vol. 34, no. 4

American

Civil Liberties

Union

Volume XXXIV

SAN FRANCISCO, APRIL, 1969

sary meeting and has

this one.

public are cordially invited.

35th Anniversary Celebration

Henry Steele Commager

To Speak at ACLUNC -

Annual Meeting, May 19

The eminent historian and member of ACLU's National

Committee, Henry Steele Commager, will be featured speaker

at the ACLUNC annual meeting, Monday, May 19, 1969. The

occasion will also mark ACLUNC's 35th Anniversary.

The meeting will take place in the new and handsome

facilities of the First Unitarian Church of San Francisco, 1187

Franklin Street, San Francisco, starting acent 8 p.m.

Mr. Commager will speak on the timely problem of the

University and the new crisis in academic freedom imposed

by the disruption/destruction of the Institution. Long active

- in ACLU, Mr. Commager addressed ACLUNC's 25th Anniver-

been especially invited to address

Following the meeting refreshments will be served. A

modest admission charge (amount to be announced in the

May ACLU NEWS) will be made to defray costs,

All members, their families, their friends, and the general

Defendants Silenced

Judicial Gag

Rule Upheld in

Court of

Appeal

The California Court of Appeal, in a 2-1 decision has up-

held against constitutional attack an ACLUNC challenged

court order which prevented defendants in a criminal pro-

sevution from issuing public statements about their case. The

case arose out of an arrest made on November 30, 1966, at

the Student Union of the Berke-

ley campus of the University of

California during a protest dem-

onstration against the presence

of military recruiters. These ar-

rests triggered a subsequent stu-

dent strike and the demonstra-

tion received extensive publicity

in Bay Area newspapers.

Judge Brunn's Order

Judge George Brunn of the

Berkeley-Albany Municipa] Court

issued an order in the criminal

case arising from the arrests. It

prohibited the parties to the

ease, their counsel, all law en-

forcement agencies, the Regents

of the University of California,

other employees of the Univer-

sity, the Associated Students of

the University and its member-

ship and affiliated organizations

from "directly or indirectly re-

leasing to any news media infor-

mation or opinion concerning the

trial or any issue likely to be in-

volved therein . . . Specifically,

and without limitation, there

shall be no public statements or

releases concerning the merits of

the complaint, the evidence or

arguments to be adduced by

either side, or trial tactics or

strategy."

Defendants Defy Order

Four defendants in the case,

Steve Hamilton, Michael Smith,

Stewart Alpert, and Jerry Rubin,

defied the court order by stating,

on the courthouse steps, that

they were arrested as scapegoats

to appease Governor Ronald Rea-

gan. In their statement they also

pointed out that many prominent

persons had already commented

adversely on their arrests, that

the public was already preju-

diced against them and that they

were simply attempting to re-

dress the balance. The defend-

ants also complained that their

freedom of speech was being

curtailed simply because they

had been charged with a crime.

The ACLU came into the case at

this point and urged the Munici-

pal and Superior Courts to throw

out the charges. They refused

and so, now, has the Court of

Appeal.

No Danger

In arguing the case before the

Court of Appeal ACLU volun-

teer attorney Laurence Popofsky

emphasized the dangers flowing

from a broad and unrestricted

restraint on free speech imposed

merely because persons are

charged with a crime. Recogniz-

ing that in some specific situa-

tions pre-trial publicity could

prejudice the right to a fair trial

by a jury of one's peers, Popof-

sky pointed out that Judge

Brunn's order was issued without

reference to any clear and pres-

ent danger of interference with

the right of fair trial. Popofsky

also noted that the appellants

were exercising their "right of

reply" to answer charges made.

by the Governor and other State

officials in the public press.

Majority Position

Court of Appeals Justices Sals-

man and Brown, in rejecting the

ACLU arguments, held that the

possibility of infringement on

the right to a fair trial out-

weighed the rights of free speech

infringed by the order. They

held that direct proof that state-

ments will have a prejudicial ef-

fect on a trial need not be estab-

lished before an order may limit

statements about a trial. The

Court stated "The trial judge

cannot be made the personal cen-

sor of every statement contem-

plated by each participant in the

trial, An order specific enough

so that all parties know what is

proscribed is sufficient." They

also found that the order was not

too bread: "The order does not

prohibit the defendants from de-

scribing the charges against them

and unequivocally asserting their

own innocence." That, according

to the Court, is enough.

