FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE               
CONTACT: media@aclu.org

ELON – The American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina Legal Foundation (ACLU-NCLF) today announced the successful resolution of a federal lawsuit filed on behalf of John W. Paylor, a resident of Elon and a 55-year-old grandfather who was shot twice with a Taser by Elon police officers on June 18, 2006. The officers had surrounded the home of Mr. Paylor in order to serve him with a misdemeanor arrest warrant for using profanity on a public highway and for reckless driving. A videotape of the incident shows that Mr. Paylor was unarmed, in his underwear, and presented no threat to the officers. Nevertheless, an Elon police officer shot Mr. Paylor with a Taser, causing him to fall from his porch. Then, while Mr. Paylor was lying on the ground, unable to move from the shock of being tased and from the fall down his steps, the officer tased him a second time. Mr. Paylor has sustained permanent physical scarring from the incident. The ACLU-NCLF filed a lawsuit against the Elon Police Department and the individual Elon police officers involved on behalf of Mr. Paylor for excessive use of force in March 2009.    

A settlement agreement was finalized and executed this morning, and cooperating attorneys for the ACLU-NCLF have filed papers in court ending the lawsuit. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, the Elon Police Department will implement measures designed to prevent excessive and unnecessary use of Tasers in the future. In particular, Elon police officers will undergo improved annual training on a new Taser policy and on Elon's more general use-of-force policy.  Elon's new Taser policy must be consistent with policies in place in other North Carolina localities that include protections the ACLU believes are important to safeguard against excessive use of Tasers. For example, these policies prevent the use of Tasers against individuals, such as Mr. Paylor, who are not actively resisting officers. These policies also prohibit the use of Tasers against individuals, such as Mr. Paylor, who could potentially receive a secondary injury resulting from falling off an elevated location, and they also limit the number of times an individual can be tased.  Other settlement terms include the following: (1) the officer who tased Mr. Paylor will undergo additional use-of-force and Taser training at the North Carolina Justice Academy; and (2) the Elon Police Chief will instruct all officers that anyone with a personal interest relating to the subject of a misdemeanor warrant shall refrain from serving such warrant in person, unless safety or exigent circumstances require that person to be present. Additionally, the Elon Police Department made a $50,000 settlement payment to Mr. Paylor for his physical, emotional and constitutional injuries.

"I am happy with this outcome," said John Paylor. "What these officers did to me was wrong, and my hope is that this settlement will prevent others from having to suffer what I suffered at the hands of Elon police."

The lawsuit named as defendants certain individual police officers of the Elon Police Department, including Officer Harold T. Dunn, and contended that the officer used his Taser to retaliate against Mr. Paylor for a verbal exchange that occurred between him and Mr. Paylor the day before. The lawsuit further alleged that the other officers who were present failed to intervene to stop Officer Dunn's unlawful actions and therefore likewise violated Mr. Paylor's constitutional right to be free from excessive force. Finally, the lawsuit contended that the Town of Elon bears responsibility for its failure to properly train its officers in the use of Tasers and for a pattern and practice of permitting its police officers to employ Tasers in an excessive and reckless manner. After the lawsuit was filed, other Elon residents came forward and described instances in which they too had been tased unnecessarily by the Elon Police Department.

"We are happy with the settlement, as this was a flagrant abuse of authority by members of the Elon Police Department," said attorney Mark J. Prak, Cooperating Attorney for the ACLU-NCLF, who represented Mr. Paylor. "John Paylor did nothing to deserve this treatment as the police videotape clearly demonstrates. This was a case of an officer abusing his position as a police officer to satisfy his own ego."

The ACLU-NCLF is a founding member of the North Carolina Taser Safety Project, a coalition of nonprofit organizations advocating for the proper use of Tasers by law enforcement and for better training for officers on the weapons' potential risks. These risks are especially pronounced when used on certain vulnerable populations, such as children, the elderly, the disabled, obviously pregnant women, and people in certain situations that place them at greater risk of harm, such as people standing atop a flight of stairs – as Mr. Paylor was here – who are at risk of injury from falling if shot with a Taser. The Taser Safety Project produced a report in 2008 which can be found online at http://acluofnc.org/files/NotThereYet.pdf.
 
