ACLU-NJ News - Privacy

ACLU-NJ Celebrates 50 Years on the Front Lines of Freedom

Newark, N.J. - For five decades, the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey has been a gale force in the most critical social debates of our time and a vigilant guardian of civil rights for all.

In June, the ACLU-NJ will mark the 50th anniversary of its founding and celebrate its standing as one of the largest and most active affiliates in the nation. Created to counter the growing pressures on civil liberties in the state, the affiliate's first official meeting took place on the night of June 16, 1960. Since its start, the affiliate, which has continued to keep its headquarters in Newark, has seen its membership multiply nearly 10-fold, from 1,600 people to more than 15,000.

"We believe that the liberties in the Bill of Rights belong to every American, to all the people in New Jersey regardless of their political beliefs, race, religion or national origin," ACLU-NJ founder and longtime President Emil Oxfeld said in the original press release announcing the formation of the state's affiliate. "We believe these freedoms must be exercised if democracy in our state is to grow and thrive."

Oxfeld went on to list issues that desperately needed attention at the time - due process, racial discrimination, the separation of church and state, and freedom from censorship - all principles the ACLU still defends daily.

"While some of the issues raised in our cases over the years seem archaic by today's standards, many haven't changed at all," said ACLU-NJ Executive Director Deborah Jacobs, who has led the affiliate since 1999, including during the biggest membership spike in its history. "The law has advanced remarkably in areas like women's rights, lesbian and gay rights, and safeguarding personal privacy, but with issues like free speech, police practices and religious freedom, no fight ever stays won."

"The ACLU of New Jersey has been a leader in the crucial civil liberties battles of our time," said Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the national ACLU. "While each new era brings a wave of assaults on freedom, the ACLU of New Jersey responds swiftly and decisively, protecting the rights of all Garden State residents. It has proven its value on the American political landscape."

Since opening its doors and springing into action - its first official undertaking was commending the Clifton Library's stance against banning books like Lady Chatterley's Lover - the ACLU-NJ has doggedly worked for justice and equality in New Jersey.

In its first decade the ACLU-NJ took strong action following the 1967 Newark Rebellion. Staffers took to the streets in the aftermath, painstakingly cataloguing police abuses to the ACLU-NJ would refer to in its demands for reform. The New Jersey affiliate also emerged even more progressive than the national ACLU, becoming one of the first state affiliates to take a stand against the Vietnam War.

Since those early years, the ACLU-NJ has grown into one of the country's largest and most active state affiliates, with a record of milestones that has earned it a role on the national stage. Among its accomplishments, the ACLU-NJ:

Defended the rights of women in schools, from a tennis star (represented by Ruth Bader Ginsburg) who won the right to play on the high school boys' tennis team, to the Princeton student who turned its Ivy League all-male eating clubs co-ed.
Blocked a bill requiring a "one-minute period of silence" for prayer in public schools in 1983.
Defended 12 motorists who had been racially profiled on the New Jersey Turnpike in the late 1990s.
Propelled New Jersey to become the first state in the nation to grant equal standing to gay and lesbian couples jointly adopting in 1997.
Successfully challenged the state's ban on late-term abortion in 1998 and a law requiring parents to sign off on a minor's abortion in 2000.
Challenged secret detentions and organized locally, fending off attempts to chip away at individual rights following the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.
Defeated local laws written to exclude immigrants from housing, won humane working conditions for immigrants, and helped enforce the rights of young immigrants to attend public school.
Established stronger First Amendment protections in schools and malls, as well as developments run by homeowners associations.

The ACLU-NJ is celebrating the clients, attorneys, leaders and volunteers - many involved in the cases highlighted above - who have built its legacy, from its founders to its future. The stories of these 50 Faces of Liberty can be found at the ACLU-NJ website, http://www.aclu-nj.org

"Society has changed dramatically since our founding, but we've never lost the fire that fuels the ACLU's advocacy," Jacobs added. "We can't always predict what challenges lie ahead for liberty in a changing world, but whatever they are, the ACLU stands ready to defend the fundamental rights of ordinary Americans."

The year-long commemoration will culminate November 4 at the NJ Freedom Fest: A night of laughter and liberties, hosted by comedian Jimmy Tingle and featuring faces from the ACLU past and present, to be held at the Heldrich Hotel in New Brunswick.

