ACLU-NJ News - Immigrant Rights

Newark Police Sued for Unlawful Arrest of Newspaper Publisher

Roberto Lima and Cooperating Attorney Baher Azmy

NEWARK, N.J. -- The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey and the Seton Hall Center for Social Justice filed a lawsuit today against the Newark Police Department on behalf of newspaper editor Roberto Lima, whom police arrested and held in custody until he relinquished photos his staff took of a dead body found in a Newark alleyway.

"I offered Newark police the original photographs as long as I could keep copies, but they handcuffed me to a bench until I agreed to give them all copies and originals," said Lima, publisher of the Newark-based Brazilian Voice newspaper. "They ordered me not to publish the pictures, but freedom of the press means that it's my choice, not the Newark Police Department's."

However, Deputy Chief Samuel DeMaio arrived at the scene and ordered another officer to seize Lima's camera. He also ordered Lima to turn over all copies and the originals of his pictures. Deputy Chief DeMaio told Lima, "You're not printing any of this." Lima then voluntarily went to the police station to fill out a report. After finishing the report, Lima asked for his camera back. In response, Lima was told that he would be immediately arrested unless he turned over every copy and original of the pictures. Lima refused and was arrested.

While in custody, Lima, who has deep ties in the community, contacted Councilman Augusto Amador by phone for help. Amador apparently made inquiries on his behalf, including a conversation with Newark Police Director Garry McCarthy, to no avail.

Lima remained handcuffed to a bench until he finally agreed to turn over all copies of the photos. After removing Lima's handcuffs, Detective Lydell James followed Lima back to his office and seized additional pictures. "If freedom of the press means anything, it's that police cannot arrest innocent journalists to suppress stories embarrassing to them," said Professor Baher Azmy who, along with Scott Michelman, both of the Seton Hall Center for Social Justice, represent Lima as cooperating attorneys for the ACLU-NJ. "The American people are entitled to a press that is free to report the whole truth, without intimidation or censorship by the police.

In addition to constitutional claims, the lawsuit invokes a New Jersey law that specifically ensures the right of journalists to be free from improper searches and seizures of their documentary materials by local law enforcement.

"I'm standing up for my constitutional rights, as well as the rights of others," said Lima. "Small papers like mine need to be free from police intimidation in order to do their job and keep their communities informed. If the Newark Police feel they can bully me like they did, I fear what they might do to others."

On January 4, 2008, the ACLU-NJ and Seton Hall sent the City of Newark a letter setting forth their demands and requesting an amicable resolution to the matter. The City did not respond.

The case is captioned Roberto Lima v. Newark Police Department, et al. and was filed in the United States District Court in Newark.

The September 6, 2007, incident that gave rise to the current lawsuit also gave rise to a separate but related complaint against the Newark Police Department. Upon meeting Lima and the photographer at the scene, Deputy Chief DeMaio's first question was about the immigration status of the Brazilian Voice photographer. Less than three weeks earlier, Attorney General Anne Milgram issued a directive that officers should not ask about the immigration status of victims or witnesses to crimes, only of persons arrested for crimes. One reason for this decision was that "public safety suffers if individuals believe they cannot come forward to report crime or cooperate with law enforcement" as the photographer did here. The Attorney General's Office investigated the photographer's complaint and found that Deputy Chief DeMaio's conduct violated the Directive. The Attorney General called for Newark Police Department to "evaluate appropriate disciplinary action as well as the training that will be required for the Newark Police on this issue."

Lima v. Newark Police Department

On January 23, 2008, the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey and the Seton Hall Center for Social Justice filed a lawsuit against the Newark Police Department on behalf of newspaper editor Roberto Lima, whom police arrested and held in custody until he relinquished photos his staff took of a dead body found in a Newark alleyway. Depite offering Newark police the original photographs his photographer had taken of the body, Newark police handcuffed Mr. Lima to a bench until he agreed to give them all copies and originals.

