Award-Winning Actress Alfre Woodard, Civil Rights Groups and ACLU Members And Staff Join to Recognize Kelly's Outstanding Contributions at Special Ceremony in New York City

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org

Actress Alfre Woodard (right) presented Regina Kelly with the Roger N. Baldwin Medal of Liberty Award.

NEW YORK – In a special ceremony on Saturday evening, the American Civil Liberties Union presented the Roger N. Baldwin Medal of Liberty award to Regina Kelly, an African-American single mother of four who, based on an unreliable informant's false information, was arrested in a military-style drug raid for felony cocaine distribution. Refusing to plead guilty, Kelly fought the charges, resulting in a significant change in Texas law whereby cases can no longer be prosecuted based solely on the claims of a single confidential informant.

The award is the one of the highest honors in the country for people dedicated to defending the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

"Regina Kelly is a real life hero, an ordinary American who took extraordinary risks to fight for the values that make this country great," said Susan Herman, President of the ACLU. "Through her courage, she transformed a personal injustice into an opportunity for community empowerment and critically-needed reform within the Texas criminal justice system. She continues to inspire others to stand up for our fundamental rights long after her legal case is over."

Excessive paramilitary drug "sweeps" by an out-of-control narcotics task force led to the arrest of almost 15 percent of the young African-American men in the small town of Hearne, Texas in 2000. The busts were based solely on the uncorroborated word of a single, drug-addicted, mentally ill confidential informant coerced by police. Kelly was swept up in the raids and, like other innocent people arrested, faced trumped-up drug charges designed to illicit guilty pleas. Many innocent individuals pled guilty to lesser charges rather than face decades behind bars and risk trial before mostly white Texas juries. Kelly, however, refused to plead guilty despite pressure from her court-appointed attorney at the time and others in the community.

The ACLU represented Kelly and others in a successful civil rights lawsuit, Kelly v. Paschall, against the Robertson County, Texas District Attorney and the local narcotics task force after evidence of police and prosecutor corruption and racist intent surfaced. Eventually, the charges against her were dropped.

"I thought about my daughters and what kind of example I would be setting for them if I just rolled over and pled guilty to something I didn't do," recalled Kelly. "These kinds of raids had been happening for a long time in my town, and someone had to stand up for the hope that our children would grow up in a better place."

Kelly testified before the Texas legislature, urging passage of legislation to create greater safeguards against unreliable informant testimony and the unregulated practices of federally-funded regional narcotics task forces such as the one that led the drug "sweeps" in her case.

Her story is the subject of a recent film, "American Violet," released earlier this year in theaters nationwide by Samuel Goldwyn Films and Uncommon Productions. The film debuted at the Telluride Film Festival and South by Southwest and features Academy Award nominees Alfre Woodard and Michael O'Keefe and actress Nicole Beharie, who portrayed Kelly in the movie.

"It has been an honor to help tell Regina's story," said Woodard, who played Kelly's mother in the film and joined the ACLU in presenting the award. "She is an incredible and awe-inspiring woman whose commitment to justice shined through in even the darkest of moments. The odds against her and her family ever getting real justice seemed overwhelming and she could have ended the ordeal by settling for less, but she stood strong. Her dignified insistence that she be treated with the respect due to every human being shed light on everyday abuses that millions of Americans are exposed to simply because they are poor."

"Regina's case illustrates how our nation's drug enforcement policies threaten core civil liberties and constitutional rights, effectively creating a 'drug exception' to the Bill of Rights," added Graham Boyd, Director of the ACLU Drug Law Reform Project who represented Kelly. "Not only have our drug laws been disproportionately and unfairly enforced against people of color, the 'war on drugs' has given rise to an unprecedented incarceration boom and a host of perverse incentives to police. Ms. Kelly has played a critical role in educating the public about these unacceptable governmental abuses of power."

The ACLU established the Roger N. Baldwin Medal of Liberty award, named in honor of the ACLU's principal founder, in 1989. The award is presented by the ACLU biannually to recognize an exceptional contribution to civil liberties in the United States.

Previous recipients of the Roger N. Baldwin Medal of Liberty awards include Gordon Hirabayashi and the late Fred Korematsu, who fought against the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II; journalist Anthony Lewis; Dolores Huerta, a champion of the rights of women, workers and immigrants; the five Judge Advocate General lawyers who represented the first round of defendants at Guantánamo Bay and challenged the flawed military commission process; and a group of Connecticut librarians and the president of a New York Internet service provider who stood up against the Patriot Act's National Security Letters and refused to violate the privacy of their patrons and clients.