5 Former AGs Challenge Jails' Blanket Strip Searches

NEWARK, NJ - The American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of New Jersey (ACLU-NJ) today filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of five former New Jersey Attorneys General opposing the blanket strip search policies of the Burlington County Jail and Essex County Correctional Facility. The jails' policies currently require strip searches for people charged with but not convicted of minor offenses, and even when there is no reasonable suspicion that an arrestee possesses contraband.

"Strip searching every detainee is unconstitutional, it contributes little to jail security and it creates an intolerable risk of subjecting detainees to needless humiliation," said Ed Barocas, Legal Director for the ACLU-NJ. "There is no legitimate reason for these types of policies to exist."

The amicus brief , filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on behalf of former New Jersey Attorneys General Robert J. Del Tufo, Deborah T. Poritz, John J. Farmer Jr., Peter C. Harvey and Zulima V. Farber, defends the privacy and Fourth Amendment rights of Albert Florence.

Florence filed a lawsuit in 2005 charging officials at the two jails with unconstitutionally subjecting him to two strip searches despite a lack of reasonable suspicion. The searches followed his erroneous arrest during a 2005 traffic stop for a fine he had already paid. He was ordered during the searches to squat naked and, while standing in front of prison guards, to lift his genitals.

"Being forced to strip naked is humiliating, and people charged with minor crimes shouldn't be strip searched unless there's a reason to think they're hiding something," said David Shapiro, staff attorney with the ACLU National Prison Project.

Consistent with legal precedent, U.S. District Court Judge Joseph H. Rodriguez ruled in February 2009 that the strip search of Florence violated the Constitution. However, officials representing both Burlington and Essex Counties appealed the decision, placing the case before the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.

The former Attorneys General's brief notes that Judge Rodriguez's decision prevents strip searches only for non-indictable offenses that do not involve contraband and when there is no reason to suspect contraband. Additionally, his decision does not preclude strip searches following visitation.

Previous federal rulings have also banned strip searches of low-level arrestees unless jail officials can prove reasonable suspicion that the inmate may have drugs, guns or other illegal contraband. The standard of reasonable suspicion still allows prison officials to use broad discretion in determining if a strip search is necessary.

A copy of the amicus brief is available online at: http://www.aclu.org/prisoners-rights/florence-v-board-chosen-freeholders-county-burlington-et-al-amicus-brief

Additional information about ACLU-NJ is available online at: http://www.aclu-nj.org

Additional information about the ACLU National Prison Project is available online at: http://www.aclu.org/prison

NJ's Federal Law Enforcement Used GPS To Track People's Cell Phones

Justice Department Documents Reveal Former U.S. Attorney Chris Christie Approved Tracking Whereabouts With No Warrant

NEW YORK - The American Civil Liberties Union announced today its discovery that former U.S. Attorney for New Jersey Chris Christie gave approval to track people's precise whereabouts through their cell phones without a warrant.

"This is just the newest example of our privacy rights careening over the edge with federal officials drunk at the wheel," said ACLU-NJ Executive Director Deborah Jacobs. "Big Brother is tucked away in our cell phones, and the man behind the curtain is Chris Christie."

Justice Department documents made public today through a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic Frontier Foundation show that the government is actively taking advantage of GPS or other similarly precise technology to monitor people's coming and goings, specifically in New Jersey as well as Florida, and that it does not always obtain a search warrant beforehand.

"Tracking the location of people's cell phones reveals intimate details of their daily routines and is highly invasive of their privacy," said Catherine Crump, a staff attorney with the ACLU. "The government is violating the Constitution when it fails to get a search warrant before tracking people this way."

Although low-level courts have authorized the tracking, New Jersey and Florida are the only two known states in which federal prosecutors are obtaining court orders for GPS or similarly precise tracking information merely by showing that the tracking information is "relevant and material" to a criminal investigation - a substantially lower burden than the "probable cause" standard required by the Constitution.

The Justice Department itself has stated that federal prosecutors should seek probable cause warrants to obtain precise location data in private areas. Considering the fact that people do not even have an opportunity in court to challenge the tracking, since they are not informed of the proceedings, it's essential that the government have a sufficient legal basis before initiating this surveillance.

