Tag Archives: ACLU

Portland, Oregon mayor implies police profiling because half the arrests last year were of homeless people

homeless in downtown portland

Downtown Portland…this certainly looks like a familiar picture

It’s not only Seattle and San Francisco that have a problem /crisis with homeless. Add the liberal utopia of Portland, Oregon to that list, too. In June 2017 Portland saw a 10 percent increase in their homeless population during the previous two years.

Gee, there’s seems to be a common denominator amongst these cities facing rising homelessness and crime…If I could just put my finger on it!

From Oregon Live: Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler on Friday acknowledged it’s a problem that half of the arrests that police made in Portland last year were of homeless people.

The mayor said people who are experiencing homelessness or who have mental health and addiction issues should have fewer interactions with police and more with social service providers.

He said he wants to know what’s driving the statistics. “The real question here is, ‘Is there some sort of profiling or implicit bias?'” Wheeler said. “From my perspective, that’s the crux of the situation. The police should be focused on policing criminal activity, and that’s sort of the beginning, the middle and the end of it for me.”

The remarks came during a meeting with The Oregonian/OregonLive’s editorial board and were the most detailed the mayor has made since the newsroom published its findings last month.

The newsroom’s analysis showed that homeless people accounted for 52 percent of arrests, while making up less than 3 percent of the population.

He spent an hour-long interview discussing a wide-range of issues related to homelessness, housing and policing. He painted a conflicting picture of how the city is responding to its homelessness crisis.

He said Portland is using the “right strategy” and the “proven strategy,” to address the crisis and that cities along the West Coast “look to Portland for leadership.”

But at the same time, he said homelessness in Portland has been increasing (that’s liberal logic for ‘ya) and that the criminal justice system too often plays the role of social service provider.

“The criminal justice system is not the right place — or it shouldn’t be the place of first resort to provide addiction or mental health services,” Wheeler said. “It should happen elsewhere with no police and no judges and no juries and no jails.”

Wheeler said he thinks most people agree with that. “The question is how do we build the system?” he said.

Wheeler declined interview requests for the newsroom’s initial story about the arrests of homeless people. During a wide-ranging interview on Monday, the mayor said he wanted to know how many of the arrests were related to calls from the public as opposed to contacts initiated by police. He also appeared to be dismissive of the findings at that time.

Asked about the disparity in arrests, Wheeler told a reporter during the Monday interview, “I could play with statistics with you all day long.”

He continued, “We don’t have enough information based on a newspaper article to come to a conclusion. Does it warrant further evaluation? Of course, it does. Certainly, it does.”

On Friday, Wheeler called the newsroom’s investigation a “very thorough and, I thought, provocative report,” and he said he is taking it “very seriously.”

After the newsroom’s investigation, the American Civil Liberties Union of Oregon called on Wheeler and Police Chief Danielle Outlaw to investigate whether officers are profiling people who are homeless.

Read the whole story here.


Judge rules there’s no fundamental right to learn to read and write


Kill your babies via abortion? That’s a right!

Educate your babies to read and write via compulsory, taxpayer-provided education? Fuhgetaboutit!

By Lori Higgins at Detroit Free Press: Few could dispute the importance of literacy. But children have no fundamental right to learn to read and write, according to a federal judge whose ruling in a closely watched lawsuit Friday left some disheartened and others raising questions.

“I’m shocked,” said Ivy Bailey, president of the Detroit Federation of Teachers. “The message that it sends is that education is not important. And it sends the message that we don’t care if you’re literate or not.”

The ruling came in a federal lawsuit that was closely watched across the U.S. because of its potential impact: Filed on behalf of Detroit students, it sought to hold a dozen state officials — including Gov. Rick Snyder — accountable for what plaintiffs said were systemic failures that deprived Detroit children of their right to literacy.

The lawsuit sought remedies that included literacy reforms, a systemic approach to instruction and intervention, as well as fixes to crumbling Detroit schools. Earlier this month, officials with the Detroit Public Schools Community District said it would cost $500 million to bring school buildings up to par.

The City of Detroit, the American Federation of Teachers, the AFL-CIO, the community group 482Forward, Kappa Delta Pi, the International Literacy Association and the National Association for Multicultural Education all filed briefs in support of the plaintiffs.

The lawsuit was filed by Public Counsel, a Los Angeles-based law firm that is the nation’s largest public interest law firm. Mark Rosenbaum, the lead attorney for the plaintiffs, declined to comment Saturday, saying he wanted an opportunity to first speak with his clients.

Spokespeople for Snyder couldn’t be reached for comment.

The ruling also comes as the state ups the stakes for third-graders. Beginning with the 2019-20 school year, schools must begin holding back third-graders who are more than a grade level behind on reading assessments. Last year, just 44 percent of the third-graders who took the Michigan Student Test of Educational Progress passed the exam; the year before, it was 46 percent. In Detroit, far fewer students are proficient in reading.

The state had argued in its motion to dismiss the suit that there is no fundamental right to literacy. Lawyers for the city, in a brief opposing the motion to dismiss, said city officials are “all too familiar with illiteracy’s far reaching effects.”

“Widespread illiteracy has hampered the City’s efforts to connect Detroiters with good-paying jobs; to fill vacancies on its police force, and to grow its tax base. Illiteracy, moreover, has greatly exacerbated the effects of intergenerational poverty in Detroit.”

U.S. District Judge Stephen Murphy III (appointed by George W. Bush), in his ruling Friday, noted the importance of literacy.

“Plainly, literacy — and the opportunity to obtain it — is of incalculable importance,” Murphy wrote in a 40-page opinion. “As plaintiffs point out, voting, participating meaningfully in civic life, and accessing justice require some measure of literacy.”

But those points, Murphy said, “do not necessarily make access to literacy a fundamental right.” And, he said, the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that the importance of a good or service “does not determine whether it must be regarded as fundamental.”

A similar lawsuit claim was made in so-called “right to read” litigation the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan filed in 2012 alleging Highland Park students had been denied a benefit guaranteed under Michigan’s constitution.

That constitutional provision states that “the means of education shall forever be encouraged,” and “the Legislature shall maintain and support a system of free elementary and secondary schools.”

But the Michigan Court of Appeals dismissed that lawsuit in 2014, saying:

“The cited provisions of the Michigan constitution require only that the Legislature provide for and finance a system of free public schools. The Michigan constitution leaves the actual intricacies of the delivery of specific educational services to the local school districts.”

The ACLU appealed to the Michigan Supreme Court, which opted not to hear the case.

Read the whole story here.


SF mayor-elect London Breed urges lawmakers to expand homeless conservatorship laws

london breed

Soon-to-be SF mayor, London Breed

Not sure how I feel about this. Yet something has got to be done for the homeless, especially the ones with mental illness.

Then again I’m reminded of that Reagan quote: “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the government and I’m here to help.”

From SF Chronicle: San Francisco Mayor-elect London Breed urged state lawmakers Thursday to approve a bill that she said would give the city more power to help chronically homeless people suffering from mental illness and substance abuse.

In her first trip to the Capitol as mayor-elect, Breed joined state Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, and Supervisor-elect Rafael Mandelman to support a bill, SB1045, that would expand conservatorship laws in San Francisco and Los Angeles County.

“We are talking about people who clearly need help and clearly can’t make good decisions for themselves,” Breed said.

Breed said those include people she has personally attempted to help, such as a homeless man well-known to law enforcement who is schizophrenic and abuses alcohol.

“There is a strong need to do something different that is going to allow us to help an individual like this,” Breed said. “Otherwise, he is going to die on our streets.”

Breed sponsored a resolution before the Board of Supervisors in April to support the measure, but it fell short of passage, with several members of the board’s progressive wing saying they wanted more time to review it.

Wiener said the presence of Breed, a member of the city’s more moderate wing, and Mandelman, considered an ally of progressives, showed there’s broad support in San Francisco for his bill. He noted that it is also backed by Assemblyman David Chiu, D-San Francisco.

“We are all in unity,” Wiener said. “The city is in crisis when it comes to homelessness on our streets. People want us to solve the problem, and this is a tool that will help us get severely debilitated people off our streets and into housing and services.

The bill would allow the Boards of Supervisors in San Francisco and Los Angeles County to create five-year pilot programs that give them more control over their conservatorship rules, including expanding who can be involuntarily helped.

State law now allows county mental health professionals to hospitalize people for 72 hours against their will if they pose a danger to themselves or someone else or are gravely disabled due to mental illness — what is commonly known as a 5150 hold. A county can ask a judge for a 14-day extension to continue intensive treatment and repeat that process every 30 days.

The criteria on who can be stripped of their decision making is strict and often results in chronically homeless, mentally ill and severely drug-addicted people being returned to the streets. Wiener said his bill will apply to only about 1 percent of San Francisco’s homeless population, but that those are the people who cycle from the streets, to jails, to emergency rooms and back to the streets.

City officials said there are 40 to 50 people in San Francisco who fit this description and show no signs of being able to lift themselves out of it. “It’s beyond inhumane to sit back and let these people die when we have the ability to help them,” Wiener said. “Our current conservatorship laws are inadequate.”

The Assembly Judiciary Committee passed the bill Thursday, 9-0. It now heads to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, which is expected to take up the bill after lawmakers return from summer recess in August. The bill already passed the Senate in a 35-0 vote last month.

“No public policy failure is more obvious, painful and embarrassing to our city than our inability to provide care to so many obviously sick people on our streets and in our public spaces,” Mandelman said.

Opponents of the measure, including the Western Center on Law and Poverty and American Civil Liberties Union, said they worried that the bill would lead to further criminalization of homelessness and that expanding involuntary holds would affront an individual’s civil rights.

Jen Flory of the Western Center on Law and Poverty said the bill is misguided because it fails to address society’s failures that resulted in a person ending up on the streets in the first place.

“Taking away an individual’s freedom, even if for their own safety, is a serious matter in democracy,” Flory said. “We cannot go there if we are not honestly doing everything we can to avoid such situations.”


Student wins case against Oregon school over his “Trump Border Wall Construction Co.” t-shirt

addison barnes trump tshirt

In January of this year a student in Hillsboro, Oregon wore a pro-Trump t-shirt to Liberty High School. The student, Addison Barnes, wore the pro-border wall t-shirt to his “People and Politics” class which was going to discuss immigration issues.

That did not go over well with faculty. He was asked to remove the shirt, did not, and eventually left school.

As USA Today reported on May 25th:

“I thought to myself, ‘You know this isn’t right, this is my First Amendment right to be able to wear this shirt,'” Barnes told KGW-TV, Portland, Ore. “So I took off the jacket and the assistant principal had seen that and sent for a security guard to escort me out of class.”

Someone, either faculty or security, asked Addison to either remove the shirt or leave the school. He chose to leave, and the departure was marked as a suspension. 

More from USA Today:

“If somebody else disagrees with me politically, I think they should be able to express their viewpoints just as I should be able to express my viewpoints in school,” Barnes told KPTV

Liberty High School’s Parent-Student Handbook doesn’t address political clothing, KPTV reported. But Hillsboro School District’s Standards of Student Conduct says, “Clothing decorated or marked with illustrations, words, or phrases that are disruptive or potentially disruptive, and/or that promote superiority of one group over another is not permitted.”

“He was told he offended them but that’s a far cry from being disruptive and it is certainly a far cry from violating school policy, let alone what is clearly First Amendment free speech law,” said Barnes’ attorney Mike McLane.”

Even the ACLU of Oregon sided with Barnes.

Barnes decided to sue. And he won a temporary victory.

This past Tuesday U.S. District Judge Michael W. Mosman (appointed by George W. Bush) issued a temporary restraining order which means the school cannot enforce its decision to ban Barnes from wearing the t-shirt.

As Oregon Live reports:

U.S. District Judge Michael W. Mosman found the Hillsboro School District could not justify its censorship. The judge said he balanced constitutionally protected speech with the orderly running of a school.

The school district is entitled to be concerned about the response of other students to the T-shirt, the judge said. But the “thin” court record so far offers little support for the district’s argument that the shirt could “substantially disrupt” the school, he said.

“There’s not enough to go on here to show that sort of legitimate concern justifying censorship of this core political speech,” Mosman ruled.”

District officials offered the defense that a third of their student population is Hispanic and therefore are somehow “insecure.” Don’t forget that Oregon is a sanctuary state.

From the Oregon Live report:

“School officials defended their actions, saying the shirt would contribute to a “hostile learning environment” and would make students feel insecure in school, noting that about 33 percent of the high school’s students are of Hispanic descent. They also said the school has been the site of recent student walkouts and sit-ins to protest Trump’s immigration policies.

The district also described increased racial tensions arising from racially charged language around immigration, school officials said.

This particular school district has a population that is one-third Hispanic. This is not Lake Oswego. This is not West Linn,” attorney Peter Mersereau argued for the Hillsboro School District.”

Read the whole Oregon Live story and details about the t-shirt ordeal here.

Score one small victory against “The Resistance.”

See also:


Iowa lawmakers approve “fetal heartbeat” abortion ban

baby at 6 weeks

A baby’s development at six weeks, from BabyCenter.com:

“The nose, mouth, and ears that you’ll spend so much time kissing in eight months are beginning to take shape. If you could see into your uterus, you’d find an oversize head and dark spots where your baby’s eyes and nostrils are starting to form. His emerging ears are marked by small depressions on the sides of the head, and his arms and legs by protruding buds. His heart is beating about 100 to 160 times a minute – almost twice as fast as yours – and blood is beginning to course through his body. His intestines are developing, and the bud of tissue that will give rise to his lungs has appeared. His pituitary gland is forming, as are the rest of his brain, muscles, and bones.

From Yahoo: (AFP) – Lawmakers in the US state of Iowa approved the most restrictive abortion ban in the country Wednesday, hoping for a national reckoning over the divisive issue.

The Midwestern state’s Republican-controlled legislature approved a ban on most abortions when a fetal heartbeat is detected, which can occur as early as six weeks into a pregnancy. There are exceptions for victims of rape or incest.

Women have been able to legally seek an abortion throughout the United States since 1973’s landmark Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade. But the right to reproductive choice remains tenuous as debate rages over the issue, especially in areas where conservative Republicans are in power.

The US Supreme Court in 2016 rejected appeals by both North Dakota and Arkansas to preserve similar “heartbeat” laws, which had been struck down by lower courts.

If Iowa Governor Kim Reynolds — a Republican who opposes abortion — signs the measure into law, the heartbeat restriction would likely trigger a court battle.

Some of the bill’s supporters had urged its passage as a way to set up a potential US Supreme Court confrontation over abortion.

They believe that President Donald Trump could appoint a conservative justice to the high court in the next few years, tilting its makeup in their favor by the time a court challenge winds through the legal system.

“Today, we are taking a courageous step… to tell the nation that Iowa will defend its most vulnerable, those without a voice — our unborn children,” state legislator Shannon Lundgren said on the state House floor.

The American Civil Liberties Union condemned the bill’s passage, saying in a statement that it would “take Iowa women back nearly a half century.”

“All we can say right now is that we fought this legislation every step of the way and regret that it has made it this far,” ACLU of Iowa’s spokeswoman Veronica Fowler told AFP. “It is clearly unconstitutional and it effectively blocks the right (to) an abortion for most women,” she said.


Supreme Court: Detained aliens are not entitled to US citizen right

At a protest against Arizona immigration law

One of the frustrating things about the problem of illegal “immigration” in America is that illegal aliens and their advocates demand — and are given —  rights that U.S. citizens have. To add injury to insult, illegal aliens are accorded public defenders — all paid for by taxpayers.

One of those rights is the right to bond after arrest and to bond hearings (Galantar Law):

  • Right to bond: When an individual is arrested, he/she is entitled to bond out of jail immediately.
  • Right to bond hearing: If you are being held without bond or you can’t afford the standard bond, you will need a bond hearing to get released. The hearing must take place within 24 hours of your arrest. If you are still in jail after your initial hearing appearance, you will need a criminal defense attorney to get you a bond or get your bond amount lowered. If you have a high bond, a lawyer can file a motion to lower your bond with your trial judge. At that time you must show that you are not a flight risk and that you have good ties to the community.

On February 27, 2018, in Jennings v. Rodriguez, the Supreme Court ruled 5-3 that detained aliens in the United States, such as asylum seekers and permanent residents, do not have the right to periodic bond hearings during the course of their detention. 

In effect and by implication, the government can detain non-citizen aliens for an indefinite period.

The 5 justices are Samuel Alito, John Roberts, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch; the dissenting 3 justices are Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Sonia Sotomayor. Elena Kagan recused herself, as she should, because she had been involved in Jennings v. Rodriguez as solicitor general in the Obama administration.

The History

The lead plaintiff in Jennings v. Rodriguez is Alejandro Rodriguez who came to the U.S. from Mexico as a child, was convicted for joyriding as a teenager, and became a U.S. permanent resident in 1987. In 2004, 24-year-old Rodriguez, still a Mexican citizen, was convicted and pleaded guilty to misdemeanor possession of a controlled substance. He remained in detention while the government sought to deport him to Mexico.

In May 2007, while still litigating his removal, Rodriguez filed a habeas corpus petition, claiming that:

  1. His “prolonged” detention was unjustified in the absence of a bond hearing.
  2. He was entitled to an individualized bond hearing.
  3. In that hearing, the government must prove by clear and convincing evidence that his continuing detention is justified.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) took up Rodriguez’s case and filed a class action lawsuit. The infamous Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Rodriguez and the ACLU — that immigrant detainees and asylum seekers can’t be detained indefinitely and that they have a right to a bond hearing every six months, unless the government can show that the detainee would pose a danger or become a flight risk if set free.

And so, the ACLU won Rodriguez’s release and the cancellation of his deportation order. He remains in the U.S.

The Obama administration appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that Congress — not the courts — has the power to make immigration law and that the law allows the government to detain “criminal and terrorist aliens” as well as “aliens seeking admission to the United States.” The Trump administration continued the case by asserting that detained immigrants should not be recognized as a class that could bring legal action, but should rely on individual habeas corpus petitions to challenge their detentions.

The Ruling

Justice Samuel Alito penned the majority opinion in Jennings v. Rodriguez:

Every day, immigration officials must determine whether to admit or remove the many aliens who have arrived at an official “port of entry”… or who have been apprehended trying to enter the country at an unauthorized location. Immigration officials must also determine on a daily basis whether there are grounds for removing any of the aliens who are already present inside the country. The vast majority of these determinations are quickly made, but in some cases deciding whether an alien should be admitted or removed is not as easy. As a result, Congress has authorized immigration officials to detain some classes of aliens during the course of certain immigration proceedings. Detention during those proceedings gives immigration officials time to determine an alien’s status without running the risk of the alien’s either absconding or engaging in criminal activity before a final decision can be made. […]

To implement its immigration policy, the Government must be able to decide (1) who may enter the country and (2) who may stay here after entering. […] Even once inside the United States, aliens do not have an absolute right to remain here. For example, an alien present in the country may still be removed if he or she falls “within one or more . . . classes of deportable aliens.” §1227(a). That includes aliens who were inadmissible at the time of entry or who have been convicted of certain criminal offenses since admission. […]

U. S. immigration law authorizes the Government to detain certain aliens seeking admission into the country under §§1225(b)(1) and (b)(2). It also authorizes the Government to detain certain aliens already in the country pending the outcome of removal proceedings under §§1226(a) and (c). The primary issue is the proper interpretation of §§1225(b), 1226(a), and 1226(c). […]

In their complaint, Rodriguez and the other respondents argued that the relevant statutory provisions—§§1225(b), 1226(a), and 1226(c)—do not authorize “prolonged” detention in the absence of an individualized bond hearing at which the Government proves by clear and convincing evidence that the class member’s detention remains justified. Absent such a bond-hearing requirement, respondents continued, those three provisions would violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. […]

And so, the Supreme Court ruled that:

Immigration officials are authorized to detain certain aliens in the course of immigration proceedings while they determine whether those aliens may be lawfully present in the country. For example, §1225(b) of Title 8 of the U. S. Code authorizes the detention of certain aliens seeking to enter the country. Section 1225(b)(1) applies to aliens initially determined to be inadmissible due to fraud, misrepresentation, or lack of valid documentation, and to certain other aliens designated by the Attorney General in his discretion. 

Section 1225(b)(2) is a catchall provision that applies to most other applicants for admission not covered by §1225(b)(1). Under §1225(b)(1), aliens are normally ordered removed “without further hearing or review,” §1225(b)(1)(A)(i), but an alien indicating either an intention to apply for asylum or a credible fear of persecution, §1225(b)(1)(A)(ii), “shall be detained” while that alien’s asylum application is pending, §1225(b)(1)(B)(ii). Aliens covered by §1225(b)(2) in turn “shall be detained for a [removal] proceeding” if an immigration officer “determines that [they are] not clearly and beyond a doubt entitled” to admission. §1225(b)(2)(A).

The Government is also authorized to detain certain aliens already in the country [referring to legal permanent residents like Alejandro Rodriguez]. Section 1226(a)’s default rule permits the Attorney General to issue warrants for the arrest and detention of these aliens pending the outcome of their removal proceedings. The Attorney General “may release” these aliens on bond, “[e]xcept as provided in subsection (c) of this section.” Section 1226(c) in turn states that the Attorney General “shall take into custody any alien” who falls into one of the enumerated categories involving criminal offenses and terrorist activities, §1226(c)(1), and specifies that the Attorney General “may release” one of those aliens “only if the Attorney General decides” both that doing so is necessary for witness-protection purposes and that the alien will not pose a danger or flight risk, §1226(c)(2). […]

Nothing in §1226(a), which authorizes the Attorney General to arrest and detain an alien “pending a decision” on removal and which permits the Attorney General to release the alien on bond, supports the imposition of periodic bond hearings every six months in which the Attorney General must prove by clear and convincing evidence that continued detention is necessary.

Writing for the liberal NPR, Domenico Montanaro, Richard Gonzalez and Nina Totenberg point out that:

The case, Jennings v. Rodriguez, has implications for legal permanent residents whom the government wants to deport because they committed crimes and for asylum seekers who are awaiting a court date after turning themselves in at the border. Immigrant advocates contend that many of these immigrants have a right to be free on bail until their case is heard.

The decision reversed a Ninth Circuit ruling, but this is not the last word and could come back to the high court. The Supreme Court sent the case the back to the lower court with two questions unresolved. First, whether indefinite detention without a chance for bail is unconstitutional. Second, whether the challenge to that no-bail provision can be brought as a class action, instead of as individual cases.

Writing for the dissenting minority opinion, an outraged and hyperbolic Justice Stephen G. Breyer called SCOTUS’ Jennings v. Rodriguez ruling “legal fiction” that would leave the government “free to starve, beat, or lash those held within our boundaries”.

See also:


Spokane decides to outlaw immigration detention by police

illegal immigration

From NBC News: The city of Spokane has agreed to change its policies to make clear that police officers will not question or detain people to enforce federal immigration laws. That’s part of a final settlement the city reached Tuesday in federal court with the ACLU of Washington and the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project.

The case stems from a 2014 traffic accident when the vehicle of Gabriel Gomez was struck by a minivan that failed to yield the right of way.  A Spokane police officer responded and contacted the U.S. Border Patrol to ask whether the agency had any interest in Gomez.

The officer issued a ticket to the other driver and then let that driver leave the scene. However, the officer detained Gomez until the Border Patrol arrived and took him into custody.

“I have lived in this community for many years, and to suddenly have the police turn against me after being a victim in the accident really turned my life upside down,” Gomez said in a press release. “I want to be able to trust the police.”

City officials did not immediately return a message seeking comment.  Spokane is Washington’s second-largest city with about 210,000 residents.

Gomez was eventually transferred by immigration officials to the Northwest Detention Center in Tacoma, where he remained until he posted bond. Gomez is seeking legal status to remain in this country, the ACLU said.

The lawsuit contended the officer unlawfully detained Gomez for purposes of investigating his immigration status and prolonged his detention to assist federal officers. The lawsuit also alleged that city policies unlawfully authorized officers to take such actions.

As part of the settlement, the city agreed to modify its policies to clarify that police officers “shall not contact, question, delay, detain or arrest an individual because s/he is suspected of violating immigration laws,” the settlement said.

ACLU Washington issued this statement on their web site:

“This is an important step towards ensuring that all community members receive equal treatment from police officials,” said Matt Adams, Legal Director for Northwest Immigrant Rights Project (NWIRP). “The changed policies will help the City to move forward in working to serve all the community members, regardless of their perceived immigration status.”

“We’re pleased that the City has recognized the need to change its policies to prevent such unfair treatment of immigrants in the future,” said Enoka Herat, ACLU of Washington Police Practices and Immigrant Rights Counsel.