"Tasers are becoming increasingly common in North Carolina and across the country," said Katy Parker, Legal Director for the ACLU-NCLF. "It is important that as officers employ these potentially deadly weapons, they do so only when necessary and that they exercise restraint. These weapons are not toys."

Mr. Paylor was represented by Mark J. Prak, Charles E. Coble and Charles F. Marshall of Brooks, Pierce, McLendon, Humphrey & Leonard, L.L.P. in Raleigh, North Carolina, and C. Scott Holmes of Brock, Payne & Meece, P.A. in Durham, North Carolina, as Cooperating Attorneys for the ACLU of North Carolina Legal Foundation, as well as by Katherine Lewis Parker, Legal Director of the ACLU of North Carolina Legal Foundation. A copy of the settlement agreement is available upon request.

White House Should Not Use Constitutional Values As Bargaining Chips, Says ACLU

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2689 or 2666; media@aclu.org

NEW YORK – In light of news reports today indicating that some White House staff could be trying to reverse Attorney General Eric Holder’s decision to try the 9/11 suspects in federal criminal courts rather than in the discredited military commissions system, the American Civil Liberties Union renewed its call for the Obama administration to stand by its original decision. According to the reports, Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is attempting to broker a deal with White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel to try more terrorism suspects in the military commissions system in exchange for support for closing Guantánamo. President Obama has reportedly not yet reached a decision.

As a candidate, President Obama, referring to the military commissions, said that he would “reject a legal framework that does not work.” Despite some improvements in legislation, the commissions remain unworkable.

The American Civil Liberties Union urges President Obama to uphold the principled decision of Attorney General Holder to use federal criminal courts and not back down in the face of political pressure.

“President Obama is at a tipping point where he will either restore American values such as fair trials, due process and the rule of law or he will continue the disastrous policies of the Bush administration and compromise our ability to seek justice at home and abroad,”  said Laura W. Murphy, Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. “Constitutional values are not bargaining chips to be traded away in return for political support.”

Since 9/11, there have been over 300 terrorism-related convictions in federal court. The military commissions have completed only three terrorism-related cases, with two of the three convicted defendants having served relatively short sentences they have already completed. The military commission system is plagued with problems that are sure to result in questionable outcomes and legal challenges, causing even further delays in finally achieving justice in these cases.

“The federal justice system has experienced judges, experienced prosecutors, a track record that includes hundreds of successful terrorism prosecutions, and procedural rules that have been tested and refined over two centuries,” said Jameel Jaffer, Director of the ACLU National Security Project. “To displace this system for a military commissions system that does not have rules, that is certain to result in further delay, that has resulted in only three convictions over eight years, and that is viewed as illegitimate by much of the rest of the world, would be indefensible and irresponsible. Attorney General Holder’s decision to use federal criminal courts was the right decision for national security and the right decision for the rule of law. The Obama administration should reaffirm the decision, not reverse it.”

The military commissions allow the admission of hearsay evidence, which means that unreliable accusatory statements can be introduced in court without the defendant having the opportunity to confront his accuser. The commissions that have occurred so far have been chaotic and uncertain, and updated rules to comport with the latest legislation have, despite a passed deadline, not even been promulgated yet. When they are, they will not even answer questions like whether a defendant can plead guilty in a death penalty case or clarify procedure regarding coerced evidence. Another problem is that the commissions can only be used to prosecute “aliens,” essentially creating a two-tier justice system for Americans and others, an issue that could easily result in challenges to the whole regime.

Additionally, while military judges and lawyers are generally capable and eager to see justice done in terrorism cases, most military judges, like the commissions system itself, lack experience in handling complex international cases, much less those involving terrorism. Their prior experience mostly involves adjudicating “ordinary crimes” by members of the military  – few death penalty cases and almost no conspiracy cases.

Today’s news reports also indicate that the White House could announce that it will indefinitely detain some Guantánamo detainees it does not plan to prosecute, likely in a prison in Illinois. Detaining individuals indefinitely without charge or trial is un-American and violates our commitment to due process and the rule of law. The American system of justice demands that we try those suspected of a crime and punish the guilty.