On September 6, 2007, a Brazilian Voice photographer discovered a dead body in the Ironbound section of Newark. Lima and his photographer reported the body to the Newark Police and directed officers to the scene. In the course of conversations with the police, Lima offered to turn over pictures his photographer took of the site. However, Deputy Chief Samuel DeMaio arrived at the scene and ordered another officer to seize Lima's camera. He also ordered Lima to turn over all copies and the originals of his pictures. Deputy Chief DeMaio told Lima, "You're not printing any of this. Lima then voluntarily went to the police station to fill out a report. After finishing the report, Lima asked for his camera back. In response, Lima was told that he would be immediately arrested unless he turned over every copy and original of the pictures. Lima refused and was arrested. Lima remained handcuffed to a bench until he finally agreed to turn over all copies of the photos. After removing Lima's handcuffs, a detective (Lydell James) followed Lima back to his office and seized additional pictures.

ACLU-NJ Challenges Arbitrary Police Fees for March

Local officials imposed an unconstitutional police fee of more than $1,500
on CATA, the organizers of this May 1, 2007 march in Bridgeton, N.J.
Photo by David Bacon

En Español

NEWARK, N.J. -- The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey and the Farmworkers' Support Committee today filed a lawsuit in federal district court against the City of Bridgeton for charging a fee of more than $1,500 for an immigrant rights March held on May 1.

"This fee amounts to a user's tax on free speech and that is unconstitutional," said Frank Corrado, who on behalf of the ACLU-NJ is the volunteer attorney for the Farmworkers' Support Committee, also known as El Comité de Apoyo a los Trabajadores Agricolas or CATA. "Bridgeton is responsible for providing police and other government services for all forms of use of its public streets, including marches or parades. Imposition of these fees will mean that only the wealthy will be afforded the right to speak out on issues, and our Constitution thankfully forbids that."

This year, as last year, CATA held an immigrant rights March on May 1 in Bridgeton to express support for immigration reform.

In 2006, CATA's march was not charged any police or cleanup fees. As it did last year, CATA this year applied for a permit and worked with the police and the city to determine the route. Both years, the march occurred without incident.

However, this year Bridgeton demanded a $1,800 police fee and a $200 cleanup deposit. After negotiations between CATA and Bridgeton, the city agreed to drop its requirement that fees be paid prior to the march but added that it would bill CATA after the march.

Several weeks after the May 1 march, CATA received a letter from the city requesting payment for "additional" police expenses for the event, amounting to more than $1,500. CATA requested that the fees be withdrawn, but in a June 12, 2007 letter responding to the group, the city said that it would pursue its demand for the payment and, moreover, would continue to seek such reimbursement in the future.

"I don't see the logic the city of Bridgeton is using in prohibiting our rights to free expression that we all have living in this great country," said Mariza Ibarra, CATA board member and Bridgeton resident. "We are a vulnerable part of the population and we are only struggling to obtain dignity in this community and country."

In its legal complaint, the ACLU-NJ said Bridgeton officials exercised "unfettered, arbitrary discretion" in billing CATA for police expenses, since the city does not have an ordinance that authorizes it to impose fees for marches or parades.

CATA originated in 1975 as the ACLU-NJ Farmworkers' Project. CATA later reorganized independently as a migrant worker-organized membership organization that advocates for the human rights of migrant and immigrant workers. CATA has extensive membership throughout South Jersey and a committee of active leaders in Bridgeton that has organized both May 1 marches, as well as other activities in the community.

The lawsuit, CATA v. Bridgeton, was filed in U.S. District Court in Camden.

More information on CATA is available at http://www.cata-farmworkers.org

ACLU-NJ Offers Analysis of AG's Flawed Directive

The following op-ed, "AG Directive Lacks" appeared in the Trenton Times on September 8, 2007. It was written by ACLU-NJ Executive Director Deborah Jacobs. Background at: AG's Guidance Needed On Cops and Immigrants.

After months of review, outreach and internal debate, New Jersey's Attorney General Anne Milgram finally issued a directive on the issue of what role local police should play in federal immigration enforcement.

In taking this step, Milgram asserted herself as New Jersey's chief law-enforcement officer, attempting to give local law enforcement the long-awaited guidance needed to resolve this "issue on the ground" in places as disparate as Trenton, Princeton, Morristown and Newark.