Kelly was joined by her four daughters and her mother at Saturday evening's ceremony.

For more information about Regina Kelly, go to: www.aclu.org/about/41301res20070623.html

For more information about "American Violet," go to: www.americanviolet.com

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (202) 675-2312 or media@dcaclu.org  

WASHINGTON – A bill was introduced today in the Senate that would eliminate the discriminatory disparity between crack and powder cocaine sentencing under federal law. The bill, the Fair Sentencing Act of 2009, was introduced by Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL) and would also eliminate the mandatory five-year sentence for simple possession of crack. A similar bill, H.R. 3245, the Fairness in Cocaine Sentencing Act of 2009, is currently awaiting a vote in the House.

More than two decades ago, based on assumptions about crack which are now known to be false, heightened penalties for crack cocaine offenses were adopted. Sentences for crack offenses are currently equivalent to the sentences for 100 times the amount of powder cocaine, and the impact falls disproportionately on African Americans.

The following can be attributed to Michael Macleod-Ball, Acting Director of the American Civil Liberties Union Washington Legislation Office:

“The disparity between crack and powder cocaine sentencing has been a stain on our justice system for over 20 years. There is no justification for this sentencing gap – both medical and legal research has consistently shown there is no significant difference between crack and powder cocaine. Not only that, there is consensus across the political and ideological spectrum on the sentencing disparity issue with both Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama urging reform. With bills in both chambers and a president demanding legislative action, America is now as close as it’s ever been to finally ending the crack-powder disparity and unjust mandatory minimum sentences.”
 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: media@aclu.org

PHOENIX, AZ – Saying budget proposals to drug test welfare recipients and deny benefits to domestic partners are misguided and discriminatory, the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona today sent a letter to Governor Jan Brewer urging her to veto H.B. 2013.

"This proposal comes at high price, both financially and morally," said Alessandra Soler Meetze, executive director of the ACLU of Arizona.  "By stripping state employees and their families of benefits and singling out welfare recipients for costly drug testing, the state is creating additional financial burdens for thousands of Arizonans, including hardworking employees and some of the neediest women and children across the state, at a time when people can least afford it."

In its two-page veto letter, the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona argues that suspicionless, mandatory drug testing is an invasion of privacy and a waste of state funds. The ACLU successfully challenged a Michigan law calling for the random drug testing of welfare recipients. In addition, New York and Maryland discarded their random drug testing plans after finding that questionnaires were more cost-effective.  Public officials in Louisiana, Oregon, Alabama and Iowa also decided that there were other less invasive, more cost-effective methods of identifying drug abuse.

The ACLU of Arizona called the proposal to strip unmarried domestic partners of state and university employees of their health insurance benefits "an unreasonable step backward for Arizona's goal of attracting and maintaining a highly-skilled and stable work force." The organization also points out that "by providing health insurance coverage for married employees and denying access to employees' domestic partners and their children, the state is effectively denying equal pay for equal work."

The ACLU letter to Brewer can be found on-line at: www.acluaz.org

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

CHARLESTON, WV - A federal court today signed off on a formal agreement to permanently block the proposed random, suspicionless drug testing of Kanawha County public school employees. The Court’s order approves an agreement between the Kanawha County Board of Education and the nation’s two largest teachers’ unions, represented in part by the American Civil Liberties Union, which had brought a legal challenge arguing that drug testing without cause violates public servants’ constitutional right to privacy.

"The school board’s reasoned decision to abandon their invasive and ineffective drug testing scheme does right by both teachers and taxpayers," said Adam Wolf, an attorney with the ACLU. "Further public resources should not be wasted in a futile attempt to enact a clearly unconstitutional policy."

Today’s consent decree, entered into by the West Virginia Education Association and American Federation of Teachers - represented by the ACLU, the WVEA and private counsel in West Virginia - and the Kanawha County Board of Education, came before Chief Judge Joseph R. Goodwin of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia.

The Court had previously halted the drug testing policy in an order issued January 8, 2009, which held that the constitutional right to privacy outweighs the government’s interest in drug testing virtually all public school employees without cause - particularly in light of the government’s inability to document a single instance where student safety had been impacted by employee drug use.

The order concluded, in part, by citing the words of former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall: "Precisely because the need for action against the drug scourge is manifest, the need for vigilance against unconstitutional excess is great. … [W]hen we allow fundamental freedoms to be sacrificed in the name of real or perceived emergency, we invariably come to regret it."

The proposed random drug testing policy was adopted by the Kanawha County School Board in October 2008 after months of contentious debate and had been set to take effect January 1, 2009. Specifically, the Board acted to significantly and inaccurately expand the definition of "safety-sensitive" employees in an effort to allow for the random drug testing of virtually all school employees.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the government may only conduct suspicionless drug tests of employees in "safety-sensitive" job roles, such as air traffic controllers or nuclear power plant operators, whose job functions, if done improperly, would cause specific and potentially catastrophic threats to the public safety.

The court firmly rejected the contention that public school employees meet the criteria for random drug testing: "A train, nuclear reactor, or firearm in the hands of someone on drugs presents an actual concrete risk to numerous people - the same cannot be said for a teacher wielding a history textbook."

In addition to violating public employees’ constitutional right to privacy, random drug testing programs have been found demonstrably ineffective by the National Academy of Sciences, among others, producing a false sense of security that distracts from true safety threats.

Random drug testing may also reveal extremely sensitive personal information, such as medical conditions, prescription drug use or pregnancy, and can produce an unacceptably high rate of false-positives.

Today’s court order may be found online at: www.aclu.org/drugpolicy/testing/40814lgl20090821.html

The Court’s January 8, 2009 ruling against the random drug testing policy is available at: www.aclu.org/drugpolicy/testing/38266lgl20090108.html

Portions of the ACLU’s and WVEA’s legal filing can be found at: www.aclu.org/drugpolicy/testing/38001lgl20081205.html and www.aclu.org/drugpolicy/testing/38002lgl20081205

Landmark Bill Will Now Head To House Floor

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (202) 675-2312 or media@dcaclu.org 

WASHINGTON – The House Judiciary Committee today voted to pass a bill that would eliminate the discriminatory disparity between crack and powder cocaine sentencing under federal law. Today’s vote clears the way for H.R. 3245, the Fairness in Cocaine Sentencing Act of 2009, to be voted on by the full House. The bill removes references to “cocaine base” from the U.S. federal code and takes the welcome step of removing the five-year mandatory minimum sentence for simple possession of crack cocaine.

More than two decades ago, based on assumptions about crack which are now known to be false, heightened penalties for crack cocaine offenses were adopted.  Sentences for crack are currently equivalent to the sentences for 100 times the amount of powder cocaine, and the impact falls disproportionately on African Americans.

The following can be attributed to Michael Macleod-Ball, Acting Director of the ACLU Washington Legislation Office:

“For over 20 years, the disparity between crack and powder cocaine sentencing has been a blight on our justice system. Years of medical and legal research have shown no appreciable difference between crack and powder cocaine, and no justification for allowing a vast sentencing gap between them. Policymakers across the ideological spectrum, including former President George W. Bush, have spoken out against its inherent injustice. This historic legislation is long overdue. Congress, today, is one step closer to ending the crack-powder disparity and unjust mandatory minimum sentences.”

LOS ANGELES, Calif. – The ACLU of Southern California and the law firm of Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP sued the city of Santa Monica today for violating the constitutional rights of chronically homeless people by arresting and harassing them even though the city lacks sufficient shelter space for these homeless persons to sleep. The lawsuit – on behalf of certain homeless residents suffering from mental and physical disabilities – was filed in federal district court in Los Angeles.

Despite its reputation as a liberal bastion with progressive political and social policies, the city of Santa Monica has used its police officers to harass and intimidate disabled homeless residents in recent years, citing or arresting them for sitting or sleeping in public places, and compelling them to "move on" to other cities.

"It's not only illegal but callous and inhumane for any city to have its police officers cite, arrest and harass mentally ill or physically disabled homeless persons, even as it fails to provide them with sufficient shelter space. But it's particularly shocking and hypocritical in Santa Monica, which touts itself on its website as a 'forward-thinking, caring community,'" said Mark Rosenbaum, legal director of the ACLU/SC.

Santa Monica is the third city to be sued by the ACLU/SC in recent months for criminalizing chronically homeless people – those who have mental or physical disabilities and have been homeless repeatedly or for an extended period of time. The ACLU/SC previously sued Laguna Beach and Santa Barbara, and reached a settlement with the city of Laguna Beach last month.

