News & Commentary

Via Facsimile 870-338-9832 and U.S. MailAugust 8, 2008J.F. Valley, MayorHelena-West Helena 226 Perry Street Helena-West Helena, AR 72342Re:  Emergency Curfew OrderDear Mayor Valley:The American Civil Liberties Union of Arkansas is a non-profit organization dedicated to preserving and defending the rights guaranteed to us by the United States and Arkansas Constitutions.  The purpose of this correspondence is to notify you that your city's emergency curfew orders are unconstitutional, and that enforcement of such ordinance and orders may subject the city to civil liability for violating of the rights of those upon whom the curfew is imposed and enforced. Chapter 7.12 of the Helena-West Helena City Code pertaining to curfews states:7.12.01  Civil emergencies  The Mayor, at any time a condition has arisen or is imminent, which in his judgment constitutes a civil disturbance, riot, insurrection or time of local disaster, may declare a state of emergency and impose a curfew for such time and for such areas as he deems necessary to meet such emergency.  Provided, however, such curfew shall not extend for over a period of fourty-eight (48) hours unless extended by a majority vote of the members of the governing body.On August 7, 2008, you issued an order that all residents of a particular zone of the city be subject to a curfew prohibiting loitering, standing, and "hanging out," and providing for stop and investigation of all moving traffic.  Furthermore, you ordered that Code Enforcement pursue evictions for all persons residing in homes where at least three criminal violations have occurred. A high crime rate in Helena-West Helena is not a condition set forth in the city code for which the Mayor can declare a state of emergency, and as such it appears you are acting ultra vires.  Peaceful, law abiding citizens are being ordered into their homes by law enforcement, underscoring that the situation in your city has not reached riot or natural disaster proportions.  Were the city code to grant you the authority to declare a curfew on all citizens, the code would be unconstitutional, as set forth below. This order is blatantly unconstitutional on numerous grounds.  First, such curfews have never been allowed under the laws of the United States, barring riot, insurrection, or natural disaster.  Not one case has ever allowed for the imposition of searches, seizures, and house arrest against innocent citizens because of the high crime rate in a particular city.  See, e.g. American Civil Liberties Union of West Tennessee, Inc. v. Chandler, 458 F.Supp. 456 (W.D. Tenn. 1978).  In fact, "state of emergency" curfews imposed upon youth aimed at addressing youth crime have been declared unconstitutional.  Ramos v. Town of Vernon, 353 F.3d 171 (2d Cir. 2003); Nunez v. City of San Diego, 114 F.3d 935 (9th Cir. 1997); Hutchins v. District of Columbia, 942 F.Supp. 665 (D.D.C. 1996); Walters v. Barry, 711 F.Supp. 1125 (D.D.C. 1989); McCollester v. City of Keene, 586 F.Supp. 1381 (D.N.H. 1984); Johnson v. City of Opelousas, 658 F.2d 1065 (5th Cir. 1981); Naprstek v. City of Norwich, 545 F.2d 815, 818 (2d Cir. 1976); State v. J.P., 907 So.2s 1101 (Fla. 2004); City of Sumner v. Walsh, 148 Wn.2d 490 (2003). Second, requiring adult residents of the city to be on house arrest violates these individuals' rights to travel and association, as guaranteed by the United States Constitution.  Third, the very language of the Order violates the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, in that, in effect, it proclaims that the Fourth Amendment is waived for all persons, including those suspected of no criminal activity.  The warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment is in place specifically to prohibit these kinds of sweeping searches.  Law enforcement, even in areas where there are higher crime rates, is not a sufficient basis upon which to place people on house arrest, or set aside the Fourth Amendment. Fourth, the Order likely violates Helena-West Helena residents' rights to equal protection under the laws.  "[O]nce curfews are imposed, the burden falls disproportionately on minority individuals and communities."  Harvard Note, "Juvenile Curfews and Gang Violence: Exiled on Main Street," 107 Harvard L. Rev. 1693, 1707 (1994).   The order to evict all residents of homes where at least three crimes have occurred violates residents' rights to association as guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States' Constitution.  Finally, most loitering ordinances and arrests also violate constitutional guarantees.  Papachristou v. Jacksonville, 405 U.S. 156 (1972). Notwithstanding the City Code and Curfew Order, the residents of Helena-West Helena have the right to sit under shade trees in their front yard, to ride their bicycles along the streets, protest this policy, and drive around the city with the full protections of the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments.  Citizens, including those expressing opposition to the curfew order, should be subject to no special scrutiny by law enforcement unless they are suspected of some criminal activity. Mayor, we sympathize with the need to address crime in your city, and have many good friends and members in Phillips County and Helena-West Helena.  We certainly do not seek to detract from law enforcement using their lawful authority under the Fourth Amendment to stop, question, detain, or arrest those who are suspected of committing criminal acts, but violating law abiding citizens' constitutional rights is counterproductive to quelling unrest.  Citizens receiving unlawful orders tend to object, and enforcement of this order may inflame an already problematic situation.  We urge you to immediately cease any curfews imposed due to high crime rates, whether in the entire city, or in a particular zone, and to dismiss any prosecution initiated for violation of the curfew order.  We do encourage you to find law enforcement solutions that will comply with the constitution, and hope that this letter will help you avoid a solution that may ultimately leave the city subject to liability. Please have your city attorney contact me as soon as possible to advise whether you will rescind the emergency curfew order.  Thank you for your attention to this matter, and we look forward to receiving your response.Respectfully,Holly Dicksoncc:       Helena-West Helena City Council Members?           Andre Valley, City Attorney