The directive says that local police must inquire about immigration status upon arrest of a suspect for an indictable offense, and report individuals suspected of being undocumented to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). It also says that police may not ask witnesses, victims or people seeking assistance about their status.

The spirit of the directive seems right. It includes strong statements that the primary responsibility for enforcing the nation's immigration laws rests with the federal government rather than state or local governments. It also warns of the consequences of entangling local police in immigration enforcement, and reiterates the state's commitment to combating racial profiling.

Unfortunately for police officers, local officials, community advocates and the public alike, the di-rective raises more questions than it answers. Most of these questions stem not from what the directive says, but from what it doesn't say.

For example, although the in tent seems clear, it doesn't explicitly bar local police officers from inquiring about immigration status prior to making an arrest.

This omission gets to the heart of the concerns law-enforcement professionals have about being called on to enforce federal immigration laws: that it would undermine the trust between local police and the community; interfere with police officers' ability to serve and protect their communities, and ultimately threaten public safety.

The Major Cities Chiefs Association expressed these very concerns in a 2006 report, stating, "Such a divide between the local police and immigrant groups would result in increased crime against immigrants and in the broader community, create a class of silent victims and eliminate the potential for assistance from immigrants in solving crimes or preventing future terroristic acts."

The attorney general's directive leaves other important questions unanswered. It's oddly specific on such issues as how local reports are to be conveyed to ICE -- telephone or fax, for example. But it's mute on such critical matters as how police are to determine a suspect's immigration status to begin with.

Should they ask and rely on what a suspect tells them? Should they demand documentation from the suspect? If so, which documents? Should they search computer databases with immigration status information?

Who knows? The directive is silent.

The directive requires that police notify ICE when they have "reason to believe" that an ar rested individual may be undocumented. But it doesn't indicate what information should be used or what standards applied in forming that belief. Absent such guidance on what constitutes a "reason to believe," the entire process becomes ambiguous and open to abuse.

In fact, as written, the directive increases the potential for racial profiling and discrimination. While it repeatedly cautions against racially motivated enforcement, by failing to define specific tools or guidelines for inquiry, the directive leaves the door wide open for discriminatory assumptions based on race or ethnicity.

Racism is something that each of us must fight to reject, as we breathe it in the air. It functions at both the conscious and subconscious levels, and to protect against it we must have strong policies and procedures in place that will help ensure that it doesn't have a role in policing (or any other realm of government, business or public life).

Finally, even the section of the directive that seeks to protect witnesses and victims raises intractable questions. In a domestic violence situation, for example, where it's not always clear who is the victim and who is the perpetrator, how can an officer comply with the directive?

Law enforcement and local officials need clear procedures that will help them do their jobs and guard against both unintentional rights deprivations and racial profiling lawsuits. The directive falls short in these and other respects.

We urge the attorney general to revise or supplement the directive so that it provides the sound, thoughtful guidance needed by all parties, and to make it consistent with its laudable spirit of fairness.

ACLU-NJ Urges AG to Revisit Flawed Directive

Comments on Attorney General Directive No. 2007-3 Concerning Local Police Engagement in Immigration Law By Deborah Jacobs, ACLU-NJ Executive Director.

After months of consideration and meeting with countless interested parties - including immigrant and civil rights groups, law enforcement professionals, and advocates who work with domestic violence victims - last week New Jersey's Attorney General finally issued a long-awaited directive on the issue of what role local police can play in federal immigration enforcement. (Background at: AG's Guidance Needed On Cops and Immigrants).

In a nutshell, the directive says that local police must inquire about immigration status upon arrest of a suspect for an indictable offense, and report individuals suspected of being undocumented to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). It also says that police may not ask witnesses, victims or people seeking assistance about their status.

The directive includes strong statements about immigration enforcement being the primary duty of the federal government, about the counterproductive consequences of entangling local police in immigration enforcement, and about the state's commitment to combating racial profiling.

Nevertheless, for police professionals and community advocates alike, the directive raises more questions than it answers. The problem is what the directive doesn't say.