"What these communities have in common is an effort to criminalize the chronically homeless by making homelessness and mental illness crimes, and then driving homeless persons to other communities," Rosenbaum said. "Among these three cities, however, Santa Monica stands out for the hostility of its police toward chronically disabled homeless people. Santa Monica is functionally operating a deportation program against its mentally disabled homeless, acting to eliminate the homeless, not homelessness."

One such man, a recovering addict, was arrested by Santa Monica police for sleeping at 4 a.m. just outside a local homeless shelter where there were no available beds. He showed the police his employee badge and pleaded to be permitted to go to his job. The police responded that there was a city policy to arrest anyone sleeping in public, handcuffed him and jailed him for two days. Afterward he was fired from his job.

A chronically homeless woman who is a paranoid schizophrenic and believes spaceships are trying to kill her has been arrested and jailed at least three times by Santa Monica police officers for "camping" on city streets. Repeatedly, police have told her to "move on." As a result she currently sleeps on a sidewalk near Venice Beach.

The Santa Monica city website estimates that there are about 915 homeless people in the city on a given day. Meanwhile, Santa Monica has only about 180 beds in shelters for short-term stays of up to six months, and only about 45 shelter beds that are available to mentally ill homeless, accommodating less than 20 percent of the population.

According to a 2006 report by the Urban Institute, 94 percent of Santa Monica's homeless population suffers from mental illness, substance abuse or both – a percentage far higher than anywhere else in the country.

"If you strip away the rhetoric of city officials, it's clear that Santa Monica is doing less for the chronically homeless than it was 10 years ago," said Jennie Pasquarella, a staff attorney for the ACLU/SC. "Yet the daily cost of providing a chronically homeless person permanent supportive housing is a fraction of the daily cost of arresting and incarcerating a homeless person. It's time for Santa Monica to acknowledge reality and show the kind of leadership on providing services for the homeless that would make it truly deserving of the description 'forward-thinking.'"

County's Ordinance Interferes with State's Comprehensive Restrictions on Released Sex Offenders; Shantytown Under Causeway Bridge Creates Public Safety Crisis

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: 
CONTACT: (786) 363-2737 or media@aclufl.org

MIAMI – The American Civil Liberties Union of Florida filed a lawsuit today against Miami-Dade County alleging that the county's 2,500-foot residency restriction for registered sex offenders interferes with the State of Florida's comprehensive program for law enforcement and corrections officers to monitor and supervise released offenders.

State law makes it unlawful for persons convicted of certain sexual offenses to reside within 1,000 feet of any school, day care center, park or playground. Miami-Dade County's ordinance, passed in 2005, imposes a more stringent restriction of 2,500 feet. As Secretary of the Department of Corrections McNeil has recognized, because of the County ordinance, over 70 individuals have resorted to living under the bridge on the Julia Tuttle Causeway, while yet others have absconded, creating a public safety crisis. Details and photos can be viewed at: www.aclufl.org/tuttle/

"If the County's intention was to make our community safer, they have really missed the mark with this ordinance," said Carlene Sawyer, President of the Greater Miami Chapter of the ACLU of Florida. "This misguided policy has led to over 70 registered offenders being forced to live in a shantytown under a bridge. Any government policy that forces offenders into homelessness and encourages others to abscond makes our communities less safe.  This policy also impedes the ability of Corrections officials to ensure that released offenders are regulated, rehabilitated and safely re-integrated into society."

The ACLU lawsuit alleges that the ordinance "unreasonably burdens" the registered offenders from finding affordable housing – an unintended consequence of Miami-Dade County's ordinance. The resulting shantytown under Miami's Julia Tuttle Causeway bridge, where over 70 registered offenders live in makeshift shelters, is a public safety crisis since, as studies show, instable living conditions lead to higher rates of recidivism and absconding – both of which lead to a more dangerous situation.

"The State has a comprehensive system to monitor and track sex offenders, and includes a 1,000-foot residency restriction. The County's ordinance, while seemingly well-intentioned, creates more problems than it solves," said Maria Kayanan, ACLU of Florida Associate Legal Director. "Our community will increasingly become less safe every day that this ordinance leads offenders to live under a bridge, where they are more likely to abscond and evade officers. The County is directly interfering with the State's obligation to monitor offenders. The time for finger pointing is over – it's time for a solution."

In June 2008, the ACLU sent a letter to Governor Crist urging his involvement to mitigate the crisis in Miami – variations of which are increasingly appearing across Florida – but the Governor has remained AWOL on the issue. The letter pointed out that the laws restricting where released sex offenders can live have created new problems for public safety, and was co-signed by sexual assault and domestic violence prevention organizations including the Domestic Violence & Sexual Assault Council of Greater Miami, the Florida Council Against Sexual Violence, and the Florida Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers.