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE?July 15, 2008The ACLU of Arkansas supports the efforts of Arkansas Families Firstto fight a ballot initiative that would make it illegal for children to be adopted by family members if the family member was living with but not married to a sexual partner. The initiative would also prevent children from being placed with foster parents similarly situated. Utah is the only other state with such a ban.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASEFebruary 29, 2008

Please see document referenced below in the documents section.

CLICK HERE FOR A COPY OF Senator Altes' email to Bill Vines FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASENovember 29, 2007

October 29, 2007LITTLE ROCK--Today the American Civil Liberties Union of Arkansas announced that it is part of a coalition working for fair and equal treatment and due process for immigrants, and those perceived to be immigrants, in Arkansas.  The new group, the Arkansas Friendship Coalition, consists of leaders in the faith, business, and social justice communities."Arkansas has seen one of the country's fastest growing Latino populations over the last ten years and the reception has not always been warm," said ACLU of Arkansas executive director Rita Sklar.  "Some local and state government officials have tried to portray every immigrant as a criminal, a gang member or drug abuser who is a drain on society.  This coalition hopes to counter that view and ensure that no one's rights are violated because of the color of their skin or their ability to speak English."The press release issued by the Friendship CoalitionWe are a nation of immigrants.  The very foundations of our country were built on the hopes, dreams and aspirations of immigrants.  Those were hopes and dreams of a land of opportunity that would provide a better life for their families.  It is those same hopes, dreams and aspirations that today imbue the over 100,000 immigrants who have come to call Arkansas home. Through their hopes and dreams, immigrants are making a huge contribution to Arkansas.  We, as a group of leaders in this state, have come together to form a coalition to encourage a reasonable and respectful approach to the immigration debate in Arkansas.Our core beliefs are:

