ACLU-NJ News - Police Practices

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.

New Jersey Rejects Inhumane and Ineffective Death Penalty

Newark, NJ - The ACLU-NJ praised lawmakers today as Governor Jon Corzine signed a measure to end capital punishment in the state of New Jersey. The bill, which passed the state legislature last week with bipartisan majorities, replaces the death penalty with life imprisonment without possibility of parole. New Jersey is the first state since 1965 to legislatively repeal the death penalty.

"The death penalty is an archaic, inhumane and ineffective practice that most nations abandoned long ago" says ACLU-NJ Executive Director Deborah Jacobs. "It has proven fundamentally unfair and discriminatory, too often resulting in the execution of innocent people."

The bill was introduced in November after the New Jersey Death Penalty Study Commission concluded that capital punishment does not deter crime. The Commission found that capital punishment is "inconsistent with evolving standards of decency."

In addition to lawmakers, Jacobs acknowledged the tireless work of death penalty opponents, including the remarkable leadership of the New Jersey Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty, and ACLU members from across New Jersey who lobbied their representatives in support of abolishment.

Gov. Corzine specifically thanked the ACLU for its dedication to this important issue. "I also want to thank advocacy groups, particularly . . . the ACLU and there are many other groups that joined in this process and I am eternally grateful," said Corzine.

According to the Death Penalty Information Center, which opposes capital punishment, New Jersey joins 13 states and the District of Columbia that do not use execution as a means of punishment.

"This is historic progress towards the end this cruel and futile punishment," says Jacobs. "We hope it will generate momentum in the campaign to end capital punishment nationwide."

The legislation (S171/A3716) was sponsored in the Senate by Senator Raymond J. Lesniak (D-Union), Senator Robert J. Martin (R-Morris/Passaic), Senator Shirley K. Turner (D-Mercer) and Senator Nia H. Gill (D-Essex/Passaic). It was sponsored in the Assembly by Assemblyman Wilfredo Caraballo (D-Essex/Union), Assemblyman Christopher Bateman (R-Morris/Somerset), Assemblyman Gordon M. Johnson (D-Bergen), Assemblywoman Valerie Vainieri Huttle (D-Bergen) and Assemblywoman Nilsa Cruz-Perez (D-Camden/Gloucester).

Help Make the Death Penalty History

The death penalty is the ultimate denial of civil liberties. Over the past 30 years, over 100 wrongfully convicted people were released from death row. The legislature is expected to vote on S163 to abolish the death penalty and replace it with life without parole before the end of the year.

State officials and opinion leaders have finally acknowledged what advocates have said for years, the death penalty is a public policy disaster that is expensive, discriminatory, cruel and immoral. In January, the New Jersey Death Penalty Commission issued a report that found that the death penalty costs more than life in prison and doesn't deter crime.

New Jersey reinstated the death penalty in 1982 but hasn't executed anyone since 1963. Currently eight people sit on New Jersey's death row. The Legislature imposed an execution moratorium in December 2005 when it formed the commission that studied the death penalty.

If approved by lawmakers and Governor Corzine, New Jersey would be the first state to legislatively abolish capital punishment since the U.S. Supreme Court reinstated it in 1976. Capital punishment is in force in 38 states. If the measure passes, New Jersey would be the 13th state with no death penalty.

Contact your legislators and Governor Corzine today to support an end to the death penalty in New Jersey.

End the Racist "Drug Free School Zone"

Ask your legislators and Governor Corzine to support an amended version of S4573, which reduces the so-called "drug free school zone" from 1000 feet to 200 feet. The "drug free school zone" law requires a three-year sentence for those convicted of distributing or possessing with intent to sell drugs within 1,000 feet of school property or a school bus, regardless of whether minors were involved or the individuals knew they were in a school zone.

The drug free school zone law is a poster child for criminal justice policies that are costly, ineffective and racially biased. This perspective is shared by people who have studied the law from across the political spectrum.

New Jersey's Sentencing Commission members, including prosecutors and public defenders alike, concluded that the drug free school zone doesn't reduce drug crime and has a discriminatory effect because of the density of school and other drug-free zones in urban areas, where more people of color live, compared to the suburbs. In 2004, over 96 percent of all people imprisoned with school-zone violations were African-American or Latino.

We have numerous policies that cost society a lot of money, but do little to keep people safe or rehabilitate those who enter criminal justice system. The saying "Jail costs more than Yale," really gets to the heart of the matter. We need policies that are smart on crime and will make a real difference in creating a safe society.

The ACLU shares the opinion of the Sentencing Commission members that the drug free school zone does not serve us well. Contact your legislators and Governor Corzine today to support legislation to eliminate the drug free school zone, or at least reduce it to 200 feet.

Contact Information

Governor Jon Corzine

http://www.state.nj.us/governor/govmail.html

Find your legislator

http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/members/legsearch.asp

ACLU Welcomes Representative Holt's Stand on the Fourth Amendment

Washington, DC - Today the American Civil Liberties Union welcomed proposed legislation from Representative Rush Holt (D-NJ) that would protect vital constitutional rights. The bill, "The FISA Modernization Bill of 2007," counters the Democratic leadership's "RESTORE Act," also introduced today. Both bills are attempting to fix the disastrous "Protect America Act" that was rushed through Congress in August and rubberstamped the administration's warrantless wiretapping program. The ACLU believes that Rep. Holt's bill is constitutional because, unlike the RESTORE Act, it does not include so-called basket warrants for American communications. Blanket warrants do not require individualized suspicion and are tantamount to no warrant at all.

The following can be attributed to Caroline Fredrickson, director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office:

"Representative Holt's bill addresses the administration's intelligence concerns without giving up any ground on civil liberties. It protects privacy rights by limiting the scope of surveillance to foreigners communicating with other foreigners and also demanding the destruction of any American information inadvertently obtained during intelligence gathering.

"This bill does nothing to impede government agencies working to keep us safe and does everything to restore the rights that were disregarded by the Protect America Act. In fact, it is a direct and constitutional answer to the Protect America Act. This bill ultimately proves that we can protect our country from threat and keep the Fourth Amendment intact. If it must pass something, Congress should use Representative Holt's bill as it moves forward on fixing the mistake of the Protect America Act."

To read more about the ACLU's work on FISA, go to: http://www.aclu.org/fisa

Police Searched and Harassed African American Youths

Sean Anderson, Randy Reina,
Diamond Yorker

NEWARK, N.J. -- The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey today announced that the Township of Manalapan has paid $275,000 to settle a discrimination lawsuit the organization filed on behalf of three African American teenagers who said that officers searched them without justification and berated them while their three white friends were told to go home.

"We hope that this settlement will send a message to all towns and police forces that discrimination is not only wrong and illegal, but also very costly," said John O'Connor of Anderson, Kill & Olick, who represented the plaintiffs as volunteer attorney for the ACLU-NJ. "The evidence here indicated discrimination in searching the teenagers, disrespectful treatment of the parents' complaint and then a woefully inadequate investigation undertaken by the Manalapan Police. I'm sure this treatment does not represent the wishes of the people of Manalapan, and we would like to know what the town plans to do to prevent something like this from happening again."

"New Jersey needs to address racial discrimination in policing," said ACLU-NJ Executive Director Deborah Jacobs. "Incidents like this are evidence that we need greater oversight at the state and local levels."

The case stemmed from an incident on a June evening in 2003. The three plaintiffs, in sworn testimony, gave the following description of events: Diamond Yorker (then 16), Randy Reina (then 17) and Yorker's cousin, Sean Anderson (then 11), were standing with three white friends on a sidewalk that runs along Buck's Head Park Playground in Manalapan. Two police cars pulled up, apparently responding to a noise complaint elsewhere in the area.

The two white police officers singled out the two black teenagers, Yorker and Reina. One officer told Yorker to take his hands out of his pockets. Yorker asked why he had to do so, since he was doing nothing wrong, but nevertheless complied. The officer pulled Yorker over to his police car, kicked his legs apart and searched his pockets. When Reina objected, he also was pulled over and searched. Nothing illegal was found on either youth. The police asked Reina where he lived, and when he responded "Edison," the officer told him, "I don't want to see you around Manalapan anymore."

When confronted by the police, a frightened Anderson, who was 11 at the time, cried. The police responded by calling him "punk" and said, "What's your story, tough guy." During the incident, one of the officers told the three white teenagers that they could go home and said they "don't have to see this."

But the white youths stayed. In their sworn testimony, they corroborated the description of the incident related by the African American youths.

"The police harassed these kids based on their skin color," said ACLU-NJ Legal Director Ed Barocas. "We receive lots of complaints about discrimination, and in this case the officers' discriminatory actions were blatant and brazen."

The lawsuit also challenged the Manalapan police department's response to the formal complaint lodged by the African American parents on behalf of their children.