More information about why terrorism suspects should be tried in civilian courts is available online at: www.aclu.org/national-security/terrorism-cases-should-be-tried-federal-court

Federal Appellate Court Denies Former Attorney General's Request For Full Court Review

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

SEATTLE – The American Civil Liberties Union lawsuit charging that former Attorney General John Ashcroft is personally responsible for the wrongful detention of an innocent American, Abdullah al-Kidd, can go forward, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled today. The ruling denies Ashcroft’s request that his appeal be heard by the entire court and upheld the court’s September 2009 decision that the federal material witness law cannot be used to detain or investigate suspects where no probable cause exists for criminal charges. The ruling also held that Ashcroft does not have immunity in this case and can be held personally liable for the wrongful detention of al-Kidd.

“In this country, we don’t believe in arresting and imprisoning people who haven’t been charged with any crime,” said ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project Deputy Director Lee Gelernt. “Former Attorney General Ashcroft deliberately distorted the federal material witness law to allow the detention of innocent people. As the primary architect and overseer of this policy that so clearly circumvented the Constitution, he should be held personally liable.”

Prior to 9/11, the federal material witness law was used sparingly – especially with U.S. citizens – to ensure that witnesses would be available to testify in criminal cases. Arrests under the statute took place in rare cases to secure testimony where there was hard evidence that an individual had material information but would not testify voluntarily. After 9/11, Ashcroft retooled the law into an investigative detention statute, allowing the government to arrest and detain individuals for whom the government lacked probable cause to charge with criminal violations.

Today's ruling affirms the court’s September 2009 ruling that found that the material witness law may only be used when an individual is genuinely sought as a witness and where there is a real risk of flight. The court ruled that the law does not allow an end-run around the constitutional requirements for arresting someone suspected of a crime. Ashcroft had appealed the ruling.

Al-Kidd, a U.S.-born American citizen, was on his way to Saudi Arabia to study when he was unlawfully detained and arrested in Washington's Dulles Airport on March 16, 2003 as a material witness in the trial of Sami Omar Al-Hussayen. For 16 days, al-Kidd was held in heightened-security units of various jails and shackled whenever moved. He was eventually released under onerous conditions that included confining his travel to four states, surrendering his passport and reporting to probation officers. Al-Kidd was held for more than 13 months under these conditions without ever being charged with any crime or asked to testify.

At the time of his arrest, al-Kidd had already shown that he was not a flight risk and would cooperate as a witness. He had voluntarily met with the FBI repeatedly, never missing a scheduled appointment. For six months prior to his arrest, al-Kidd had not been contacted by the FBI, and he had never been told that he was prohibited from traveling abroad to pursue his studies.

The ACLU lawsuit names Ashcroft, the United States and several federal agents as defendants. Local, state and federal officials in Virginia, Oklahoma and Idaho already settled claims against these parties.

Organizations and individuals who have submitted friend-of-the-court briefs on behalf of the ACLU in the case include former federal prosecutors, former presidents of the American Bar Association, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and Human Rights Watch.

Attorneys on the case are Gelernt, Lucas Guttentag, Farrin Anello and Tanaz Moghadam from the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project; Cynthia Woolley of the Law Offices of Cynthia J. Woolley, PLLC; R. Keith Roark of the Roark Law Firm, LLP; and Michael J. Wishnie of Yale Law School, who is cooperating counsel for the ACLU.

The court's ruling is available online at: www.aclu.org/national-security/abdullah-al-kidd-v-john-ashcroft-et-al-order-denying-petition-rehearing-en-banc

More information about the case, al-Kidd v. Ashcroft, including the ACLU's complaint, the court’s September 2009 ruling and other legal documents are online at: www.aclu.org/safefree/detention/40511res20051118.html

Witness to Abuse, the 2005 report on the misuse of the material witness statute, is online at: www.aclu.org/safefree/detention/17616prs20050627.html

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

WASHINGTON - The Senate this evening voted by unanimous consent to pass a bill that would make crucial changes to current cocaine sentencing laws. The bill, the Fair Sentencing Act, was originally introduced by Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL) to eliminate the discriminatory 100-1 disparity between crack and powder cocaine sentencing under federal law. During the bill's markup last week, however, a compromise was reached with Republican Judiciary Committee members that reduces the disparity to a 18-1 ratio. A bill addressing the disparity in the House, the Fairness in Cocaine Sentencing Act, was passed by the House Judiciary Committee last year and currently awaits a vote by the full chamber.

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. In recent years, a consensus has formed across the political and ideological spectrum on the crack and powder cocaine sentencing disparity issue with both Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama urging reform.

The American Civil Liberties Union believes the Fair Sentencing Act is a step toward a fairer system but falls short of adequately fixing the existing unjust sentencing gap.

The following can be attributed to Laura W. Murphy, Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office:

"The Fair Sentencing Act is an encouraging step toward eliminating the sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine but still allows for a needlessly unfair sentencing framework. The unanimous passage of this bill speaks to the understanding across the political spectrum that this disparity is unjust and in need of reform. Years of research has yielded no evidence of any appreciable difference between crack and powder cocaine and yet we continue to inflict this disparity on Americans.

"For over two decades, this sentencing disparity has been a stain on our justice system. Though this bill's passage is long overdue, it does not go far enough. Without a simple and fair 1-1 sentencing ratio for crack and powder cocaine, we cannot say that these sentencing laws meet constitutional muster."

ACLU Seeks Timely Release Of Data On Targeted Killings Of Suspected Terrorists And Civilian Casualties

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 519-7829 or 549-2666; media@aclu.org

NEW YORK – According to news reports today, State Department official Harold Koh stated that the Obama administration has considered legal objections to its predator drone program and suggested that the administration would release a detailed legal justification for the controversial program at an undetermined date.

The American Civil Liberties Union filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit Tuesday against the State Department and other agencies demanding that the government disclose the legal basis for its use of unmanned drones to conduct targeted killings overseas. In particular, the lawsuit asks for information on when, where and against whom drone strikes can be authorized, the number and rate of civilian casualties, and other basic information essential for assessing the wisdom and legality of using armed drones to conduct targeted killings.

The following can be attributed to Jonathan Manes, legal fellow with the ACLU National Security Project:

“We welcome reports that the Obama administration is seriously considering the legality of the drone program, and are encouraged to hear that the rationale behind the program may be made public. We urge the State Department and other agencies to quickly disclose their positions, including on the program’s legal justification and the limits on where and against whom drones can be used. We also urge the administration to disclose other basic facts about the program, including information about the program’s oversight and the number of civilians that have been killed in drone strikes.

“The use of drones to conduct targeted killings raises complicated legal, moral and policy issues, and the public needs this kind of information in order to engage meaningfully in the debate over these questions.”

The ACLU's complaint can be found here: www.aclu.org/national-security/aclu-v-doj-et-al-complaint

The ACLU's FOIA request can be found here: www.aclu.org/national-security/predator-drone-foia-request

Alabama And South Carolina Last States To Maintain Discriminatory Policy After Advocacy By ACLU And Human Rights Watch

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2582 or 2666; media@aclu.org

JACKSON, MS – The Mississippi Department of Corrections (MDOC) has agreed to end the segregation of prisoners with HIV, a longstanding discriminatory policy that has prevented prisoners from accessing key resources that facilitate their successful transition back into the community.

The decision by Mississippi's corrections commissioner Christopher Epps, prompted by recent advocacy by the American Civil Liberties Union and Human Rights Watch, leaves Alabama and South Carolina as the only states in the nation that segregate prisoners based on their HIV status. Epps made the decision ahead of a forthcoming report by the ACLU and Human Rights Watch analyzing the harmful impact segregation policies have had in the three states.

"Commissioner Epps deserves a tremendous amount of credit for making this courageous decision to replace a policy based on irrational HIV prejudice with a policy based on science, sound correctional practice and respect for human rights," said Margaret Winter, Associate Director of the ACLU National Prison Project. "The remaining segregation policies in South Carolina and Alabama are a remnant of the early days of the HIV epidemic and continue to stigmatize prisoners and inflict them and their families with a tremendous amount of needless suffering."

Public and correctional health experts agree that there is no medical basis for segregating HIV-positive prisoners within correctional facilities or for limiting access to jobs, vocational training and educational programs available to others. Since 1987, however, MDOC has performed mandatory HIV tests on all prisoners entering the state prison system, and has permanently housed all male prisoners who test positive in a segregated unit at the Mississippi State Penitentiary, the state's highest security prison. As a result, prisoners with HIV have been faced with unjustified isolation, exclusion and marginalization, and low-custody prisoners have been forced unnecessarily to serve their sentences in more violent, more expensive prisons.

The change in policy will enable prisoners with HIV to participate in jobs, training programs and other services to which they were previously denied access because of their HIV status and which are designed to prepare prisoners for a productive return to society. Prisoners with HIV will now be able to participate in kitchen work, for example, which can be beneficial to them in many ways. Many prisoners worked in kitchens, cafes or restaurants prior to their incarceration, and continued employment in that area can help them upon re-entry into the workforce. According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, there is no medical basis for preventing persons with HIV from working in kitchens or other food service employment. 

Additionally, prisoners with HIV will no longer be assigned to a segregated HIV unit, which resulted in the public disclosure of their HIV status and left them at risk of being ostracized and subjected to hostility and violence at the hands of other prisoners. Epps said he will phase in the new desegregation policy gradually for prisoners currently housed in the HIV unit, and will form a committee to make individualized placement decisions for these prisoners. Starting immediately, incoming prisoners will be housed using only criteria set out in the state classification plan such as criminal history, length of sentence and other factors unrelated to their HIV status.

"Prisoners with HIV were often forced to live in cruel, inhumane and degrading conditions, and we're delighted that Mississippi has changed its policy," said Megan McLemore, health researcher at Human Rights Watch. "Integrating prisoners with HIV is the norm across the United States and MDOC deserves significant credit for making this decision."

Mississippi's decision to change its segregation policy to comply with civil and human rights standards is the latest in a series of reforms prompted by ongoing dialogue between the ACLU, Human Rights Watch and MDOC officials. In 2001, based on the recommendations of a task force convened by the MDOC commissioner and comprised of MDOC security staff, public health officials, ACLU staff and other HIV advocates, MDOC ended its policy of excluding prisoners with HIV from in-prison vocational, educational and religious programs. And in 2004, as a result of a class action lawsuit filed by the ACLU on behalf of all Mississippi prisoners with HIV, MDOC ended its policy of excluding prisoners with HIV from the state's work release and community corrections programs.

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

Additional information about Human Rights Watch is available online at: www.hrw.org

Women Represented By ACLU And North Carolina Justice Center

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 519-7808 or 549-2666; media@aclu.org

COLUMBIA, N.C. – Three Mexican women employed on temporary worker visas in North Carolina sued a seafood processing company today for unlawfully restricting them to certain work solely because they are women. The lawsuit also claims that the company underpaid them, unlawfully failed to reimburse their travel costs and wrongfully fired them. The American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of North Carolina Legal Foundation and the North Carolina Justice Center filed the lawsuit on behalf of the three women and other workers in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina.

"The company restricted these women to certain types of jobs and limited the hours of work available to them simply because they are women," said Ariela Migdal, staff attorney with the ACLU Women's Rights Project. "The women were qualified for the better jobs reserved for the men and entitled to an equal opportunity to perform that work."

The women were recruited in Mexico by Captain Charlie's Seafood, Inc. to process seafood in North Carolina. The seafood company also recruited men and agreed to pay all of the workers the prevailing hourly wage for seafood processing. To bring the migrant workers to the U.S. as legal temporary workers under the H-2B visa program, the seafood company was required to cover their travel and visa processing fees.

Once the workers arrived in North Carolina, however, Captain Charlie's restricted the women to picking crabs, a job that entails cleaning meat from cooked crabs, and offered them far fewer paid hours than it did to the men. The men, in contrast, were given a variety of other jobs, such as cooking and carrying crabs and handling crab traps. At times, the women sat idly and watched in frustration as their male counterparts earned wages for work that both women and men are fully capable of performing. Eventually, in August 2009, Captain Charlie's terminated a group of approximately 20 women crab pickers but kept on male workers who performed other work. The company also failed to reimburse the workers for their travel and visa expenses, as required under the H-2B program, and failed to pay the prevailing wage it had promised when recruiting them.

"I was given different work and fewer hours just because I am a woman," said Sandivel Villanueva Flores, one of the women represented in the case. "I don't think that's fair." 

The women's lawsuit charges that Captain Charlie's discriminated against them on the basis of sex by restricting them to certain work, which culminated in their wrongful termination in violation of North Carolina public policy prohibiting such gender-based employment decisions. The lawsuit also charges that the company violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and the North Carolina Wages and Hours Act in underpaying workers and failing to reimburse them for travel and visa expenses.

The women also filed charges of unlawful discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, claiming that the gender-based job restrictions violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

"Unfortunately, women seasonal workers are especially vulnerable to exploitation by their employers," said Clermont Fraser, an attorney with the North Carolina Justice Center. "Migrant workers face many difficulties for a variety of reasons like language barriers and racism, but women have the additional hurdle of sexism."