LITTLE ROCK, AR – The American Civil Liberties Union of Arkansas filed a letter today with the Arkansas Judicial Discipline and Disability Commission in support of State Appeals Court Judge Wendell Griffen, who is facing disciplinary action by the commission for making public statements that are critical of the Bush administration. The ACLU said that any discipline by the commission would violate the judge's right to freedom of speech."The state cannot require judges to stand for election and then deprive them of ?the ability to comment on important issues of the day," said Rita Sklar, Executive? Director of the ACLU of Arkansas. "If a litigant thinks a judge's views reveal a?ground for recusal, then that is the way to handle questions of impartiality or ?the appearance of impartiality.  But an elected judge's First Amendment rights should? not be extinguished.  As a prominent African American and Baptist pastor in a small ?southern state, Judge Griffen is a community leader in a strong position to inform? public debate on today's social problems."The ACLU said that Judge Griffen's speech is protected by the First Amendment ?because the judge's comments were made on matters of great public concern or? importance, which cuts to the core values of the First Amendment, and that these ?comments did not concern matters that are likely to come before him as a judge.?  Furthermore, the ACLU says in its letter that forbidding judges from speaking on? matters of public concern would do nothing to ensure impartiality, but instead? would conceal partiality that they might otherwise reveal in their remarks.The ACLU cited the United States Supreme Court decision in Republican Party of? Minnesota v. White, which held that Minnesota's policy of barring judges from? discussing political views was unconstitutional. That decision, written by Justice? Antonin Scalia in 2002, identified two ways for handling real or perceived? problems arising from judges speaking on public matters: disqualifying a judge ?from hearing a case because of a potential conflict of interest, or voting to ?remove a judge from office.Judge Griffen faces discipline charges for the following incidents:

Little Rock, AR - The American Civil Liberties Union of Arkansas filed a lawsuit today in federal court in Pine Bluff demanding that the Arkansas Department of Correction allow those viewing executions to see the entire process from the moment the condemned person is brought into the room until the moment the body is taken out.“America is an open society, and we do not carry on trials or carry out executions in secret,” said Rita Sklar, Executive Director of the ACLU of Arkansas. “The freedom we treasure is based on the idea that the government acts with the permission of the people, and not the other way around. If we are going to give the state the power to execute people in our name, we have a right and responsibility to see exactly what goes on.”The ACLU of Arkansas filed the lawsuit on behalf of the Northwest Arkansas Chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists, the Arkansas Times, Inc., and journalist Max Brantley. The ACLU contends that the First Amendment compels a right of public viewing for all phases of a lethal injection because the event is a matter of public concern and debate, and “Because the First Amendment guarantees the public and the press a qualified right of access to governmental proceedings … [preventing the press and the public] ... from viewing the execution from beginning to end violates their First Amendment right of access. ”The lawsuit asks the Court to require that “all phases of the execution be conducted in full and open view of the assembled witnesses to that execution.”In Arkansas a limited number of people, including members of the media, are allowed to witness state executions. Under current execution procedure curtains in the execution chamber are opened only after the prisoner has been strapped to a gurney and the intravenous tubes inserted into the prisoner’s veins. The curtains remain open while the poison is injected and the prisoner dies, and then close again as technicians take out the tubes and do whatever else is necessary to remove the body from the room.The ACLU complaint describes the execution procedure in more detail:“The [prison] does not allow the public and media witnesses to view an execution in its entirety. Specifically,

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASEMarch 12, 2007LITTLE ROCK, AR – The American Civil Liberties Union of Arkansas condemns the decision of an Arkansas Senate committee this morning to send to the floor SB 959, a bill that would ban gay people and most unmarried heterosexual couples who live together from adopting or serving as foster parents.“This bill is bad for our state and our children for many reasons, not the least of which is that it will rob parents of the ability to decide who will care for their children if something happens to them,” said Rita Sklar, executive director of the ACLU of Arkansas. “If you want your gay brother or your lesbian aunt to adopt and raise your children if you die, your wishes will be disregarded by the state if this bill passes.”SB 959, introduced just months after the state Supreme Court unanimously struck down a ban on fostering by gay people, was approved to go to the full Senate this morning by the Public Health, Welfare, and Labor Committee. If passed, SB 959 would categorically ban lesbian and gay Arkansans from adopting or serving as foster parents, even if they’re relatives of the children in question. It would also ban unmarried heterosexual couples who live together unless they’re related to the child, which could prevent godparents or family friends from caring for a child if the parents die or can’t keep the child.The ACLU of Arkansas pointed out several other problems with SB 959: