ACLU – Page 2 – RI Future

May 13, 2015

11 RI cities, towns violate ‘Ban the Box’ law

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

At least 11 municipalities in Rhode Island ask job applicants a question on their application forms that is prohibited by law.

The questions vary in wording, but each asks job applicants about their criminal record–a practice that has been illegal in Rhode Island for over a year. As a result, the ACLU of Rhode Island and Direct Action for Rights and Equality (DARE) have sent letters to those municipalities – from Burrillville to Warwick to Narragansett – asking them to promptly remove these questions.

In 2013, the General Assembly amended the state’s Fair Employment Practices Act to provide that, with a few exceptions not relevant here, questions about a person’s past criminal convictions could not be included on employment application forms and could instead only be asked “at the first interview or thereafter.” This “ban the box” law is designed to ensure potential employees are screened based on their qualifications, not their past.

As the letter explains:

The General Assembly enacted this prohibition in recognition of the fact that employment is a pivotal factor in preventing recidivism and that ex-offenders have faced widespread and unfair discrimination in seeking jobs. Well-qualified applicants – even those with long-past criminal records irrelevant to the job for which they were applying – were often excluded from consideration before even having a chance for an interview to demonstrate their qualifications. However, the inquiry on your application form is directly contrary to, and undermines the goal of, the statute to address this inequity.

This month, the ACLU examined the employment application forms of the twenty-nine municipalities that post those forms online after receiving a complaint about one of them. Of the eleven cities and towns that improperly ask criminal record questions, some inquire whether the applicant has ever been convicted of any crime, some limit the inquiry to felonies, and some ask for conviction information for the past five or seven years. And while some of the forms assure applicants that a criminal record does not automatically disqualify them from employment, all of those questions are illegal, and have been since January 1, 2014 when the “ban the box” law took effect.

We’ve asked the municipalities to revise their forms, online and in any other format, within the next two weeks. The ACLU and DARE will consider taking further steps if any cities or towns fail to comply with the statute.

The municipalities that ask about applicants’ criminal record and were sent letters were: Burrillville, Charlestown, Cumberland, Hopkinton, Jamestown, Lincoln, Narragansett, Newport, North Providence, Pawtucket, and Warwick. The ACLU is filing open records requests with the ten towns that did not have their forms posted online and were thus not reviewed.

By discriminating against anyone with a criminal record, these cities and towns are turning away able and qualified applicants. This unhelpful and illegal practice must promptly end–as it should have when it was prohibited last year–so qualified Rhode Islanders have the opportunity to lead productive lives regardless of their past actions.

Fred Ordoñez, executive director of DARE, the organization that led the push for passage of the “ban the box” law, said: “It’s sadly ironic that these municipalities can break a law with little consequence, yet regular people’s criminal record turns into a life sentence of unemployment.”

April 28, 2015April 28, 2015

ACLU files suit over unlawful 6-year seizure of weapons

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Due process is a fundamental tenet underlying our civil liberties, and one can reject the hackneyed mantra that “guns don’t kill people” and still appreciate that gun owners have rights too. The ACLU does.

That’s why last week the ACLU filed a lawsuit in federal district court on behalf of a North Smithfield resident, who is seeking the return of lawfully-possessed weapons that were seized from him over six years ago by the local police department. The lawsuit, filed by RI ACLU volunteer attorney Thomas W. Lyons on behalf of Jason Richer, argues that the North Smithfield Police Department has violated his right to due process and his right to keep and bear arms by retaining his property without just cause. The ACLU successfully filed a similar lawsuit against the Cranston Police Department three years ago.

In September 2008, police responded to Richer’s house when his now ex-wife called to express concern that he had tried to harm himself by taking pills. Although Richer explained that he was not suicidal and that his wife had misconstrued a conversation they had, police forced him to submit to a mental health evaluation at Landmark Hospital. The doctor who saw him there discharged him shortly after his arrival, and no charges were ever filed or any other action taken. In the meantime, police seized “for safe keeping” three lawfully registered guns from a locked case in Richer’s garage. Two months later, when Richer tried to retrieve the guns, police refused to return them, telling him he would need to obtain a court order.

Both his ex-wife and a psychologist provided letters to the Department in support of returning the guns to him, but the Department still refused to do so. Over the years, Richer has repeated his request for the return of the weapons, but he has been consistently rebuffed. He most recently pressed a captain at the department for their return in January of this year. The Captain said he would talk with the town solicitor about it, but Richer never heard back from anybody. In March, the ACLU wrote a letter to the police chief on Richer’s behalf, but also received no response, prompting the filing of today’s lawsuit.

The lawsuit claims that the police department’s practice of requiring “weapons owners who are not charged with a crime to engage in formal litigation in order to recover their seized property” violates Richer’s due process and Second Amendment rights. The suit seeks a court order declaring the police department’s practice unconstitutional and requiring the return of his weapons, as well as an award of monetary damages.

“I am resolved to do all I can to end the unconstitutional practices and procedures employed by the North Smithfield Police Department. From the moment my firearms were seized, I have been asked to prove that I am fit to have them returned, and all the proof I have provided has been dismissed and ignored. This flies in the face of the presumption of innocence we enjoy as Americans. This practice must be stopped,” Jason Richer said when the suit was filed.

In 2012, the ACLU filed a virtually identical suit against the Cranston Police Department, which settled the case by returning the weapons that had been unlawfully held, agreeing to make any necessary repairs to the weapons while they had been confiscated, and paying monetary damages and attorneys’ fees.

Mr. Richer has been extraordinarily patient, yet the police have done nothing but make excuses about returning his property to him. Police departments must learn that the Constitution simply does not allow them to arbitrarily keep the property of innocent residents.

Whether police seize lawfully owned firearms as part of an emergency investigation, use civil forfeiture laws to impound a car from a person who is suspected of drug dealing, or confiscate medical marijuana from somebody alleged to not be a registered patient, the principle should be the same: people have a right to have their property returned – promptly – once officials conclude that no criminal activity has occurred or the basis for the seizure has been found wanting.

March 20, 2015

ACLU, Phil Eil sue DEA for public records requested 3 years ago

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

The ACLU of Rhode Island filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit Wednesday on behalf of local journalist, Philip Eil, who has been stymied for more than three years in his effort to obtain access to thousands of pages of public evidence from a major prescription drug-dealing trial.