For example, it doesn't explicitly prohibit local police from inquiring about immigration status prior to arresting an individual. This omission gets to the heart of the concerns of law enforcement professionals who have spoken out against local police engaging in immigration enforcement: acting as immigration enforcers makes it more difficult for police to serve and protect their communities. The Major Cities Chiefs Association expressed this sentiment in a 2006 report, stating that, "Such a divide between the local police and immigrant groups would result in increased crime against immigrants and in the broader community, create a class of silent victims and eliminate the potential for assistance from immigrants in solving crimes or preventing future terroristic acts."

The directive's failure to explicitly prohibit officers from asking about immigration status prior to arrest jeopardizes trust between police and community, and consequently threatens public safety.

The directive is also inconsistent; it does not limit local police from making pre-arrest inquiries about status unless they have established a formal relationship with ICE allowing them to act as a federal immigration officer (287g status), in which case they cannot make inquiries unless and until an arrest takes place. This has inspired the Morristown mayor (whose efforts to have town police officers deputized under 287g brought this issue to the forefront), to threaten in a letter to US Attorney Chris Christie to have local police start asking for the immigration status of everyone stopped for ticketing.

Another problem is that the directive, while very specific on some details (such as the means - telephone, fax, etc. - with which reports can be transmitted to ICE), does not provide critical guidance that police need. For example, it says that police must make an inquiry about status upon arrest, but it does not provide any guidance on what that inquiry might entail - asking the individual? - document review? - database checks?

The directive further requires that police notify ICE when they have "reason to believe" that an arrested individual may be undocumented. The directive does not indicate what information should be used, or standards applied, in forming that belief. And, with no specifics on the parameters of the inquiry on which the "reason to believe" should be based, the procedure is further confused and open to abuse.

This lack of guidance increases the potential for racial profiling or discrimination. While the directive repeatedly cautions against racially motivated enforcement, by failing to elaborate on the inquiry with specific guidelines or tools, it leaves the door wide open for discriminatory assumptions based on race or ethnicity. Racism is something that each of us must fight to reject as we breathe it in the air. It functions at both the conscious and subconscious levels, and to protect against it we must have strong policies and procedures in place that will help ensure that it doesn't have a role in policing, or any other arena of government, business or public life.

The directive boasts that "New Jersey has taken a leadership position in eliminating racially-influenced policing, or racial profiling." This is hardly the case; most actions that the state has taken have been forced upon it, such as the public demanding hearings, or the federal government requiring a consent decree. This directive, unless amended, represents perpetuation of the "more talk than walk" that New Jersey has demonstrated again and again when it comes to reforming police practices related to racial profiling.

Finally, even the section of the directive that seeks to protect witnesses and victims raises issues. In many incidents and disputes, including domestic violence situations, it's not always clear who is the victim and who is the perpetrator, potentially leaving police unable to comply with the directive.

The directive falls short of what New Jersey police departments need to guide policies and practices on involvement with questions of immigration status. Rather than providing sound and clear policies that would spare hundreds New Jersey towns and cities from the battling these issues out on the ground, this directive muddies the water by offering incomplete and inconsistent guidance. Before this issue further inflames towns like Morristown and cities like Newark, the AG should revise her first directive to make it right.

AG's Guidance Needed On Cops and Immigrants

The following appeared in the Star-Ledger on July 27, 2007. It was written by Deborah Jacobs, ACLU-NJ Executive Director and Ed Barocas, ACLU-NJ Legal Director.

Ever since the mayor of Morristown launched a campaign to have town police officers deputized to engage in federal immigration enforcement, some townspeople and others have hoped, unsucessfully, for intervention by the state attorney general.

The mayor's idea is to give local police the power to investigate people's immigration status, take immigrants into custody, and hand those they suspect of violating immigration laws over to the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement, where they would potentially face deportation proceedings.

In addition to human and civil rights advocates, Gov. Jon Corzine and numerous law enforcement professionals - including Morristown Police Chief Peter Demnitz - have spoken out against this role for local police. The central reason for their opposition is that acting as immigration enforcers makes it difficult for police to do their primary job: to serve and protect.

Indeed, when immigrants fear that the police will send them to ICE, they're too often afraid to report crimes against them or come forward as witnesses to crimes against others. Trust between the police and community erodes, and the police have a harder time combating crime.