The ACLU wishes to participate in such proceedings as amicus curiae in the interest of defending the rights of those potentially subject to tracking.

The ACLU and EFF sued the Justice Department in July 2008 for records related to the government's use of cell phones as tracking devices. Some documents have been turned over but the lawsuit continues over additional information about the government's practices.

Attorneys on the case are Crump of the ACLU, David Sobel of EFF and Arthur Spitzer, Legal Director of the ACLU of the National Capital Area.

ACLU-NJ Seeks to Join Free Speech Lawsuit Against Newark

NEWARK, NJ -- The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey (ACLU-NJ) today moved to join a federal lawsuit filed against the City of Newark for disciplining a police officer who anonymously posted a message on a website that was critical of the Newark Police Department. The lawsuit also challenges the action of Newark police in improperly obtaining a subpoena to require an Internet Service Provider to turn over the identity of the then-anonymous web poster.

"Public employees have the right to speak openly about matters of public concern, and the right to do so anonymously on the web, if they choose" said ACLU-NJ Legal Director Ed Barocas. "In this case, the Newark Police Department violated both of those rights."

In February of 2006, the plaintiff in the case, Officer Louis Wohltman, anonymously posted messages about the integrity and competence of the Newark police department on http://www.newarkspeaks.com a website on which people engage in dialogue about local issues.

Due to the fact that Newark Police Department supervisors apparently disliked the content of the anonymous web messages they went to great -- and ultimately illegal -- lengths to uncover the identity of the web poster. Despite the fact that what Wohltman wrote did not amount to an illegal threat, the police department improperly used the criminal grand jury subpoena process to obtain Wohltman's identity. Then, the department suspended Wohltman for nine months without pay for making the critical statements.

This is the second time in as many weeks that the ACLU-NJ has become involved in a case in which the Newark Police Department allegedly tried to suppress citizens' First Amendment rights. Last week, the ACLU-NJ, along with the Seton Hall Center for Social Justice, filed a lawsuit (Lima v. Newark Police Department) 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.

The case involving Officer Louis Wohltman is captioned Wohltman v. The City of Newark, et al., and was filed in the United States District Court in Newark. The ACLU-NJ's filing today is to request permission to participate in the case as amicus curiae ("friend-of-the-court") and to provide the court with the legal context in which to analyze the facts of the case.

Louis Wohltman is directly represented by Frank Corrado of Barry, Corrado, Grassi & Gibson, as well as by Rubin Sinins of Javerbaum Wurgaft Hicks Kahn Wikstrom & Sinins.

ACLU Applauds Governor Corzine's Signing of Pharmacy Bill

TRENTON, N.J. -- The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey today applauded Governor Jon Corzine's decision to sign a bill into law that will help ensure women's ability to access birth control at the pharmacy. The bill, sponsored by Senator Fred Madden and Assemblywoman Linda Stender, makes New Jersey one of a handful of states to protect patient's ability to access prescriptions at the pharmacy.

"Today's law strikes an important balance between protecting patient's health and religious freedom," said Deborah Jacobs, executive director of the ACLU-NJ.

The pharmacy access law requires pharmacies to fill prescriptions for in-stock drugs or devices without undue delay, despite the sincerely held moral, philosophical or religious beliefs of an individual pharmacist. Pharmacies employing pharmacists who object to filling prescriptions can accommodate the objection so long as the pharmacy ensures that customers receive their prescriptions, including birth control, at the pharmacy without undue delay.

"Access to safe and effective contraception is a central component of basic health care for women," said Jacobs. "This law will go a long way toward ending sex discrimination at the pharmacy."

The ACLU's long-held advocacy for both reproductive rights and religious liberty uniquely positions the organization to address this issue. In April, the ACLU released a report, "Religious Refusals and Reproductive Rights: Accessing Birth Control at the Pharmacy," which examines legal questions raised when a pharmacist or pharmacy refuses to provide contraception based on a religious objection.