The lawsuit, against the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), seeks a court order to release the documents, a declaration that the DEA has wrongfully withheld and redacted documents, and an award of attorney fees. Filing the suit were ACLU volunteer attorneys Neal McNamara and Jessica Jewell, from the law firm of Nixon Peabody.

The request in question involves the evidence used to convict Dr. Paul Volkman, whom the Department of Justice has called the “largest physician dispenser of oxycodone in the United States from 2003 to 2005.” Volkman was indicted on 22 drug trafficking-related counts in 2007, and, in 2011, after an eight-week federal court trial in Ohio that included 70 witnesses and more than 220 exhibits, he was convicted of, among other charges, prescribing medications that caused the overdose deaths of four patients. In 2012, Volkman was sentenced to four consecutive life terms in federal prison — one of the lengthiest criminal sentences for a physician in U.S. history.

Volkman attended college and medical school with Eil’s father, and, in 2009, Eil began conducting research and reporting for a book about the case. After Volkman’s trial ended, Eil requested access to the trial evidence from the clerk of the U.S. District Court in Cincinnati. This request was denied, as were Eil’s subsequent requests to the Ohio U.S. Attorney’s office, the U.S. District Court judge who presided over the case, and the clerk of the 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals.

On February 1, 2012, Eil filed a FOIA request with the Executive Office of U.S. Attorneys, which eventually transferred the request to the DEA nine months later. The DEA still has not completely fulfilled the request, despite numerous efforts by Eil to expedite a response. Pending with the DEA for more than 800 days, Eil’s request is eight months older than what the federal government-operated website, FOIA.gov, reports as the agency’s longest pending request.

One of the 133 slides released to Mr. Eil. The substance of nearly every slide was redacted.

In addition to the time it has taken to process the request, the DEA has withheld 87 percent of the 12,724 pages it has thus far processed for Eil’s FOIA request, and stripped most of the substantive information from the remaining 1,600 pages it has “released.” For example, as the lawsuit notes, one of the nine installments of releases to Eil included “a 133-page slide show where the substance from nearly every single slide is redacted.” In another one of the “partial releases” of information, the DEA withheld 1,225 of 1,232 pages it processed.

“You can’t have a true democracy without a transparent court system, and this case represents an egregious failure of judicial transparency,” Eil said. “The right to a public trial is a basic tenet of our society, and it’s scary to think that any trial in the United States, especially one of this magnitude, would be retroactively sealed off from public view, as this case has.”

All too often at both the state and federal level, agencies address the public’s right to know as they would an exceedingly unpleasant chore – reluctantly, with some disdain, and with little care for the finished product – instead of as the fundamental and essential engine of democracy that it is. Mr. Eil’s efforts and this lawsuit are a reminder of the importance of persistence in holding government agencies accountable to the public.

Eil is an award-winning freelance journalist who, most recently, was news editor and staff writer of the Providence Phoenix until the paper’s closing in 2014. He has taught classes on writing and journalism at the Rhode Island School of Design, where he will return as an adjunct lecturer in September. He has conducted more than 100 interviews, across 19 states, for his book about the Volkman case.

The DEA’s actions in Eil’s case follow a disturbing pattern of FOIA-related behavior from the agency in recent years. In 2012, reason.com reported that DEA FOIA rejections had increased 114 percent since 2008, and earlier this year, the agency told a FOIA requester it would cost $1.4 million to process his request.

The lawsuit was filed in the middle of Sunshine Week, a week designated to educate the public about the importance of open government.

March 12, 2015March 12, 2015

Saturday: ACLU advocate training day

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

The ACLU of Rhode Island has been a constant presence at the State House this legislative session as we testify, monitor, and weigh in on hundreds of bills that could impact your civil liberties. Now, we need your help.

Whether you want to repeal voter ID, end the school-to-prison pipeline, or strengthen privacy rights, your legislators need to hear from you. Join us this Saturday, March 14, at 2 p.m. at the Rochambeau Library for the ACLU Advocate Training Day to learn how you can become an effective advocate for civil liberties and play an active role at the State House. Our policy associate and other local advocates will offer advice on tracking legislation, crafting arguments, meeting with your legislators, writing and delivering testimony, and working with fellow advocates. Afterwards, you’ll be ready to make your voice heard at the State House and to protect the civil liberties of all Rhode Islanders.

The ACLU Advocate Training Day is free and open to all, and no experience is needed to attend. Join us in making Rhode Island a better place for all.

March 12, 2015

Ending life imprisonment without parole for juveniles

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Rep. Chris Blazejewski introduced House bill 5650, sparking a debate in the Rhode Island House Judiciary Committee hearing as to whether or not juvenile defendants should be subject to mandatory life sentences without parole. The American Bar Association, Amnesty International and the ACLU are just three highly regarded civil and human rights groups who have called for an end to this practice.

Juan Méndez, the United Nations special rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment, said, in a recent report, “The vast majority of states have taken note of the international human rights requirements regarding life imprisonment of children without the possibility of release.” And, “life sentences or sentences of an extreme length have a disproportionate impact on children and cause physical and psychological harm that amounts to cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment.”

According to Amnesty International, in written testimony submitted at the hearing, “The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child expressly prohibits life imprisonment without the possibility of release for crimes committed by people under 18 years of age. All countries except the USA and South Sudan have ratified the Convention. Somalia just recently ratified the treaty in January 2015 and South Sudan has already begun the process to become a signatory to the Convention.”

What a terrible place for the United States to find itself as an outlier.

The United States Supreme Court has been evolving on this issue for a decade. In 2012 the Court ruled in Miller v. Alabama that “mandatory sentences of life without the possibility of parole are unconstitutional for juvenile offenders,” yet stopped short of issuing a blanket ban. Judges are simply required to consider the defendant’s youth and the nature of the crime when determining a sentence.

Rhode Island has a historical claim to judicial sentencing temperance, having eradicated the death penalty in 1852. Yet on the issue of life sentences for juvenile defendants, our state is lagging behind. Al Jazeera reports that, “Fourteen states and the District of Columbia have banned life sentences without parole for juveniles.”

Recognizing the potential for rehabilitation, especially of juvenile defendants, is one of the hallmarks of a civilized society. Attorneys general in other states are getting behind similar legislation, according to testimony from Steve Brown of the RI ACLU, yet Attorney General Peter Kilmartin opposes the bill currently under consideration.