"The County's ordinance interferes with the necessary work of State Corrections and law enforcement officers to monitor and supervise released offenders," said Howard Simon, ACLU of Florida Executive Director. "The ACLU is as concerned about protecting our communities – especially our children – as anyone else, but the County's restriction is making our community more dangerous."

If the court rules that the County's ordinance must give way to the State's restrictions, released offenders will not be forced to live under the bridge and State officials will be better able to monitor and supervise them.  Released offenders will be in a supervised, monitored setting – as long as it is 1,000 feet from a school, park, playground or any other place where children congregate. This is the standard set by the State Legislature, which the Department of Corrections enforces," Simon added.

"This is a statewide problem. The ACLU of Florida has tried for several years to work with politicians to resolve this ever-growing crisis.  But in the absence of leadership from our local and State politicians on this issue, we are forced to turn to the courts for a solution to this dangerous public safety crisis," said Jeanne Baker, ACLU of Florida Cooperating Attorney. 

"The Florida Council Against Sexual Violence remains concerned that residency restrictions, especially local ordinances, are not the best approach to ensuring public safety," said Terri Poore, Director of Public Affairs for Florida Council Against Sexual Violence. "We fear that offenders in unstable living conditions may be more likely to reoffend, congregate together, and overly stress certain communities. There are no easy or one-size-fits-all solutions, but sex offenders in the community must receive close and individualized monitoring by specialized probation officers with small caseloads."

Exile v. Miami-Dade County was filed today in the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County.  Attorneys include: Maria Kayanan, Associate Legal Director; Randall Marshall, Legal Director; Jeanne Baker, Cooperating Attorney, all of the ACLU of Florida; and Peter Sleasman, Steckley Lee, Christopher Jones, and Robert Dwyer, all of Florida Institutional Legal Services.

Download a PDF of the ACLU's complaint here: www.aclufl.org/pdfs/Exile.pdf

Download a copy of the ACLU's June 2008 letter to Governor Crist here: www.aclufl.org/pdfs/ResidenceRestrictions060208.pdf

Ruling In ACLU Case Is Vindication of Students' Constitutional Rights

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Supreme Court today ruled that school officials violated the constitutional rights of a 13-year-old Arizona girl when they strip searched her based on a classmate's uncorroborated accusation that she previously possessed ibuprofen. The American Civil Liberties Union represents April Redding, the plaintiff in the lawsuit, whose daughter, Savana Redding, was strip searched by Safford Middle School officials six years ago.
 
"We are pleased that the Supreme Court recognized that school officials had no reason to strip search Savana Redding and that the decision to do so was unconstitutional," said Adam Wolf, an attorney with the ACLU who argued the case before the Court. "Today's ruling affirms that schools are not constitutional dead zones. While we are disappointed with the Court's conclusion that the law was not clear before today and therefore school officials were not found liable, at least other students will not have to go through what Savana experienced."

Savana Redding, an eighth grade honor roll student at Safford Middle School in Safford, Arizona, was pulled from class on October 8, 2003 by the school's vice principal, Kerry Wilson. Earlier that day, Wilson had discovered prescription-strength ibuprofen – 400 milligram pills equivalent to two over-the-counter ibuprofen pills, such as Advil – in the possession of Redding's classmate. Under questioning and faced with punishment, the classmate claimed that Redding, who had no history of disciplinary problems, had given her the pills.
 
After escorting Redding to his office, Wilson demanded that she consent to a search of her possessions. Redding agreed, wanting to prove she had nothing to hide. Wilson did not inform Redding of the reason for the search. Joined by a female school administrative assistant, Wilson searched Redding's backpack and found nothing. Instructed by Wilson, the administrative assistant then took Redding to the school nurse's office in order to perform a strip search.

In the school nurse's office, Redding was ordered to strip to her underwear. She was then commanded to pull her bra out and to the side, exposing her breasts, and to pull her underwear out at the crotch, exposing her pelvic area. The strip search failed to uncover any ibuprofen pills.
 
"The strip search was the most humiliating experience I have ever had," said Redding in a sworn affidavit following the incident. "I held my head down so that they could not see that I was about to cry."