Things spun out of control in Morristown after the city council endorsed the mayor's efforts. Hostilities between immigrant community members and those supporting the mayor's plan have grown. Many of those community members are American citizens or lawful residents. A climate of alienation has been fueled by events like tomorrow's demonstration to promote the mayor's plan. The demonstration is sponsored by a national organization called the ProAmerica Society, and apparently will be joined by white supremacists.

Seeking guidance, dozens of people concerned about this issue and the climate in Morristown - including groups as diverse as American Friends Service Committee, the Latino Leadership Alliance of New Jersey and the New Jersey Coalition Against Sexual Assault - have gone to the Attorney General, New Jersey's chief law enforcement officer, for help.

Unfortunately, neither former Attorney General Stuart Rabner (recently sworn in as the state's chief justice) nor current Attorney General Anne Milgram has stepped in to either prohibit such arrangements or develop guidelines for local police cooperation with federal agencies. By remaining silent, they have missed an opportunity to give New Jersey towns needed information and guidance, to show leadership in statewide law enforcement concerns, and to relieve tension in the community.

The matter clearly raises legal questions for the Attorney General's interpretation. For example, how do police officers work for both the federal government and the state government, when under citizens under New Jersey's state constitution affords residents more rights than the U.S. constitution? Which master do they serve? What are the best practices for successful criminal law enforcement, and how are they affected if police have this dual role? What are the implications for taxpayers on potential racial profiling lawsuits that might result from this practice?

There is precedent for the Office of Attorney General to address best practices for law enforcement in New Jersey. For example, former Attorney General John Farmer Jr. established a policy that all New Jersey police departments must use sequential line-ups, proven to be the best method for eliciting accurate crime witness identifications.

In addition, former Attorney General Peter Harvey sought to formulate policy on videotaping of police interrogations.

Whatever policies the attorney general promulgates on the Morristown issue may please or displease the various sides. However, once she steps in, the dialogue will move from a story about community members pitted against one another, to a much needed debate about best law enforcement policy and police practices.

The attorney general's input is also critical because this issue is not limited to Morristown. Similar dialogues and tensions have arisen in many other New Jersey towns.

The attorney general's leadership here is overdue. Attorney General Milgram should not make the same mistake that some of her predecessors made with racial profiling, waiting for the spark to ignite, or a tragedy to occur, before taking action. New Jersey deserves better.

ACLU Fights for Release of Gulf War Vet

Warren Joseph, while
on duty in Iraq

NEWARK, N.J. — The American Civil Liberties Union today filed a habeas petition seeking the release of Warren Joseph, a Gulf War veteran and immigrant from Trinidad who is a permanent resident of the United States. Joseph has been illegally locked up for more than three years in immigration custody in a New Jersey prison.

"This is no way to treat a man who placed his life on the line for our country," said ACLU-NJ Legal Director Ed Barocas. "He must be released or else given a hearing where the government must justify its decision to imprison him for so long."

Joseph served in the U.S. Army for eight years, including a tour in Iraq during the first Gulf War, where he received multiple commendations. Upon his return, Joseph suffered physical and psychological symptoms similar to those experienced by other Gulf War veterans, including post-traumatic stress disorder and depression. In 2001, he was convicted after pleading guilty to transporting or receiving firearms without a license. After cooperating fully with authorities, Joseph was sentenced to probation. He later served six months for violating his probation.

Upon his release in 2004, Joseph was taken into custody by Immigration Customs Enforcement (ICE) pending removal proceedings and has been at Hudson County Correctional Center in South Kearny, N.J., ever since. Joseph has been detained for three years while the government has pursued his removal based on his single 2001 conviction — six times the amount of his six-month sentence for violating his probation.

"I joined the Army because I love the United States," said Joseph, who moved to the United States nearly 20 years ago and joined the Army at the age of 21. "I am very disappointed that I have been treated this way, but I still love this country. When I am released, I will do my best to see to it that this does not happen to another veteran."

Eight months ago, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals granted Joseph's petition for review, agreeing with his argument that his firearms conviction was not an "aggravated felony" that triggers mandatory removal from the United States.