Speaking against the bill, Joee Lindbeck, who heads the AG’s Legislation and Policy Unit, brought up the specter of Craig Price, who committed four murders in 1989 while under the age of 16. Reacting to Price’s crimes, the General Assembly “passed a law in 1990 to allow the state to prosecute as an adult any juvenile charged with a capital offense.” Lindbeck maintains that keeping this law on the books prepares us for “worst-case scenarios” like Price.

From a prosecutors point of view, having draconian sentences on the books is important because of the leverage they provide. A kid who committed a crime is much more willing forgo a trial and plead out to a 10 or 20 year sentence if the AG has the power to potentially ask for life without parole. This brings up a question: Should we be empowering the AG with tools to intimidate, or tools to render justice?

Threatening defendants with life destroying sentences seems to save money in the short term, but in long run we have learned that such “cheap justice” is neither.

March 11, 2015

ACLU: RI elementary schools promote gender stereotypes

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Despite decades of progress toward gender equality, in Rhode Island today gender-exclusive student events that are specifically held for girls or boys with the active support of elementary schools help to perpetuate blatant gender stereotypes. Almost invariably, the girls’ events, organized by parent-teacher groups and publicized by the schools, are dances, with another gender-stereotyped event, like a pajama party, occasionally taking their place. By contrast, and just as invariably, the events arranged for boys involve almost anything but dancing, are wide-ranging, and focus on purportedly male-friendly activities like sports and arcade games.

That’s the finding of a report issued by the American Civil Liberties Union of Rhode Island, based on a survey of 40 elementary schools in 16 school districts. The report, “Girls Just Wanna Darn Socks,” states that the schools’ promotion of these parent teacher association (PTA) and parent teacher organization (PTO) activities reinforces outdated stereotypes of gender roles in Rhode Island’s youngest residents.

“Rhode Island girls, routinely sent to dances, are fed the same tired stereotype that they must look pretty and be social, while boys are given access to magic and science shows and physical activities – their own and others – like PawSox games and trampoline parks,” the report stated. Through open records requests, the ACLU found that during the 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 school years, 80% of “girls’ events” at the 40 elementary schools studied were dances. The few other events held for girls generally encompassed pajama parties, yoga nights, and blanket sewing. The activities for boys, on the other hand, were much more diverse, and included attendance at baseball and hockey games, science and magic shows, and outings for laser tag, bowling, and arcade games.

Although these extracurricular activities are hosted by PTAs and PTOs, the ACLU’s investigation found that the schools regularly promote these events in various ways, through posting on school websites, use of school listservs, and by otherwise offering the parent-teacher groups special access to school resources to promote the events. The report argues that the use of these school resources to support such stereotypical and discriminatory events undermines Title IX, the landmark anti-discrimination law that has helped break down the barriers between girls’ and boys’ education over the past four decades.

Great progress has been made by women in education in the years since Title IX’s passage, but girls and women continue to be underrepresented in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) fields. By supporting these gender-exclusive events, the ACLU report argues, “Rhode Island’s schools, however unintentionally, support the sort of stereotyping that helped discourage girls from those fields for so long.”

The report concludes:

In the 21st Century, however, it should be simply unacceptable for public schools to be fostering the notion that girls belong at formal dances, yoga or sewing while boys should be offered baseball games, bowling and science. Not every girl today is interested in growing up to be Cinderella; many enjoy participating in and attending sports events and playing arcade games. Similarly, not every boy makes sports his obsessive pastime or cringes at the thought of going to a dance. Such gender-segregated programming – based on gender stereotypes about the talents, capacities and preferences of children – is harmful to boys and girls alike, and fails in any meaningful way to provide “reasonably comparable” experiences.

The report called on school equal opportunity officers to halt school support of these types of discriminatory extracurricular events, and instead discuss with PTO/PTAs the need to promote gender-inclusive activities. The ACLU also called on the state Department of Education to intervene by providing guidance to school districts on the illegal nature of their promotion of these gender-discriminatory activities. The General Assembly enacted a law in 2013 authorizing gender-exclusive extracurricular activities, but required them to be “reasonably comparable.” The ACLU and numerous women’s rights groups opposed the legislation.

March 4, 2015

PARCC as a high stakes test will spell disaster

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

It is heartening to see a robust discussion on the imminent use of the PARCC test in Rhode Island’s public schools, but the state Department of Education seems to have made up its mind before the test has even gotten off the ground. It is already actively encouraging school districts to use the PARCC to penalize students as early as next year.

Before having any chance to meaningfully examine how this untried test is working, or to determine whether, like the NECAP, it will have a disproportionate and devastating impact on poor and minority children, English Language Learners and students with disabilities, Commissioner Deborah Gist has already advised school districts they may “use PARCC results as a component in determining students’ grades” beginning as early as the upcoming 2015-16 school year. The Commissioner, with the backing of the Council on Elementary and Secondary Education, has also encouraged school districts to consider using the PARCC as a high stakes graduation requirement for the Class of 2017.

In light of this push by RIDE, the biggest concern isn’t necessarily whether testing should be delayed for a year or even whether children should be able to opt out – it is whether the test results should be used punitively against students rather than as a supportive accountability tool to help them and their schools succeed. RIDE likes to claim its goal is the latter, but as we know from the NECAP debacle, it operates more like the former.

RIDE’s desire to punish kids by allowing the test to be used in this high stakes fashion so quickly is extremely troubling, especially since education officials know full well the importance of time in getting a new test like this off the ground. Last August, before changing course, the Commissioner gave good reasons why PARCC should be used as a high stakes test beginning in 2020, not 2017. As she noted then:

“We need to make sure that everyone has adequate time to prepare for the implementation. That means students having adequate support and time, families and teachers and school and district leaders need adequate time to make the changes to their support and interventions for individual students.”

By instead giving school districts the option to use the test results against students a year from now, RIDE is actually doing everything it can to make sure students are not fully prepared. To make matters worse, the local implementation of such testing places pressures on students of particular school districts who embrace PARCC in this fashion, while protecting students who happen to live in more skeptical school districts.

We all want students to succeed, but this approach spells disaster and will inevitably lead to a repeat of the fiasco surrounding the NECAP. Opting out of the PARCC test means little if students face a reduction in grades or denial of a diploma in a few years for failing to take it. Nor is it fair if students who opt in find their grades lowered because of their scores on the test. Whether one agrees or disagrees that PARCC can be a useful support tool, parents and others concerned about punitive standardized testing should be demanding first and foremost that this test not be used for high stakes graduation or grading decisions in the way that RIDE is, sadly, so hastily determined to use it.

