Thread: CA:Judge says can't release names who hire day laborers

Judge temporarily blocks Vista from releasing day-laborer employer data

By: North County Times

VISTA --- A Superior Court judge on Monday granted a temporary restraining order that blocks the city of Vista from releasing information about private employers who have registered to hire day laborers.

A full hearing on the matter will be held July 26.

The American Civil Liberties Union of San Diego and Imperial Counties sought the order Friday, after learning that the leader of a local anti-illegal immigration group had filed a public records request with the city, seeking the names of the employers.


Under a previous settlement with the ACLU, the city had agreed to give the group time to challenge such a request before handing over the employer information.

In granting the temporary ban Monday, Judge Michael Orfield said the court must balance the right to privacy with the public's right to know.

Vista passed the controversial law last summer, requiring people who hire temporary workers off the street to register with the city, display permits in their car window and present workers with written terms of employment.

The ordinance also states that information submitted to the city by prospective employers will be available as public record.

http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2007/07 ... 770222.txt

The American Civil Liberties Union of San Diego and Imperial Counties sought the order Friday, after learning that the leader of a local anti-illegal immigration group had filed a public records request with the city, seeking the names of the employers.


Under a previous settlement with the ACLU, the city had agreed to give the group time to challenge such a request before handing over the employer information.

In granting the temporary ban Monday, Judge Michael Orfield said the court must balance the right to privacy with the public's right to know.

Another example of the ACLU promoting the illegal alien agenda over the rights of American citizens. Here we have a judge, backed by the ACLU, suppressing evidence that was and should remain in the public domain.

Such BS. This is why we need NEW elected officals. New as in NON CAREER POLICTICANS. Normal every day people. I am tired of these elite you know what.

When I heard this was filed by the ACLU Friday I just knew this would happen. What's wrong with posting the names of people who are breaking the law? Why does it seem about every direction people turn to try and enforce laws our government won't enforce more obstacles are put in the way?
~~~~~~~

Judge bars Vista from releasing names of day-labor employers
The Associated Press

VISTA

A judge on Monday temporarily blocked the city from releasing the names of people who employ day laborers.

The order was a victory for the American Civil Liberties Union, which petitioned the judge in response to a public records request filed with the city on June 28 by Mike Spencer, the leader of an anti-illegal immigration group called the Vista Citizens Brigade.

Superior Court Judge Michael Orfield said he had to balance the public's right to information against the employers' right to privacy.

"I would have some concerns as to what would happen with that information," said Orfield, who scheduled a hearing July 26 to determine if the ban on releasing employers' information should be permanent.

ACLU attorney David Blair-Loy argued that releasing the names could lead to employers being harassed. The ACLU sued the city on Friday on behalf of four unnamed employers.

The city said it had no position on releasing the names and would not challenge the order.

Vista, a city of 95,000 people about 30 miles north of San Diego, last year began to require people who hire temporary workers off the street to register with the city, display permits in their car windows and present workers with written terms of employment.

The ordinance also states that information submitted to the city by prospective employers will be public record.

Published: Monday, July 9, 2007 16:29 PDT

http://www.pe.com/ap_news/California/CA ... 279C.shtml

Originally Posted by jean

When I heard this was filed by the ACLU Friday I just knew this would happen. What's wrong with posting the names of people who are breaking the law? Why does it seem about every direction people turn to try and enforce laws our government won't enforce more obstacles are put in the way?
~~~~~~~

Judge bars Vista from releasing names of day-labor employers
The Associated Press

VISTA

A judge on Monday temporarily blocked the city from releasing the names of people who employ day laborers.

The order was a victory for the American Civil Liberties Union, which petitioned the judge in response to a public records request filed with the city on June 28 by Mike Spencer, the leader of an anti-illegal immigration group called the Vista Citizens Brigade.

Superior Court Judge Michael Orfield said he had to balance the public's right to information against the employers' right to privacy.

"I would have some concerns as to what would happen with that information," said Orfield, who scheduled a hearing July 26 to determine if the ban on releasing employers' information should be permanent.

ACLU attorney David Blair-Loy argued that releasing the names could lead to employers being harassed. The ACLU sued the city on Friday on behalf of four unnamed employers.

The city said it had no position on releasing the names and would not challenge the order.

Vista, a city of 95,000 people about 30 miles north of San Diego, last year began to require people who hire temporary workers off the street to register with the city, display permits in their car windows and present workers with written terms of employment.

The ordinance also states that information submitted to the city by prospective employers will be public record.

Published: Monday, July 9, 2007 16:29 PDT

http://www.pe.com/ap_news/California/CA ... 279C.shtml

It would seem that if the ordinance states that the names of prospective employers is public information, then there is plenty of room to appeal.

And, if there are going to be rulings that violate the ordinance, then a move needs to be made to have the ordinance done away with.

It just can't be had both ways.

Originally Posted by zeezil

The American Civil Liberties Union of San Diego and Imperial Counties sought the order Friday, after learning that the leader of a local anti-illegal immigration group had filed a public records request with the city, seeking the names of the employers.


Under a previous settlement with the ACLU, the city had agreed to give the group time to challenge such a request before handing over the employer information.

In granting the temporary ban Monday, Judge Michael Orfield said the court must balance the right to privacy with the public's right to know.

Another example of the ACLU promoting the illegal alien agenda over the rights of American citizens. Here we have a judge, backed by the ACLU, suppressing evidence that was and should remain in the public domain.

"Suppressing Evidence" is a big phrase to be used by a layman. The court granted a TRO, which means temporary restraining order. This is not definite and in the interest of BOTH parties, they are granted if it looks like one or both parties will or may suffer irreperable harm. Here, individuals, reputations, business and livelihoods are at stake. No reason to rush. As stated, a future court date has ben set to establish the facts, apply the law and make a ruling. No need to rush when the stakes are high.
By the way "suppression of evidence" applies to evidence which has been illegally obtained, not relevant, or relevant but will cause unfair prejudice to a party.

Under a previous settlement with the ACLU, the city had agreed to give the group time to challenge such a request before handing over the employer information.

This seems a little odd to me, as well as very questionable. How can any group, let alone the ACLU, compel a city to enter into an agreement which allows that group to interfere in the application of an ordinance?
I phrase it that way because that's precisely what this amounts to. Further disturbing is the fact that the ACLU has also put itself into a position of being able to obstruct justice by preventing the release of names of those hiring illegals in violation of the law.
This group really needs to have the tables turned on it and be put in the position of explaining their actions.


the right to privacy with the public's right to know
will be available as public record.


There's something very contradictory about this entire thing. If this information is supposed to be public record, how can it later be turned into a matter of "it's public record on a need to know basis"?
If that were the case, isn't that how the ordinance should have been written in the first place?



As far as I'm concerned, this all comes down to "people with nothing to hide, hide nothing", and that's all this is......more hiding of illegal activity.
Both the employers and the ACLU know that laws ARE being broken here, and they aren't afraid of harassment. What they're all afraid of is that the information will be used to turn the employers over to ICE, have the IRS look into taxes, etc.

Let's just hope a judge sees through it.

Hmm...Why is the ACLU fighting so hard to supress the "peoples" right to know this public information? Because they are nothing but hypocrites, plain and simple.

Originally Posted by Gabriel

The court granted a TRO, which means temporary restraining order. This is not definite and in the interest of BOTH parties, they are granted if it looks like one or both parties will or may suffer irreperable harm. Here, individuals, reputations, business and livelihoods are at stake. No reason to rush.

So now the hiring of day laborers comes with the presumption that illegal acts are occurring? I'm pleased to find you in this camp Gabriel, but somewhat surprised.