- Dissent

In dissenting from the decision

of the Court of Appeal, Presiding

Justice Murray Draper observed

that the order was issued without

-Continued on Page 2

No. 4

HENRY STEELE COMMAGER

Theatre Party

Planned By Berk.

Albany Chapter

The New Committee Theater

in San Francisco will be the

scene of a theater party spon-

sored by the Berkeley/Albany

Chapter on Tuesday evening,

May 6. The play will be "Big

Time Buck White," created in

the theater workshop of Bud

Schulberg in Watts, and coming

from good press reception in

L.A. and New York. This ver-

sion is a musical one, with words

and music by Oscar Brown, Jr.,

and starring Big Black, a well

known conga drummer. The play

has been the center of some

controversy, principally from the

radical right.

Since the theater is not a large

one, please get your reserva-

tions in early. Call the Berke-

ley/Albany office 548-1322 dur-

ing the day, or Mrs. Ying Kelly

526-7798 evenings.

Two Years At Hard Labor

Sood's 15-year.

Mutiny Sentence

Is SI

cent shed

Private Nesrey Dean Sood, convicted of "Mutiny" for

participatin in a non-violent demonstration protesting the

intolerable conditions at the Presidio Stockage, has had the

fifteen-year sentence imposed by the court-martial reduced

to two years.

The reduction was ordered by

Major General Kenneth Hodson

who was apparently exercising

clemency powers delegated to

him by Secretary of the Army

Stanley Resor. We say "appar-

ently" because the Army has not

explained precisely how the re-

duction came about; it has not

even had the courtesy to inform

Sood's attorney, staff counsel

Paul Halvonik, that Sood's sen-

tence has in fact been reduced.

Earlier Reduction

Hodson's action followed by

hours a reduction of Sood's sen-

tence to seven years by Sixth

Army Commander Lt. General

Stanley Larsen. Larsen's reduc-

tion was doubtless based on the

recommendations of Colonel

James Garnett, his Staff Judge

Advocate, who was responsible.

West Contra

Costa in Need of

Att'y Volunteers

The recently formed ACLUNC

Council centering in Richmond

has a dedicated and concerned

steering committee, but has only

one attorney available for con-

sultation and assistance. Attor-

neys are needed to help screen

cases and consult with the group

on projects. If any attorney is

willing to help the counci] in

this manner, would he please

call Carol Weintraub (Chapter

Director) at the ACLUNC office,

433-2750,

Search of Lockers

High Court Asked To

Support Righis of Students

The Sacramento district of the California Court of Ap-

peal has held that a vice-principal's warrantless search of a

high school student's locker, a search which uncovered some

marijuana, was not an unreasonable search and seizure pro-

hibited by the Fourth Amendment. The Court of Appeal

held that a vice-principal was

not a governmental official and

that the search was not prohibit-

ed because the purpose of the

search was not to obtain convic-

tions but to secure evidence of

student misconduct.

P. D. and ACLUNC

The Sacramento Public De-

fender has asked the Supreme

Court of California to review

and reverse the Court of Ap-

peals' decision. Staff counsel

Paul Halvonik has joined the

Public Defender in that request.

In its brief to the Court, ACL-

UNC points out that school offi-

cials have been considered gov-

ernmental - officials within the

meaning of the Constitution for

over a quarter of a century, ever

since it was held that school of-

ficials could not, consistent with

the Constitution, expel Jeho-

vah's Witnesses because of their

refusal to salute the flag. Since

a school official is a governmen-

tal official any searches he con-

ducts must proceed according to

Fourth Amendment standards

whether or not his search was

conducted for the purpose of ob-

taining convictions. Former staff

eounsel Marshall Krause's vic-

tory before the United States Su-

preme Court in the landmark

case of Camara v. Municipal

Court establishes that the

Fourth Amendment. protects per-

sons against all unreasonable

searches by governmental offi- (c)