February 21, 2015February 24, 2015

Paiva Weed, Mattiello have different agendas on racial issues

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Legislative leaders offered a glimpse into their plans to address institutional racism in Rhode Island this session when commenting on a new ACLU report that shows often wide racial disparities in school discipline, traffic stops, arrests and prison populations – “the school-to-prison pipeline,” according to the report.

“The troubling issues raised in the ACLU report point out how far our society has yet to go before we achieve true equity,” said Senate President Teresa Paiva Weed, noting statewide all-day kindergarten in particular and education in general are policy areas where the Senate would seek reform to address systemic racial disparities in Rhode Island.

“The Senate’s focus on education acknowledges the outcome gaps that exist in our state, and we will continue to prioritize making investments that will help eliminate disparities,” she said. “An important priority for the Senate this session is legislation to promote full day kindergarten in all Rhode Island school districts. Full day kindergarten is a proven, effective method to help close achievement gaps. More work needs to be done on many fronts, and the Senate remains committed to working towards the ideal of true equity for all Rhode Islanders.”

House Speaker Nick Mattiello was less specific.

“I have not yet had the opportunity to review the ACLU report, but the House of Representatives will always work to enact policies that treat all persons fairly, equally and without discrimination,” he said. “In particular, I will continue to work with the members of the Legislative Black and Latino Caucus on racial equality issues in our state. I look forward to reviewing any legislation they may propose, as well as other bills on these issues that may come before the House.”

The House passed an ACLU-supported bill in 2012 that prevents schools from suspending students for chronic absenteeism, said spokesman Larry Berman. School suspensions is an issue raised in the new ACLU report. Last session, that bill’s sponsor Providence Rep. Grace Diaz said there is more work to be done in this area in particular.

“We’re still working to address racial disparities in overall suspensions and attendance rates, especially in our city schools,” Diaz said in a press release. “We need to continue to be creative in how we address problems in education while stamping out racial bias.”

Also last session, a bill that would authorize the Department of Education to analyze school suspensions for racial implications was held for further study. It reads, “The commissioner shall develop a method to analyze local school system discipline data collected in accordance with §16-60-4(21) to determine whether the discipline imposed has a disproportionate impact on students based on race or ethnicity. If such a racial or ethnic disparity is found, the local school system shall prepare and present to the department a plan to reduce that disparity.”

Paiva Weed said last session a bill to address racial profiling in traffic stops passed in the Senate. It was called the Comprehensive Community-Police Relationship Act. “Unfortunately, the bill died without a hearing in the House,” according the the ACLU.

“Senators Harold Metts and Juan Pichardo have been particularly diligent leaders in the Senate in examining equity issues in schools, law enforcement, corrections, and economic development,” Paiva Weed said. “We will continue to pursue their worthwhile efforts, such as the annual Education Summit which Senator Pichardo hosts, and winning enactment of the racial profiling prevention legislation which Senator Metts drafted and the Senate passed last session.”

February 7, 2015

ACLU successfully settles suit requiring DMV to establish regulations for database

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

In response to a lawsuit filed this week by the American Civil Liberties Union of Rhode Island, the Division of Motor Vehicles agreed to the entry of a court order Friday that will require the agency to first adopt regulations through a public process before using a new database designed to identify and possibly take action against uninsured drivers.

The ACLU of Rhode Island on Tuesday sued the DMV for implementing its Uninsured Motorists Identification Database without first establishing any regulations to prevent the improper disclosure of drivers’ personal information, avoid mistaken registration revocations, or to otherwise ensure that the program is properly administered by the private out-of-state vendor contracted to run the program. The database is designed to compile information from insurance companies about the identities of insured drivers and information from the DMV about registered motor vehicles. The vendor matches the information to identify and notify vehicle owners who do not appear to have insurance. The lawsuit, filed by ACLU volunteer attorney Albin Moser, noted that insurance companies and the DMV had begun sending personal information about drivers to the vendor without any regulations whatsoever to address key issues over implementation of the database.

The ACLU’s successful settlement of this suit comes as the first wave of notices to drivers who purportedly didn’t have insurance was supposed to be sent out by the vendor. Residents must obtain or prove they have insurance within a specified period of time or else their registration will be revoked. Under this agreement, the DMV must now established regulations in accordance with the Administrative Procedures Act before any notifications are sent.

ACLU attorney Moser said: “Thanks to the ACLU’s analysis, the Superior Court and the DMV were made aware of several privacy and due process concerns that were best addressed by a public rulemaking process before the program’s implementation. The ACLU will be an active participant in that process in order to make sure that these concerns are adequately addressed.”

The lead plaintiff in the case, ACLU of RI policy associate Hillary Davis, added: “A number of questions remain about the implementation of the UMID, from ways to protect Rhode Islanders’ privacy to how drivers whose registrations are erroneously revoked may have them reinstated without punishment. We commend the DMV for recognizing the need to move forward on answering these questions, and look forward to testifying on the proposed rules.”

February 4, 2015February 6, 2015

ACLU challenges implementation of uninsured motorist database in absence of regulations

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

The American Civil Liberties Union of Rhode Island filed a lawsuit Tuesday against the Division of Motor Vehicles for implementing a database designed to identify uninsured motorists without first establishing any regulations to prevent the improper disclosure of drivers’ personal information, avoid mistaken registration revocations, or to otherwise ensure that the program is properly administered by the private out-of-state company contracted to run the program.

A state law enacted in 2013 established the database, designed to compile information from insurance companies about the identities of insured drivers and information from the DMV about registered motor vehicles. A third party vendor matches the information in order to identify and notify vehicle owners who do not appear to have insurance. Residents must obtain or prove they have insurance within a specified period of time or else their registration will be revoked. Despite being explicitly required to do so under the statute, however, the DMV has proposed no regulations whatsoever to address key issues over implementation of the database.

Today’s lawsuit, filed by ACLU volunteer attorney Albin Moser, notes that while insurance companies and the DMV are already sending personal information about Rhode Island drivers to the third party contractor, the DMV has yet to draft, publicly share, or hold a public hearing to discuss regulations establishing privacy safeguards, notification procedures, and other necessary procedures. The failure to establish these regulations is a violation of the Administrative Procedures Act and the state law that established the database, according to the complaint. The suit asks the court to stop the implementation of the Uninsured Motorists Identification Database until appropriate regulations are adopted with public input.

