and poll worker confusion, delays at the polls, and inconsistent interpretation of the law at the thousands of polling locations across the state.” A judge will hear arguments in the case today, and Padilla says he's ready to stand behind whatever outcome. “My office stands ready to comply with any decision handed down by the court on this matter," he writes. "In the meantime, voters can still take a selfie of their ‘I Voted’ sticker.” Hey, that doesn't count!

Related: SF Billionaire Activist Tom Steyer Officially Becomes Biggest Spender In 2016 Election

Mercy Medical Center in Redding, California, which is part of the SF-based, mostly Catholic Dignity Health network, has come under fire from the ACLU of Northern California after refusing to perform tubal ligations (also known as tying one's tubes) on two women who asked for them. The procedure, deemed one of the safest and most effective procedures for a woman to undergo immediately following her last intended childbirth, is considered a medically necessary procedure by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Mercy Hospital considers it "sterilization," which along with abortion and contraception are things that it does not provide on religious and ethical grounds, as a Catholic hospital.

As the Chronicle reports, the hospital relented in the face of possible legal action earlier this year in the case of Rachel Miller, who was set to give birth in September and whose doctor had recommended tubal ligation. Citing that there was not another childbirth facility with 70 miles, Miller and the ACLU argued for the necessity of the procedure, and the hospital finally reversed itself saying they had "new information" from Miller's doctor that would allow them to perform the surgery.

The only exception, they say, is for "the cure or alleviation of a present and serious pathology," which ACLU attorney Elizabeth Gill says is too vague.

Under California law, it is permissible for private hospitals that receive public funds to refuse to perform abortions, but it does not allow them to refuse other reproductive care, including sterilization.

ACLU attorneys for two more women who have been denied the procedure — one of whom suffered severe pre-eclampsia after she last gave birth by emergency C-section 18 months ago, and who wants her tubes tied following her next birth, due in March — along with the firm Covington & Burling and Physicians for Reproductive Health, issued a letter to the hospital on December 2 stating, "California law ... does not permit hospitals open to the general public and supported by public funds to deny patients medically indicated pregnancy-related care."

Says Gill, "There is a clear conflict between the best interests of patients and the directives of the Catholic hospital system. Religious institutions that provide services to the general public should not be allowed to hold religion as an excuse to discriminate or deny important health care."

Unless the hospital responds and reverses itself again in the case of these two women, a lawsuit will be filed soon.

Attorney Jami Tillotson will not be charged with any crime in connection with her brief detention by San Francisco Police at the Hall of Justice on January 27 — which was caught on video and widely circulated on the internet — and SF police chief Greg Suhr has apologized to her for "for any distress [she] suffered as a result of her detention." He stopped short of apologizing for the actions of Sgt. Brian Stansbury, the cop who was attempting to take possible lineup photos of two African American men and questioning them in the hallway of the courthouse without telling them what they were suspected of, or whether they were being detained.

In the video, Stansbury informed Tillotson that if she did not stop interfering with his questioning, he would arrest her. He then tells her that she is resisting arrest, despite the fact that she clearly is not. As Tillotson tells it, she had been in a holding chamber with another client when she heard that these two men, one of whom was a client of hers, were being questioned by police without the presence of an attorney.

As the Chronicle reports, Stansbury was "in court for a separate case when he heard that two suspects in a burglary were in the same building," and now Suhr says that Stansbury had "reasonable suspicion to take the pictures." The two men, allegedly, were wearing the same clothing that was described as worn by the burglary suspects.

As KQED reports, SF Public Defender Jeff Adachi remains outraged at the fact that police have not apologized and continue to say "that what they did was completely justified."

The ACLU got involved in this one, as should be expected, and legal director Alan Schlosser submitted a formal letter to the police commission this week, which seems to have prompted the announcement that Tillotson would not be getting charged.

Schlosser wrote:

The spectacle of two African American young men being targeted by the police within a public space inside a courthouse without their lawyer present, and then having that lawyer handcuffed and carted away for trying to advise them, raises the specter that other young men of color are being similarly targeted for intrusive investigations and photographing in the community where attorneys are not on the scene... The actions of police last Tuesday have an appearance of police overreaching and racial profiling.

...

The situation that Ms. Tillotson walked into in the corridor was anything but clear. The officers had not made it clear to her that the two men were being detained or what was the reasonable suspicion that would justify a detention. If the men were not being detained, they were free to walk away and to avoid being photographed. In this murky situation created by the police, Ms. Tillotson had every right, and even duty, to advise her client of his rights and to question Sergeant Stansbury as to his actions in targeting her client... Attorneys, like everyone else, have the right to challenge police.

The video, which you can watch again below and which now has 1.3 million views, spread far and wide in the wake of 2014's nationwide protests and attention to police impropriety and the treatment of African American males in particular. The New Orleans Times-Picayune just picked up the story in the last two days, and NPR weighed in last week on the idea of being "arrested for resisting arrest."

The ACLU is now calling for a full review of San Francisco Police Department policy regarding detentions by the police commission.

Previously: SF Public Defender Detained By Police After Trying To Intervene With Questioning Of Client

Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom will be the new point man on the ACLU's marijuana legalization task force, the civil rights group announced yesterday. Newsom, who reminds everyone he is not a smoker himself, will be shaping a marijuana legalization bill that will hit the state ballot in the 2016.

"Enough's enough," the whether-you-like-it-or-not former Mayor told the Mercury News. "I can't sit back and support the status quo any longer." Newsom, who reminds everyone he is not a smoker himself, says that the cost of marijuana enforcement is too high and disproportionately affects minorities.

Although California's Prop 19 lost out in 2010, marijuana was legalized in Colorado and Washington state last year. Newsom's panel also includes Santa Clara County Sheriff Laurie Smith, the dean of the UC Irvine's law school, legal experts from Colorado and Washington, as well as a former senior White House policy advisor on drug control.

Recent polling data shows Californians support legalizing marijuana. In addition to Newsom & Co's forthcoming 2016 legislation, two other legalization bills are currently circulating and hope to be on the ballot in 2014.

"To me, it's like smoking anything else," Newsom said. "I want a regulatory regime that doesn't advertise to kids, that doesn't allow public use and secondhand smoke."

[Mercury News]
[ACLU]

The ACLU filed suit today against the City of San Francisco and its police chief over what they say was an illegal search of a man's cell phone in the Castro's Jane Warner Plaza in January, 2012. The case involves Bob Offer-Westort, a former employee at the San Francisco Coalition on Homelessness, who pitched a tent in the plaza as an act of protest against a Wiener-backed ordinance against camping. Upon his arrest, police seized his cell phone, and "began scrolling through Offer-Westort’s text messages and reading them out loud."

Offer-Westort claims that police continued to read his text messages over the next six months before returning the phone to him. Both constitute a violation of civil rights and right to privacy, according to the suit.

As NBC Bay Area reports, the suit is the first of its kind in California, and echoes a 2011 case in which the U.S. Supreme Court deemed warrantless cell phone searches legal under the Fourth Amendment.

The ACLU, in its new suit, argues that such searches are illegal under the California constitution's stronger privacy protections.

[NBC]