cials no matter what their pur-

pose may be,

Order Theme

The Court of Appeal, in reach-

ing its decision that students are

not protected against unreason-

able searches and seizures by

school officials, noted that

"school officials, as a body and

individually, have a responsibil-

ity for maintaining order upon

the school premises so that edu-

cation, teaching and training of

the students may be accom-

plished in an atmosphere of law

and order." Halvonik contends

that the application of that re-

mark to the case at hand "is a

mystery," for how is "an atmos-

phere of law and order' fos-

tered by lawless searches? Re-

spect for law is not going to be

_ engendered by the violation of

the basic law of the land by

those school officials who are

supposed to be setting a good

example. "Obedience" and "or:

der" might be promoted by a

no-nonsense approach to non-

flag saluting Jehovah's Wit-

nesses and daily dragnet shake-

downs of all the students but

that sort of lawlessness would

neither promote "law'' nor re-

spect for law and it certainly

would not prepare students for

participation in a free and open

society.

`tarian Center,

in the face of contrary advice by

his subordinates, for pursuing

the mutiny charge in the first

place.

The reduction to seven years

was essentially a one-half reduc-

tion of the original sentence, a

non unusual occurrence in the

military's version of Justice.

Sood's case, however, was not

the usual one: the absurd charge

of mutiny, the outrageous origi-

nal sentence of fifteen years and

the international attention given

to the case should have put Gar-

nett and Larson on guard to that

fact. Washington, with its al-

most instantaneous overruling of

Larsen's reduction, demonstrat-

ed that it was at least partially

in contact with reality. The

exercise of clemency powers

even before the case has been

appealed if not unprecedented

is so unusual that no one is fa-

miliar with a precedent. Hod-

son's action was a considerable

rebuke to Lieutenant General

Larsen.

The impact of the Presidio

Mutiny Case, as Washington's

intervention indicates, is going

to be felt for quite a while. Sen-

ators Cranston (D. California) -

and Goodell (R. New York) and

Congressman Cohelan (D. Berke-

ley) have called for an investi-

gation of conditions in Army

stockades. Thus the very pur-

pose for the "mutiny," to bring

attention to stockade conditions,

has been achieved. Moreover,

the Presidio mutiny cases have

focussed attention on the Army's

peculiar version of "justice"; at-

tention that may also result on

congressional action. If so, Lar-

sen and Garnett will have un-

wittingly performed a great serv-

ice for genuine justice.

Sood's case, it should be em-

phasized, is not over yet. A two-

year sentence looks attractive

when contrasted with fifteen but

two years at hard labor, a dis-

honorable discharge and for-

feiture of all pay and allowances

for the offense of bringing at-

tention to legitimate grievances

is impermissibly harsh. ACL-

UNC will continue to represent

Sood on appeal and if the con-

viction is not reversed will take

the case to the federal courts.

April 12 Meeting

Discusses School

Decentralization

There will be a discussion of

Decentralization and Community

Schools in Urban Crisis from

9:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. on Satur-

day, April 12, 1969 at the Uni-

1187. Franklin

St., San Francisco. Among the

experts, both national and local,

who will participate in the pro-

gram are Rhody A. McCoy,

United Administrator, Ocean

Hill-Brownsville Demonstration

Project, Brooklyn, N.Y., Dr. Ber-

nard E, Donovan, Superintend-

ent of Schools, New York City

and the Superintendents of

Schools of San Francisco and

Berkeley, Dr. Robert E. Jenkins

and Dr. Richard Foster respec-

tively.

The question of school decen-

tralization is now under discus-

sion in the ACLU's national aca-

demic freedom committee.

The San Francisco meeting is

sponsored by the Service Com-

mittee on Public Education. The

meeting is open to the public.

Donation $1.00.

Federal Court Ruling

First Decision

Supporting Long

Hair for Pupils

In an unprecedented decision, a U.S. District Court Judge

in Wisconsin decided on February 20, 1969 that a regulation

of the Williams Bay Board of Education prohibiting long

hair for boys violated the due process clause of the Four-

teenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution. The case

was that of Thomas Breen and

William C. Kahl and involved a

regulation affecting male stu-

dents in the high school, as

follows:

"Hair should be washed,

combed and'worn so it does

~ not hang below the collar line

in the back, over the ears and

on the side and must be above

the eyebrows. Boys should be

clean shaven; long sideburns

are out."