The ACLU will be seeking a temporary restraining order this week against implementation of the program, as the first wave of notices to drivers who purportedly don’t have insurance is supposed to be sent out by the contractor as soon as next week.

The lead plaintiff in the case is ACLU of RI policy associate Hillary Davis, who often testifies on state regulations and civil liberties issues relating to privacy and technology. She said: “Any use of personal information must be thoughtfully and publicly examined. That the DMV has failed to engage in a public rule making process about this database, flouting the responsibility put upon them by the General Assembly, is alarming in its carelessness. Though the impact on Rhode Island drivers can be tremendous, the only discussions as to the database’s use and security precautions have been between the DMV, the insurance companies, and the third-party vendor that stands to profit from the use of Rhode Islanders’ personal information. This oversight must be corrected before the program goes into effect, not after Rhode Islanders find their information compromised or their vehicle registrations revoked.”

ACLU attorney Moser added: “The DMV needs to explain to Rhode Island residents how it and the private contractor are going to keep residents’ personal information secure. The DMV also needs to explain to how it and the contractor are going to manage the program so that it is accurate and does not result in residents’ motor vehicle registrations being jeopardized by administrative error.”

The ACLU’s concerns about implementing the program without any public standards are not without justification, as it has sued the DMV a number of times in the past over regulatory lapses that have adversely affected motorists. In 2012, for example, the ACLU successfully sued the DMV after it refused to reinstate a person’s driver’s license based on a “policy” that appeared nowhere in the agency’s rules and regulations. In 2010, the ACLU successfully settled another case after the DMV advised thousands of motorists that their license and registration would be suspended due to alleged unpaid fines that were the result of incidents occurring on “00/00/0000.”

January 23, 2015

ACLU chides PVD police for videotaping protests

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

The RI ACLU is asking the Providence Police Department to stop videotaping protests until it develops public policies and procedures for this increasingly controversial police tactic.

“That this kind of surveillance is conducted is troubling,” said a letter from the ACLU to Providence Public Safety Commissioner Stephen Pare.” That it has been conducted repeatedly, without oversight or public accountability even after the need for such guidance had been raised with the Department is unacceptable.”

Rachel Simon reported Providence police videotaped Black Lives Matter actions in December. The ACLU mentions that instance, and quotes Simon’s post, and others.

Providence Public Safety Commissioner Steven Pare said he does not think the police department needs a policy on recording protests. “I think we have adequate procedures in place,” he said. He also said the ACLU letter cites an incident that Providence police did not record.

Providence police have been videotaping large protests since at least Occupy Providence, Pare said, and noted that Rhode Island State Police did, too. The video is used in case police need to identify someone who commits a crime, he said.

“If you’re interest is to protest lawfully, it shouldn’t have a chilling effect,” Pare said.

Pare said the video is not used for homeland security purposes and is not shared with any other governmental agency.

The ACLU letter says police videotaped a hotel workers protest at the Renaissance Hotel in June 26, 2014 as well as a State House press conference on the Comprehensive Racial Profiling Prevention Act in February, 2013, among others. Pare said it is not true that police videotaped the State House press event.

January 23, 2015January 24, 2015

Homeless, civil liberty defenders decry anti-highway blocking bill

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Supporters of civil liberties and marginalized people are criticizing Coventry Sen. Lou Raptakis’ bill that would make it a felony, punishable by at least a year in jail, to block a highway.

Raptakis, a conservative who owns a pizza place in Coventry, submitted the controversial bill yesterday. It is a direct response, he has said, to the highway protests, in Providence and across the country, led by Black Lives Matter activists, who organized to counter racial injustice and police violence against Black people in America.

The bill says: “A person commits the crime of unlawful interference with traffic if he or she intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly: (1) Stands, sits, kneels, or otherwise loiters on any federal or state highway under such circumstances that said conduct could reasonably be construed as interfering with the lawful movement of traffic.” It was co-signed by Senators Frank Lombardo, of Johnston, Frank Lombardi, of Crnaston, Michael McCaffrey, of Warwick, and Paul Jabour, of Providence.

Raptakis’ bill has drawn a sharp rebuke from civil libertarians, homelessness advocates as well as groups promoting an end to racism.

The Rhode Island Homeless Advocacy Project and the RI ACLU released a joint statement yesterday.

“Legislation introduced by Senator Raptakis today, ostensibly to deal with protesters creating a public safety hazard by blocking roadways, is both short-sighted and unnecessary. The bill, S-129, would make it a felony to cause the ‘interruption, obstruction, distraction, or delay of any motorist,’ punishable by between one and three years in prison for a first offense. On its face, this legislation is unnecessary because there are already statutes under which individuals can be charged for this conduct, as happened to several protesters involved in the I-95 demonstration in November.

Apparently feeling that the punishment isn’t severe enough, the Senator would like to give these mostly young people a felony record, potentially impacting severely their future employment, housing and other opportunities for the rest of their lives. The introduction of the bill this week is particularly ironic, considering that we just celebrated the life of Martin Luther King, Jr., whose historic Selma-to-Montgomery march had to have been one of the country’s greatest “obstruction, distraction or delay” of motorists ever. Do we really want to reserve a prison cell for three years to hold his successor?

“The bill also has the potential to curtail the civil liberties not only of lawful protesters but also of individuals experiencing homelessness and living in poverty. The legislation’s broadly-worded and ambiguous language leaves open the possibility that individuals panhandling on sidewalks or medians – a means of survival and a legal exercise of one’s First Amendment rights – could be accused of distracting motorists and jailed under the proposed law.

“Such use of this legislation has negative consequences both for the individual charged and for our state more broadly. To charge an individual attempting to meet his or her basic needs in a legal manner with a felony is both cruel and illogical. Both the court proceedings and the subsequent incarceration of the individual are extremely costly to the state. Furthermore, because of a felony conviction’s impact on employment and housing, the charge could also lengthen bouts of homelessness, which are expensive to taxpayers.

“If Senator Raptakis’ intention is to ensure public safety, this end could better be achieved by fostering constructive dialogue between the police and marginalized communities – whether communities of color protesting unequal treatment or the homeless community securing basic needs – about collaborative solutions to the injustices they face daily. Filling the prisons even more is not the answer.”