The strip search was undertaken based solely on the uncorroborated claims of the classmate facing punishment. No attempt was made to corroborate the classmate's accusations among other students or teachers. No physical evidence suggested that Redding might be in possession of ibuprofen pills or that she was concealing them in her undergarments.
 
Furthermore, the classmate had not claimed that Redding currently possessed any pills, nor had the classmate given any indication as to where they might be concealed. No attempt was made to contact Redding's parents prior to conducting the strip search.
In response to today's ruling, Redding said, "I wanted to make sure that no other person would have to go through this, so I am pleased by the Court's decision. I'm glad to have helped make students feel safer in school."

The case, Safford Unified School District v. Redding, was appealed from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which found the strip search to be unconstitutional. A six-judge majority of the appeals court further held that, since the strip search was clearly unreasonable, the school official who ordered the search is not entitled to immunity. In today's Supreme Court decision, despite deeming the strip search of Redding unconstitutional, the Court found that the school officials involved are immune from liability. The decision leaves open the possibility, however, that the Safford Unified School district could be held liable.

"Neither the Constitution nor common sense permits school officials to treat a strip search the same as a locker or backpack search," said Steven R. Shapiro, the ACLU's national Legal Director. "Today's ruling eliminates any confusion that school officials may have had about this seemingly obvious point."

The ACLU and ACLU of Arizona were joined in the case by Bruce Macdonald, with the law firm McNamara, Goldsmith, Jackson & Macdonald, and Andrew Petersen, with the firm Humphrey & Petersen.

In addition, a broad constellation of adolescent health experts and privacy rights advocates filed friend-of-the-court briefs in support of Redding, including the National Education Association, National Association of Social Workers (NASW), CATO Institute, Rutherford Institute, Goldwater Institute and Urban Justice Center, among others.

Today's decision is available online at: www.aclu.org/drugpolicy/search/40031lgl20090625.html

The ACLU's brief in the case is available online at: www.aclu.org/scotus/2008term/saffordunifiedschooldistrictv.redding/39160lgl20090325.html

BONIFAY, Fla. – The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Florida and the American Center for Law & Justice (ACLJ) served a complaint yesterday against Holmes County on behalf of their client Daniel Stone, alleging that county officials abused their power by destroying and taking part of Stone's property in an act of retribution. The lawsuit was filed in state circuit court.

Stone v. Holmes County marks the first time the ACLU and the ACLJ – often battling each other in court – are working together, jointly representing the same client.

What began as a dispute between neighbors ended with one neighbor calling in a favor to Jim King, a friendly commissioner, to exact revenge on Mr. Stone by widening the neighbor's private access on his property into what the County now claims is a county road, the ACLU & ACLJ suit alleges. "The government cannot just take someone's property without a good reason and compensation – that's why we have eminent domain laws in Florida," said Benjamin James Stevenson, ACLU staff attorney based in Pensacola.

In 2006, Mr. Stone's fiancée Rebecca Hagan called in a complaint about someone driving at a reckless speed on the easement at the north end of his property – near where his children were playing – that leads to the neighbor's property.  Later that same month, the county road department began grading the easement and eventually widened the two-tire track to a 30, and in some cases 40-foot-wide dirt road.

"The county's widening of the private access on Mr. Stone's property not only unlawfully took away property for which he has not been compensated, but they destroyed natural and landscaped trees, and crushed parts of the septic system. These are all real damages, and the county should reimburse Mr. Stone for the loss, stop grading the access, and return it to how it was before," Stevenson continued.

Through numerous encounters with Commissioner King and the county, the Stone family repeatedly asked that grading of the easement cease, and they were told that not only did he have no intention of stopping the construction, but that it was indeed being done as a person favor to the adjacent property owner, Mr. Harris.

"The government officials overstep their bounds when they improve private property with county funds as a favor for one citizen and to spite another," said Larry Crain, ACLJ senior attorney and lead litigator. "That is an abuse of an official position and against the basic tenets we hold as Americans."

The county claims that it has maintained the easement located on Mr. Stone's property, when in fact photos show that the access was unmaintained prior to the grading that began in November 2006. "Without exercising eminent domain, the county simply can't just take someone's property like this – it's just plain illegal," said Stevenson.

Attorneys for Mr. Stone in Stone v. Holmes County are Benjamin James Stevenson, staff attorney with the ACLU of Florida, based in Pensacola; and Larry Crain, senior attorney and lead litigator with the ACLJ, based in Tennessee. A PDF copy of the complaint is available online: www.aclufl.org/pdfs/StoneVHolmesCounty.pdf