The attorneys filing the case, Landeros Covarrubias, et al. v. Capt. Charlie's Seafood, Inc., are Migdal and Lenora Lapidus of the ACLU Women's Rights Project; Fraser and Carol Brooke of North Carolina Justice Center; and Katy L. Parker of the ACLU of North Carolina Legal Foundation. Risha Foulkes of the ACLU Women's Rights Project is also working on the case.

A copy of the complaint can be found at: www.aclu.org/womens-rights/covarrubias-v-captain-charlies-seafood-inc-complaint

Alabama And South Carolina Last States To Maintain Discriminatory Policy After Advocacy By ACLU And Human Rights Watch

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

JACKSON, MS – The Mississippi Department of Corrections (MDOC) has agreed to end the segregation of prisoners with HIV, a longstanding discriminatory policy that has prevented prisoners from accessing key resources that facilitate their successful transition back into the community.

The decision by Mississippi's corrections commissioner Christopher Epps, prompted by recent advocacy by the American Civil Liberties Union and Human Rights Watch, leaves Alabama and South Carolina as the only states in the nation that segregate prisoners based on their HIV status. Epps made the decision ahead of a forthcoming report by the ACLU and Human Rights Watch analyzing the harmful impact segregation policies have had in the three states.

"Commissioner Epps deserves a tremendous amount of credit for making this courageous decision to replace a policy based on irrational HIV prejudice with a policy based on science, sound correctional practice and respect for human rights," said Margaret Winter, Associate Director of the ACLU National Prison Project. "The remaining segregation policies in South Carolina and Alabama are a remnant of the early days of the HIV epidemic and continue to stigmatize prisoners and inflict them and their families with a tremendous amount of needless suffering."

Public and correctional health experts agree that there is no medical basis for segregating HIV-positive prisoners within correctional facilities or for limiting access to jobs, vocational training and educational programs available to others. Since 1987, however, MDOC has performed mandatory HIV tests on all prisoners entering the state prison system, and has permanently housed all male prisoners who test positive in a segregated unit at the Mississippi State Penitentiary, the state's highest security prison. As a result, prisoners with HIV have been faced with unjustified isolation, exclusion and marginalization, and low-custody prisoners have been forced unnecessarily to serve their sentences in more violent, more expensive prisons.

The change in policy will enable prisoners with HIV to participate in jobs, training programs and other services to which they were previously denied access because of their HIV status and which are designed to prepare prisoners for a productive return to society. Prisoners with HIV will now be able to participate in kitchen work, for example, which can be beneficial to them in many ways. Many prisoners worked in kitchens, cafes or restaurants prior to their incarceration, and continued employment in that area can help them upon re-entry into the workforce. According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, there is no medical basis for preventing persons with HIV from working in kitchens or other food service employment.

Additionally, prisoners with HIV will no longer be assigned to a segregated HIV unit, which resulted in the public disclosure of their HIV status and left them at risk of being ostracized and subjected to hostility and violence at the hands of other prisoners. Epps said he will phase in the new desegregation policy gradually for prisoners currently housed in the HIV unit, and will form a committee to make individualized placement decisions for these prisoners. Starting immediately, incoming prisoners will be housed using only criteria set out in the state classification plan such as criminal history, length of sentence and other factors unrelated to their HIV status.

"Prisoners with HIV were often forced to live in cruel, inhumane and degrading conditions, and we're delighted that Mississippi has changed its policy," said Megan McLemore, health researcher at Human Rights Watch. "Integrating prisoners with HIV is the norm across the United States and MDOC deserves significant credit for making this decision."

Mississippi's decision to change its segregation policy to comply with civil and human rights standards is the latest in a series of reforms prompted by ongoing dialogue between the ACLU, Human Rights Watch and MDOC officials. In 2001, based on the recommendations of a task force convened by the MDOC commissioner and comprised of MDOC security staff, public health officials, ACLU staff and other HIV advocates, MDOC ended its policy of excluding prisoners with HIV from in-prison vocational, educational and religious programs. And in 2004, as a result of a class action lawsuit filed by the ACLU on behalf of all Mississippi prisoners with HIV, MDOC ended its policy of excluding prisoners with HIV from the state's work release and community corrections programs.