January 20, 2015

Groups call for reversal of Dept. of Education high-stakes testing plans

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

A number of community and advocacy organizations, including the American Civil Liberties Union of Rhode Island, are calling on the Council of Elementary and Secondary Education to promptly overturn guidance issued by Commissioner of Education Deborah Gist that advises school districts they can use the PARCC exam as a high-stakes test graduation requirement as early as 2017, three years before the 2020 starting date the Council had originally proposed.

The Commissioner issued this guidance in a “field memo” Friday despite the fact that just last week the Council tabled a RIDE proposal that would have given school districts the 2017 testing option. In addition, without any public discussion, the Commissioner’s field memo also told superintendents they could begin using students’ PARCC scores as a component of their school grades—and could do so starting in the next school year.

In a letter sent to the Council, the American Civil Liberties Union of Rhode Island, R.I. Disability Law Center, R.I. Legal Services, R.I. Teachers of English Language Learners, and five other community organizations raised serious concerns about the guidance and urged the council to bar school districts from using PARCC as a high stakes testing requirement until 2020 and from using the test’s results as a factor in students’ grades.

Our letter stated: “We would expect that before allowing PARCC to be used for such consequential and punitive purposes, RIDE would be spending the coming five years monitoring the test’s implementation to ensure there was adequate teacher preparation and curriculum development, equitable computer training and access for all, and fair implementation for English Language Learners and students with disabilities. Instead, the Commissioner’s memo is encouraging school districts – many of whom, by RIDE’s own standards, failed to meet basic accountability standards with the NECAP – to be demanding accountability from the students (not themselves) on this new test in a manner that can only be described as exceedingly premature.”

We also noted that the Commissioner’s unilateral decision to allow school districts to establish their own high-stakes testing requirements for graduation and for grading is “extraordinarily significant” and creates a two-tiered system for students based solely on their address.

You can read the full letter here and learn more about high-stakes testing and students’ rights here.

December 15, 2014December 16, 2014

Racial disparity in discretionary searches is up among PVD, state police

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Racial disparities in Rhode Island traffic searches that don’t end in arrest increased have steadily increased for Providence and state police, according to an ACLU analysis of traffic stop data released earlier this year.

“This most recent analysis indicates that the racial disparities in discretionary searches are not only continuing, but in many cases increasing,” according to an ACLU press release. “Of the ten Rhode Island police departments that stopped more than 2,000 individuals and/or engaged in more than 100 discretionary searches in 2004-2005, the data indicates that nine have seen a subsequent increase in the racial disparity of such searches.”

The ACLU analysis is based from a comprehensive study of every traffic stop in Rhode Island in 2013. You can read the entire report here. The ACLU focused this time on discretionary searches, or police searches of vehicles that do not lead to arrest.

“Ten years since racial profiling was prohibited by law, this data is both alarming and disheartening. Black and Hispanic drivers remain disproportionately searched by law enforcement, even though Northeastern University’s analysis demonstrates that white drivers are more likely to be found with contraband when searched,” said ACLU policy analyst Hillary Davis in the press release. “As a result, these searches are both discriminatory and ineffective. A decade’s worth of conversations between law enforcement and the community have not resolved these disparities, and it is time for law enforcement to employ new means to ensure Rhode Islanders receive equal treatment in their interactions with the police.”

December 9, 2014December 9, 2014

ACLU sues Providence Police again for violating protesters’ free speech rights

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

The recent protests in Providence and around the country should remind us all of the importance of our free speech rights and the power a community can have when it makes its collective voice heard. Taking to a public square to express one’s political opinion is a longstanding tradition in American society and is a fundamental right that must be respected. We have seen, however, that law enforcement officers at times unnecessarily restrict protests in ways that only serve to diminish protesters’ ability to share their message. As large-scale protests continue across the country, the ACLU of Rhode Island is again taking action against the Providence Police Department for violating the First Amendment rights of protesters.

Yesterday, the ACLU of Rhode Island filed a federal lawsuit against the Providence Police Department for violating the “clearly established” free speech rights of two protesters last year at a fundraiser in Roger Williams Park for then-Gubernatorial candidate, and now Governor-elect, Gina Raimondo. The suit alleges that the police department’s actions amounted to a “willful” violation of the “constitutionally protected right of people to peaceably assemble and demonstrate in public parks,” and seeks various court-imposed remedies, including monetary damages. The suit notes that only six months earlier in another ACLU case, a federal judge condemned the Providence police department’s practice of “clearing vast public spaces” of people engaged in free speech activity without legal cause.

The lawsuit, filed by ACLU volunteer attorney Richard A. Sinapi on behalf of Shannah Kurland and Gladys Gould, stems from police actions outside a September 26, 2013 fundraiser for then-candidate Raimondo . Over 200 people, including Kurland and Gould, gathered in the park outside the Casino with signs to protest Raimondo’s controversial pension reform activities. During the course of the protest, the lawsuit claims, the two plaintiffs (along with the other demonstrators) were ordered by Providence police to move farther and farther away from the Casino, making it much more difficult for them to have their message seen and heard by individuals attending the event.

Separately, Kurland is legal counsel to five local Ferguson activists charged with trespassing for shutting down Interstate 95.

Even though she at no time obstructed traffic or foot movement, Gould was ordered to move farther away from the Casino three times. As a result, she was forced from protesting where she started, on a sidewalk within 50 feet of the Casino entrance, to an area that was about 285 feet away and also distant from the parking lot entrance. Gould reluctantly moved each time, but when Kurland refused to move to the farthest location, she was arrested for disorderly conduct, purportedly for obstructing traffic, even though she remained on the grass island at all times.

The lawsuit notes that parks and sidewalks “are quintessential public forums, and the Supreme Court has consistently affirmed the right of demonstrators to use them,” and that a claim of “obstruction of traffic” is “not a talisman that can be employed to turn bedrock First Amendment protections to dust.” The suit further states that since the plaintiffs “were at all times either peaceably protesting on the sidewalk or the island and in no way interfering with the flow of pedestrian traffic on the sidewalk or motor vehicle traffic in the street or ingress to and egress from the Casino, there was no legitimate governmental interest in relocating their protest on three different occasions.”

Pointing to the favorable court decision the ACLU had obtained only months earlier on behalf of a Providence resident, Judith Reilly, who had been barred by police from leafleting outside a venue where then-Mayor David Cicilline was speaking, the suit claims that Providence police officials should have been fully aware of the unconstitutional nature of their actions at the Casino. The City paid $75,000 last year to settle the Reilly case.