In light of his war veteran status and his strong family ties in the United States, the ACLU said Joseph has a good chance of remaining in the United States either through naturalization (becoming a U.S. citizen) or cancellation of removal (which would halt his deportation). Despite this, the government has refused to release Joseph into supervised custody.

"Unfortunately, there are thousands of immigrants like Mr. Joseph who have been unlawfully detained, many for years at a time, in immigration custody across the United States," said Judy Rabinovitz, senior staff attorney at the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project. "Such detention goes against the fundamental notions of due process to which citizens and non-citizens alike are entitled in this country."

Joseph has never been allowed a full hearing to decide whether his detention is lawful. The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly held that immigrant detention violates due process unless it is reasonably related to a valid government purpose. The U.S. Supreme Court has also held that when detention is prolonged, it must be accompanied by a sufficiently strong justification. BIA and ICE have provided no such justification.

The ACLU and the ACLU-NJ filed the petition today in U.S. District Court in Newark, N.J. The petition calls for Joseph to be released under conditions of supervision or to have an immediate hearing where officials must prove that his detention is justified. In addition to Rabinovitz and Barocas, other attorneys in Joseph's case are ACLU Staff Attorney Amrit Singh, ACLU-NJ Staff Attorney Jeanne LoCicero, and Claudia Slovinsky and Grace Meng of the Law Offices of Claudia Slovinsky.

Case Documents

ACLU-NJ Opposes Release of Tenants' SSN to Government Officials

NEWARK, N.J. -- The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey today announced that it has joined a lawsuit in the role of "friend-of-the-court" in a case concerning the privacy rights of tenants.

The lawsuit, captioned Powder Mill Heights, et al., v. Township of Parsippany-Troy Hills, challenges a township ordinance requiring landlords to turn over the names and Social Security numbers of all tenants. The ordinance also requires that landlords provide the town with the driver's license numbers, places of employment and phone numbers of all tenants.

"One of the core principles of our democracy, enshrined in our federal and state constitutions, is the right to privacy in your own home and control over your personal information," said Grayson Barber, a Princeton attorney who submitted the legal brief on behalf of the ACLU-NJ. "This ordinance subjects anyone who rents a home in Parsippany-Troy Hills to a profound invasion of privacy."

In its brief, the ACLU-NJ argued that the forced disclosure of Social Security numbers violates both federal and state statutes protecting the confidentiality of those numbers. In response to the town's stated need to adopt the ordinance to address overcrowding, the ACLU-NJ asserted that government should only be allowed to obtain the number of tenants in each apartment, not the names or Social Security numbers of those tenants.

"Every person in New Jersey has a right to refuse the unnecessary, forced disclosure of private information to the government," added Barber. "This is especially true given significant concerns in recent years over identity theft."

The ACLU-NJ, in its brief, noted an Appellate Division decision that struck down a similar measure in Belmar, N.J. In that decision, the court held that the town "does not need to know the names of tenants or their addresses or other personal information to enforce an occupancy limit."

Morris County Superior Court Judge B. Theodore Bozonelis accepted the ACLU-NJ as a friend-of-the-court on June 20, allowing the organization to participate in the lawsuit.

The brief is available on the ACLU-NJ Web site at Powder Mill v. Parsippany-Troy Hills Brief (38k PDF).

ACLU-NJ y CATA Demandan para Defender los Derechos a la Libre Expresión

Los oficiales locales impusieron una multa inconstitucional de mas
de $1.500 a CATA, los organizadores de esta marcha que ocurrió
el 1 de mayo del 2007 en Bridgeton, NJ. Foto de David Bacon

NEWARK, N.J. -- La Unión Americana de Libertades Civiles de Nueva Jersey (ACLU-NJ) y el Comité de Apoyo a los Trabajadores Agrícolas (CATA) y demandaron en el corte distrito federal a la ciudad de Bridgeton para cobrarles una tarifa de mas que $1,500 por una marcha por los derechos de los inmigrantes realizado el 1ero de mayo.

Esta tarifa se aproxima a un impuesto de usuario por la libertad de expresión y eso es inconstitucional," dijo Frank Corrado quien, de parte del ACLU-NJ, es el abogado voluntario para CATA. "Bridgeton es responsable para proveer policía y otros servicios gubernamentales para todo uso de sus calles publicas, incluyendo para marchas y desfiles. Imposición de estas tarifas significará que solo los ricos tendrán el derecho a expresarse, y nuestro Constitución agraciadamente lo prohíbe."