Expelled in 1968

Both boys were expelled by

the Board in early autumn, 1968,

for the stated reason that the

length of his hair exceeded the

Board's standard. The court

noted that the length of the hair

did not constitute a health prob-

lem or a physical obstruction or

danger to any person: Nor was

any disruption or disturbance

caused by the length of the hair.

Regulating Adults

"To achieve perspective," said

the court, "it may be useful to

consider the validity of a simi-

lar regulation which might be

applicable to adults; for exam-

ple, a state statute or city ordi-

nance making it punishable by

fine or imprisonment for a male

inhabitant to wear a beard; or,

for example, a statute or ordi-

nance denying enrollment in a

public adult education class in.

bookkeeping to males whose

hair exceeds a certain length;

or, for example, a statute or or-

dinance forbidding access to

public buildings or parks to adult

females whose hair exceeds a

certain. length.

"It defies credulity that a

legislature or council would pro-

mulgate such a regulation. But

if it should, it seems clear that

the regulation would fall.

Governmental Interest

"Hf, for adults, wearing one's

hair at a certain length or wear-

ing a beard is viewed in part as

a form of expression, that is, as

a `course of conduct' in which

`speech' and `nonspeech' ele"

ments are combined, only a `suf-

ficiently important govern-

mental interest in regulating the

nonspeech element can justify

incidental limitations on First

Amendment freedoms.'

Highly Protected Freedom

The court did not undertake -

to decide the free speech issue,

but declared that "the freedom

of an adult male or female to

present himself or herself phy-

sically to the world in the man-

ner of his or her choice is a

highly protected freedom. An

`effort to use the power of the

state to impair this freedom

must also bear `a _ substantial

burden of justification', whether

the attempted justification be in

terms of health, physical danger

to others, obscenity, or `distrac-

tion' of others from their vari-

ous pursuits. For the state to

impair this freedom, in the ab-

sence of a compelling subordi-

nating interest in doing so,

would offend a widely shared

concept of human dignity, would

assault personality and individ-

uality, would undermine iden-

tity, and would invade human

`being'. It would violate a basic

value `implicit in the concept of

ordered liberty.' It would de-

prive a man or a woman of lib-

ACLU NEWS

APRIL, 1969

Page 2

erty without due process of law

in violation of the Fourteenth

Amendment.

School's Defense

Justification for the regula-

tion was placed on two grounds

by the school authorities: "(1)

that in Williams Bay a male

high school student whose hair

is longer than the Board stand-

ard so departs from the norm

that his appearance distracts his

fellow students from their school

work; and (2) that students

whose appearance conforms to

community standards perform

_ better in school, both in strictly

academic -work and in extra-cur-

ricular activities, than those

whose appearance does not con-

forum 3.

School Defense Fails

"In many situations, no doubt,

whether `a substantial burden of

justification' of a regulation has

been met is a delicate and un-

certain matter. This is not such

a situation. Defendants here

have fallen far short of showing

that the distraction caused by

male high school students whose

hair length exceeds the Board

standard is so aggravated, so

frequent, so general, and so per-

sistent that this invasion of their

individual freedom by the state

is warranted. The same is true

of defendants' showing with re-

spect to the differential in

school performance between

male students with long hair and

those with short, hair."

Judicial Gag

Rule Upheld in

Court of Appeal

Continued from Page 1-

any showing of a clear and pres-

ent danger that remarks by the

defendants would prejudice a

fair trial. He concluded, addition-

ally, that the order was too broad

and uncertain to support a crimi-

nal conviction. "Literally ap-

vlied," Justice Draper remarked

"(the gag rule) restricted stu-

dents and faculty, not parties of

any action, from discussing

among themselves events and is-

sues of great and immediate con-

cern to them, whenever newsmen

might be present. The prohibi-

tion of release `directly or indi-

rectly' could have this effect even

if publicity were neither sought

nor anticipated. However provoc-

ative the words of defendants,

they can be punished only if the

order is valid. Disagreement with

the words spoken does not war-

rant limiting the freedom to

speak them."

Further Appeal

ACLUNC will ask the Supreme

Court of California to vacate the

decision of the Court of Appeal

and find the gag rule unconsti-

tutional.

Popofsky was assisted in his

presentation to the Court of Ap-

peal by volunteer attorney Rich-

ard Goff and former staff coun-

sel Marshall Krause.