We’re asking the court to, among other remedies, declare the actions of the police a violation of Kurland and Gould’s First Amendment rights, require proper training and instruction of police on the First Amendment rights of demonstrators, rule that Kurland’s arrest violated her right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, and award compensatory and punitive damages and attorneys’ fees.

There is no excuse for the actions police officers took at this event, whose only purpose was to diminish the ability of protesters to get their message across. The time has long since passed for the Providence police to act as if the First Amendment were just a suggestion.

Plaintiff Kurland said: “It’s a shame that the City of Providence still doesn’t respect the Constitution. I sure hope it doesn’t take another arrest for them to learn that the First Amendment applies here too. If it does, I’m willing to oblige.”

ACLU attorney Sinapi added: “I sincerely hope and trust that, unlike his predecessors, Mayor-Elect Elorza, who has taught law school students about constitutional rights, will acknowledge and appreciate the importance of the free speech rights violated in this case, and will act with all deliberate speed to provide relief for the injuries committed and to prevent such violations from occurring in the future. Failure of City elected leaders to take appropriate and decisive action to remedy and prevent such conduct is only going to continue to subject the City to repeated lawsuits, each of which will inevitably cost the City tens of thousands of dollars.”

Time will tell whether the new administration will take steps to resolve this matter quickly or instead seek to defend the actions of its officers in squelching free speech.

November 3, 2014November 4, 2014

Protect your rights: reject question 3

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Tomorrow, you will choose between your constitutional rights or an expensive fantasy.

In recent weeks, the ACLU of Rhode Island and a number of other organizations have talked extensively about the risks of a Constitutional Convention. We’ve shown what came from the 1986 Convention, including a lasting restriction on the right to bail, and the 20 years it took to undo the Convention’s disastrous impact on minority voting rights. We’ve shown you the political trickery used to deceive voters during the last convention, like this question, approved by the voters in part because nobody knew exactly what it meant:

(It actually contains a restriction on the right to abortion: can you find it?)

We’ve brought you the words of delegates of the 1986 convention, like Lila Sapinsley, who said:

“If delegates to the 2015 convention are elected by existing electoral districts we will again have a duplicate of the legislature. Let’s concentrate on electing better representatives and forget about an expensive duplicate of the General Assembly.”

And we’ve shown what you can expect from a convention now by examining issues faced in other states, including:

Bans on affirmative action
Denial of various rights to immigrants
Restrictions of LGBT rights
Unprecedented restrictions on abortion
Restrictions on state participation in the federal health care exchange
Tax credits or vouchers for religious schools.

Despite all this evidence, proponents promise a Constitutional Convention divorced from politics and from the undue influence of out-of-state special interests spending millions to push their own pet projects.

The ACLU shares the frustration of many with the actions of the General Assembly, but your rights are too great a risk to take. Promises cannot protect your rights. Your vote can. Rejecting Question 3 may force advocates for change to work harder, but it makes sure your rights are still yours in 2016.

Tomorrow, vote to reject Question 3. Your rights depend on it.

October 24, 2014

Police body cameras a priority for Providence mayoral candidates

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

The People’s Forum, an opportunity for the community most interested in economic and social justice to interview and hold accountable the Providence mayoral candidates, explored some interesting ideas not usually brought up in other forums or debates.

The questionnaires the candidates filled out for the People’s Forum are essentially promises to the community, and as such offer interesting insights into the future of Providence in terms of community safety, violence and economic well being.

One item that frontrunners Jorge Elorza and Buddy Cianci both agreed to concerned the idea of outfitting police officers with video cameras, to be operated under the following guidelines:

The Providence Police Department shall adopt written procedures regarding the use of video and/or audio recording devices such as, but not limited to: dashboard cameras, body cameras, and digital audio recorders. These policies shall be public records and shall include, but not be limited to, the following standards:

a) All stops conducted by police officials with such equipment shall be recorded. The recording shall begin no later than when an officer first signals the vehicle or individual to stop or arrives at the scene of an ongoing stop begun by another law enforcement officer, and the recording shall continue until the stop is completed and the subject departs, or until the officer’s participation in the stop ends.
b) The subject of a stop shall be advised by the officer that the encounter is being recorded.
c) A chain-of-custody record of the recordings shall be maintained.
d) A subject of a stop that was recorded by a video/audio surveillance camera, and/or his or her legal counsel, shall have the right to view and listen to the recording at the police station and to obtain a copy of the recording involving him or her within ten (10) business days of the request;
e) The policy shall establish a minimum period of retention for such recordings of no less than sixty (60) days, and procedures to ensure that the recording equipment is in proper working order, and shall bar the destruction of any recording related to an incident that is the subject of a pending complaint, misconduct investigation or civil or criminal proceeding. Such recordings shall be retained for a minimum of ten (10) days after the final resolution of such investigation or proceeding, including the time for any appeal;
f) The policy shall explicitly prohibit any violation of these requirements, including any attempts to disengage or tamper with the video/audio surveillance equipment or to otherwise fail to record stops as specified herein;

While on duty and in interaction with the public, police shall be prohibited from using personal audio or video recording devices. Only devices subject to the policy outlined above shall be permitted.

The guidelines above are a good start on the kind of safeguards Providence would have to adopt along with police body cameras. The ACLU has a great breakdown of the various privacy and rights concerns such cameras will inevitably raise, as well as suggestions to help mitigate negative effects. There is a fair bit of overlap between the ideas suggested by the People’s Forum and the ACLU’s analysis, so developing a smart policy should not be a problem.

Elorza agreed with the need for police to wear cameras, as did Cianci, though Cianci wrote that he sees the cost of buying and maintaining such equipment as requiring “a long term budget that includes projections for buying this type of equipment.” However, given the potential savings in terms of lawsuits and court costs that police body cameras have shown in areas that have tested the concept, there is no question of affordability.

According to German Lopez at Vox:

In New York City, a report from the city’s public advocate found that outfitting the entire police department with body cameras would cost around $33 million. But in 2013, the city paid $152 million as a result of claims of police misconduct. If body cameras could reduce those claims by just one-fifth, the devices would pay for themselves.

Early studies of the effects of police body cameras have been encouraging. In Rialto CA, complaints against officers fell 88% and officer’s use of force dropped 60%.

So it seems that whoever wins the election to become mayor of Providence, police body cameras will become a reality in the next few years.