Este año, como el año pasado, CATA organizó una Marcha de Derechos de los Inmigrantes en Bridgeton para expresar apoyo para la reforma migratoria.

En 2006, la marcha de CATA no fue cobrada ninguna tarifa para policía o limpieza. Como el año pasado, CATA aplico por un permiso y trabajo con la policía y la ciudad para determinar la ruta. Ambos años, la marcha se realizo sin incidente alguno.

Pero, este año, Bridgeton demando una tarifa de $1,800 para la policía y un depósito de $200 para limpieza. Después de negociaciones entre CATA, la ACLU-NJ, y Bridgeton, la ciudad se acordó no requerir que las tarifas sean pagadas antes de la marcha, pero agrego que enviaría la cuenta a CATA después de la marcha.

Varias semanas después de la marcha del 1 de mayo, CATA recibió una carta de la ciudad solicitando pago para gastos "adicionales" de policía para la actividad, sumando a más de $1,500. CATA solicito que se retirara la cuenta, pero en una carta recibida el 12 de junio, 2007, la ciudad dijo que perseguiría exigencia de pago y más que continuaría a buscar tal reembolso en el futuro.

"No le encuentro el valor que lo usa para prohibir los derechos que tenemos todos los que vivimos en este gran país a la libre expresión." dijo Mariza Ibarra, miembro de la Junta Directiva de CATA y residente de Bridgeton, "...somos una parte vulnerable de la población y solo estamos luchando para obtener la dignidad de vivir en este mundo como Dios quiere y esta Nación pregona."

En su demanda legal, el ACLU-NJ, en representación de CATA, dijo que oficiales de Bridgeton practicaron "discreción arbitraria y ilimitada" en facturar a CATA para los gastos de la policía dado que la ciudad no tiene una ordenanza que autorice imponer tarifas para marchas o desfiles.

CATA origino en 1975 como un proyecto de Trabajadores Agrícolas de ACLU-NJ. Después, CATA se re-organizo independientemente como una organización propia de membresía de trabajadores migrantes que lucha para los derechos humanos de trabajadores migrantes y inmigrantes. Actualmente CATA tiene membresía extensa por el sur de New Jersey y un comité de líderes activos en Bridgeton que organizaron ambas marchas y otras actividades en la comunidad.

La demanda, CATA v. Bridgeton, fue sometida en la Corte Federal en Camden.

La queja esta disponible en línea a: http://www.aclu-nj.org

Más información de CATA esta disponible a: http://www.cata-farmworkers.org

Bridgeton Settles Free Speech Lawsuit with ACLU-NJ

NEWARK, N.J. -- The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey and the Farmworkers' Support Committee announced today that the City of Bridgeton has agreed to settle a federal lawsuit brought by the groups.

The ACLU-NJ and the Farmworkers' Support Committee, also known as El Comité de Apoyo a los Trabajadores Agricolas, or CATA, filed a lawsuit on July 9, 2007, against Bridgeton for charging a fee of more than $1,500 for an immigrants rights march held on May 1.

In the settlement, Bridgeton agreed not to collect any fees for the May 1 march or impose any fees for marches or other free speech activities in the city's public forums under its existing ordinances and policies.

"We're pleased that the city backed off of its unjustifiable position," said Frank Corrado, who on behalf of the ACLU-NJ is the volunteer attorney for CATA. "It clearly didn't have the authority to impose such fees on free speech activities."

The city retained the right to adopt new ordinances that regulated such activities. CATA retained the right to challenge such an ordinance if they believe it to be unconstitutional or otherwise invalid.

"We will closely monitor any proposed ordinances to ensure that the city does not unfairly burden the rights of immigrants - or anyone - to engage in free speech activities," said Nelson Carrasquillo, CATA Executive Director.

The lawsuit, CATA v. Bridgeton, was filed in U.S. District Court in Camden.

More information on CATA is available at http://www.cata-farmworkers.org