Accompanied by their parents, Yorker and Reina went to the police station immediately following the incident to file a complaint against the police officers. The Andersons filed a complaint within a few days. The parents said that they were treated with disrespect and racial prejudice. For example, the Yorkers' complaint was curled up into a funnel shape by a sergeant who then stuffed it in his back pocket, and while Anderson's complaint was taken, the lieutenant filled out Anderson's race as "Negro."

O'Connor described the subsequent investigation by the Manalapan Police Internal Affairs Department as inadequate. "The police officers themselves testified that interviewing all witnesses to an incident is 'Investigation 101.' Yet, the Manalapan Police closed their so-called investigation without ever even interviewing any of the white witnesses," said O'Connor. The testimony of the white youths was part of the ACLU-NJ lawsuit.

"Manalapan needs to be more careful about hiring and training their officers, since the job of the police is to protect and serve, not to harass and discriminate," said Diamond Yorker, now 20, a plaintiff in the suit.

The ACLU-NJ will dedicate its legal fees to fund the organization's Racial Justice Program, a new initiative that will focus on racial discrimination, including improper police practices.

The lawsuit was captioned Yorker, et al. v. Township of Manalapan, et al. The case was filed in Superior Court in Monmouth County and was transferred to Middlesex County (because Yorker's father worked for the Monmouth County court system). The lawsuit, filed in 2004, charged discriminatory treatment and improper searches by the police. The plaintiffs' attorneys, O'Connor, Marisa Steel, and their law firm Anderson Kill & Olick, provided their legal representation pro bono.

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.

ACLU-NJ Tackles Racial Profiling in Turnpike Case

NEWARK, N.J. -- The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey today filed a lawsuit on behalf of Willie Nevius, an African American driver who was improperly stopped and searched on the New Jersey Turnpike.

"I felt humiliated by this experience," said Nevius, a 38-year-old man who currently resides in North Carolina. "I didn't do anything wrong, and there was nothing wrong with my car, so the police stopped me for only one reason: I am a black man."

As explained in the ACLU-NJ complaint, on the afternoon of December 9, 2006, Nevius was driving south on the New Jersey Turnpike from Middlesex County in his work van when he was stopped by state troopers.

When Nevius asked why he was stopped, a trooper told him he had an inoperative tail light, but would not then let Nevius examine the light. Numerous officers arrived and interrogated Nevius at length on issues unrelated to the stop -- such as questions about his van and his destination.

Without justification, the officers asked for consent to search his vehicle and, after the search began, they ignored Nevius' requests to stop the search. The officers then took apart the carpeting and interior of his van, riffled through his possessions and left them in disarray.

The search did not reveal contraband or evidence of any crime. After the search, Nevius checked the back of his car and saw that his tail lights were both working. When he mentioned this to the police officer, the officer laughed. He then issued Nevius a "warning" ticket for the alleged inoperative tail light.

"The rate of stops of African American drivers on portions of the New Jersey Turnpike are as high now as they were when New Jersey's attorney general first admitted that racial profiling was 'real, not imagined,'" said noted civil rights lawyer William Buckman of Moorestown, who represents Nevius pro bono for the ACLU-NJ.

"Despite the fact that the state police are already subject to a consent decree requiring federal monitoring, racial profiling continues in New Jersey," Buckman said. "This behavior will persist until we address the culture within the state police that allows these discriminatory actions to take place -- and until we have transparency so the public is getting all the facts."

The ACLU-NJ lawsuit challenges the stop itself, as well as other factors regarding the stop, including the alleged consent to search. Police officers cannot request consent to search unless they have a reasonable suspicion that there is evidence of a crime in the car. The ACLU-NJ also challenges the police officers' refusal to stop searching when Nevius asked them to, and how the search was conducted. These claims are based on the right under the federal and state constitutions of all people to equal treatment and to be free from unreasonable searches by the police, as well as rights under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination and the New Jersey Civil Rights Act.

Governor Jon Corzine in August 2006 established an Advisory Committee on Police Standards, which has held numerous hearings over the past year to address racial profiling and make recommendations. Buckman, as well as ACLU-NJ staff and clients, testified before the committee regarding the need for professional licensing and external oversight of both the State Police and local police departments.

The ACLU-NJ has been at the forefront of fighting against racial discrimination and in 2003 successfully represented 12 individuals who had been targeted based on skin color while driving on the New Jersey Turnpike.

The most recent lawsuit, Nevius v. New Jersey State Police, was filed in U.S. District Court in Camden.