Welcome to the 21st Century.

October 9, 2014October 9, 2014

Judge: RI’s ban on anonymous political literature is unconstitutional

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Rhode Islanders no longer need to worry about facing prison for exercising their free speech rights now that an outdated law that banned the distribution of anonymous political literature has been ruled unconstitutional.

Ruling in an ACLU lawsuit, U.S. District Court Judge William Smith on Tuesday struck down a state law that makes it a crime to circulate anonymous political literature, including unsigned newspaper editorials. The ACLU of Rhode Island sued over the legality of the statute earlier this year to halt the Town of Smithfield’s stated plans to enforce it. The statute, which carries a potential one-year prison sentence, bars the distribution of any anonymous political literature that relates to ballot questions or that criticizes a political candidate’s “personal character or political action.”

The U.S. Supreme Court had previously declared an almost identical Ohio statute unconstitutional, and called anonymous pamphleteering “an honorable tradition of advocacy and of dissent” designed to “protect unpopular individuals from retaliation – and their ideas from suppression – at the hand of an intolerant society.” That 1995 ruling cited a long history of anonymous political literature in this country, including the Federalist Papers.

Despite the U.S. Supreme Court ruling, last year the Smithfield Police Department arrested a political consultant for purportedly violating the state law. The Attorney General’s office later dismissed the charges, citing the Supreme Court case. In January, the ACLU wrote town officials to seek assurances that Smithfield police would no longer enforce the statute. The ACLU received no response; instead, news stories quoted town officials as calling the ACLU request “absolute nonsense” and stating that they intended to continue initiating criminal complaints under the statute.

This prompted the ACLU’s lawsuit, filed by ACLU of RI volunteer attorney Mark W. Freel. In a written filing with the court, the Attorney General’s office essentially agreed with the ACLU and acknowledged the unconstitutionality of the statute.

In a four-page decision, Judge Smith said it was “hard to imagine what the Rhode Island General Assembly was thinking when it passed this law . . . [but it] must be invalidated as a violation of the First Amendment.”

The plaintiff in the suit was Smithfield resident John Blakeslee, who has disseminated written political materials over the years that could be deemed to violate the statute’s requirements.

ACLU attorney Freel said: “There is a long tradition of anonymous pamphleteering on matters of public interest in this country, and that right is embodied in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Today the court struck down a long-standing Rhode Island law that was entirely at odds with that right. It is a victory for free speech and expression.”

In an attempt to mitigate the time and expense of defending the lawsuit, the House had passed a bill this session to repeal the statute, but the bill died in the Senate. As a result of the court decision, the defendants will pay $4,000 in attorneys’ fees in response to the successful challenge to the statute.

Although anonymous literature that criticizes candidates for public office is a criminal offense under the statute, literature that supports or praises a candidate is not. The court’s decision formally makes the statute legally unenforceable.

September 29, 2014September 29, 2014

ACLU: Leaked docs show RI driver’s license pics used in terrorism database

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Leaked classified documents indicate the Rhode Island Department of Motor Vehicles is sharing residents’ driver’s photos with the National Counterterrorism Center, a little-known federal agency that has authority to broadly monitor US citizens, according to the RI ACLU.

“The ACLU of RI has deep concerns about our state’s collusion with the NCTC in this manner, because it means that the DMV is assisting the federal government in collecting personal information about innocent Rhode Islanders,” wrote RI ACLU Executive Director Steve Brown in a letter to the DMV on August 20.

The ACLU sent the letter to media outlets today. It describes how the document in question indicates Rhode Island, and only 14 other states, have allowed the NCTC to use driver license photos in a vast database of American citizens.

In response to media inquiries, Governor Lincoln Chafee said, “Since the receipt of the letter, my administration has done an investigation and has found no evidence of the proactive sharing of information with the NCTC. I look forward to working with the Rhode Island ACLU on this issue.”

The ACLU’s Brown said the document came to his attention while reading a post on The Intercept, a news website that publishes Edward Snowden documents.

This post, written by highly-regarded national security reporters Jeremy Scahill and Ryan Devaraux, is titled “Barack Obama’s Secret Terrorist-Tracking System, By The Numbers”. They report, “Of the 680,000 people caught up in the government’s Terrorist Screening Database—a watchlist of ‘known or suspected terrorists’ that is shared with local law enforcement agencies, private contractors, and foreign governments—more than 40 percent are described by the government as having ‘no recognized terrorist group affiliation.’ That category—280,000 people—dwarfs the number of watchlisted people suspected of ties to al Qaeda, Hamas, and Hezbollah combined.”

The story links to a document, with a National Counterterrorism Center seal, called : “Directorate of Terrorist Identities(DTI)Strategic Accomplishments 2013”. It says Rhode Island is one of 15 states to participate in a program that collects facial images from driver’s licenses.

On page 8, it reads:

To fulfill the biometric enhancement mission within DTI’s Identity Intelligence Group (IIG), the Biometric Analysis Branch (BAB) began an outreach/partnership effort with the larger law enforcement community to collect facial images associated with driver’s license data. With support from FBI partners and NCTC’s Domestic Representatives, this enhancement mission took on significant growth in FY13. BAB now coordinates directly with the following states; Arizona, Texas, New York, Maryland, Delaware, Washington DC, Florida, California, Virginia, Oregon, Massachusetts, Nevada, Gieorgia, Colorado, Washington, and Rhode Island. This effort has resulted in 2,400 Driver’s License facial images added to TIDE in FY13.

September 15, 2014September 18, 2014

Trivia night with the ACLU

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

This Wednesday marks the 227th anniversary of the signing of the U.S. Constitution by 39 delegates of U.S. Constitutional Convention and the American Civil Liberties Union of Rhode Island is celebrating with a trivia night for civil libertarians.

Test your knowledge of the Bill of Rights by joining us Wednesday, September 17, at The Salon in Providence at 7 p.m. for a night of friendly competition featuring general knowledge, civil liberties, and Rhode Island trivia. Even if you don’t think you’ll take home the top prize, this is a great opportunity to meet fellow Rhode Islanders who share your interests.

It’s free to play and open to everybody 21 or older so bring a team of friends or come on your own.

Here are the details:

Trivia Night with the ACLU

Wednesday, September 17, at 7 p.m.

The Salon, 57 Eddy St in Downtown Providence

Free to play. 21+.

I hope to see you there!

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387