The report is available online at: http://tinyurl.com/2pms2q

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

Morris County Court Rules in Favor of Tenants' Privacy

NEWARK, N.J. -- The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey today praised a decision issued Friday by Morris County Superior Court Judge B. Theodore Bozenelis that protects the privacy rights of tenants.

In the case, captioned Powder Mill Heights, et al., v. Township of Parsippany-Troy Hills, Judge Bozenelis struck down a Parsippany-Troy Hills ordinance that required landlords to turn over the names, Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers, places of employment and phone numbers of all tenants.

"The right to privacy in your home and control over your personal information are core principles enshrined in our federal and state constitutions," said Grayson Barber, a Princeton attorney who submitted the legal brief on behalf of the ACLU-NJ. "This is an especially important principle given significant concerns in recent years over identity theft."

Judge Bozenelis ruled that the ordinance violated tenants' privacy and due process rights and that, if the town was concerned about overcrowding, all that was necessary for town officials to obtain was the number of residents in each unit. This was the position advocated by the ACLU-NJ in a "friend-of-the-court" brief submitted in June 2007.

In its brief, the ACLU-NJ cited to a prior 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."

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.

MVC Comments Highlight Cost, Privacy Concerns with Real ID

NEWARK, N.J. — The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey today praised the New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission for its substantive comments to the Department of Homeland Security about privacy and other concerns on a proposed national identity card, known as Real ID.

In early March, the Department of Homeland Security released draft regulations for the Real ID Act, which is federal legislation that aims to create a national ID card. The New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission provided 63 pages of comments, raising concerns about security, cost, privacy and other implications of Real ID to New Jersey residents.

"With these comments, the Motor Vehicle Commission has demonstrated that it is a strong advocate for the rights and interests of New Jerseyans," said ACLU-NJ Executive Director Deborah Jacobs. "The MVC's analysis shows that Real ID would be a real nightmare of more red tape, longer lines, more identity theft and higher fees for New Jersey."

The New Jersey MVC's comments reflect a growing rebellion among the states against Real ID. Twelve states have passed legislation or resolutions opposing Real ID and several states have passed statutory bans on participating in Real ID as it is currently constituted.

In light of the MVC's substantive concerns, the ACLU-NJ calls on Governor Corzine to join this national movement and take action to reject Real ID. "Our own MVC has identified countless problems with Real ID, demonstrating that if implemented, Real ID will waste New Jerseyans' money, jeopardize our privacy and replace our driver's license system with a new scheme that will cost billions and fail to provide real security," said Jacobs. "It is time for us to say 'no' to Real ID."

The Real ID Act creates a national ID card system that federalizes and standardizes state driver's licenses. After being rejected as a stand-alone bill, it was forced through Congress in 2005 as part of a must-pass Iraq War appropriations measure. It requires every person in the country to have a Real ID-compliant identification document in order to fly on commercial airlines or enter government buildings. The Department of Homeland Security has said that some day Real ID will be required for other purposes, like getting a passport. Interested parties had until May 8 to submit comments on the regulations.

New Jersey's MVC clearly identifies the problems that the proposed Real ID regulations present for the state, which through its 6-point ID system already has one of the most secure licenses in the country. The MVC's comments state that "[w]hile substantial changes were made to update the State's previously archaic system, the present process, though extremely secure, will fall short of meeting the requirements … Therefore to become compliant, New Jersey would need to utilize significant resources that the State can ill-afford at this time."

DHS estimates that Real ID will cost $23 billion to implement nationally over the next 10 years. The New Jersey MVC states that the cost DHS suggested for the state to implement Real ID — $210 million over 10 years — is underestimated by at least 36 percent. The comments also note the failure of the federal government to provide grants and other funding sources for Real ID implementation.

The MVC said that the Real ID system would alter the agency's core mission from driver safety to a business that emphasizes identification. In its comments on Real ID, the MVC questioned "whether sufficient thought has been given to the impact this change could have on driver safety nationwide."

Finally, in addressing privacy issues, the MVC notes it has "some concern about the increased risk of identity theft and the potential erosion of personal privacy. Whenever additional personal information is collected and systems are created to retrieve that personal information or databases are established to house such information, the threat of improper access and use of that information is heightened."

On the Net

For more information on state opposition to Real ID, visit http://tinyurl.com/23l92n

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).