Berk./Albany To

Hold Membership

Meeting Apr. 25

The Berkeley/Albany Chapter

of ACLUNC will hold a general

membership meeting on Friday,

April 25 at 8 p.m. Charles C.

Marson, Assistant Staff Counsel |

and Legislative Representative

for ACLUNC, will talk about

current legislative problems.

The meeting will be held at

2838 Woolfey in Berkeley: Wine

and cheese will be served and

small contributions will of

course be accepted.

Forty Directors

Chapters Elect

Ten Branch |

Board Members

The following persons have been elected to the branch

board by their chapter areas: Robert Greensfelder, Marin;

Francis Heisler, Monterey; Dr. John Marauis, Mid-peninsula;

Richard L. Mayers, Sacramento Valley; Richard Patsey, Mt.

Diablo; Eugene N. Rosenberg, Berkeley/Albany; Mrs. Muriel

Roy, Stockton; Stanley D. Stev-

ens, Santa Cruz; Jerry Tucker,

Sonoma County; Justin Vander-

laan, Santa Clara Valley.

The Fresno Chapter has not

elected any board representa-

tive. The board now has ten

members from chapter areas

and 30 persons elected at large

or a total of 40 members.

Biographical Information

Last month the ACLU NEWS

_carried detailed biographical in-

formation on four of the at-large

members elected to the branch

board of directors. Since then

the office has received informa-

tion about two more new mem-

bers.

Jerry Falk

Jerome B. Falk, Jr., is asso-

ciated with the San Francisco

law firm of Howard, Prim,

Smith, Rich and Downs. He re-

sides with his wife and daughter

in Berkeley,

Falk received his A.B, (with

honors) in Economics at U.C. in

1962. He received his law degree

from the same institution in

1965. At law school he received

various honors, including serv-

ice on the California Law Re-

view.

Following graduation from law

school, Falk served as law clerk

to U.S, Supreme Court Justice

William O. Douglas for one year.

Previously, he had served as

ACLU legal intern in 1964, de-

bate coach at U.C. in. 1963-1965

and as Reader in the Depart-

ment of Speech (1962-1963).

Falk is presently secretary and

member of the Board of Direc-

tors, Constitutional Rights Foun-

dation, part-time lecturer at the

U.C, School of Law, and a volun-

teer counsel for ACLU and co-

operating attorney for NAACP

Legal Defense Fund.

Falk's writing includes "Rights

Liberties of the California

Citizen" in collaboration with

Prof. Robert M. O'Neil and a

text for high school use con-

cerning the Federal Bill of

Rights, also in collaboration with

Prof. O'Neil, which is now in

preparation.

Dan Loeb

Daniel N. Loeb has been a

staff attorney for the San Fran-

cisco Neighborhood Legal Assist-

ance Foundation since June,

1966. He and his wife, Laurel,

reside in Berkeley where Mrs.

-Continued on Page 4

Case of Oscar Jessin

Claim Right to

Consensual

Vasectomies

In 1950 the State Attorney General issued an opinion

stating that consensual vasectomies were illegal in Cali-

fornia because they were against a public policy of pro-

moting a high birth rate and because they were proscribed

by the law against mayhem.

The opinion has not had much

effect on the private practice of

medicine but it has resulted in

county hospitals refusing to per-

form vasectomy operations on

persons otherwise entitled to

public medical care.

Favorable Ruling

Jere Hurley, Jr., of Redding

decided to challenge the Shasta

County Hospital's

grant a vasectomy to Oscar Jes-

sin, a married man of. modest

means who had already fathered

as many children as he felt he

could support. Hurley sued the

County in the Shasta Superior

Court where Judge Richard

Abbe overruled the Attorney

General's decision and held that

voluntary vasectomies are not

against the public policy of Cali-

fornia.

Friend of Court Brief

The County of Shasta appealed

Judge Abbe's decision to the

Court of Appeal where ACL-

UNC's staff counsel Paul Halvo-

nik has filed a friend of the

court brief supporting the lower

court decision. The brief, noting

that vasectomies are "no more

mayhem than appendectomies or

amputations" and that "the idea

that the profession of surgeon is

felonious is too unsettling to be

entertained,' addressed itself

primarily to the question

whether. vasectomies are against

the public policy of California...

Public Policy Issue

ACLUNC argues that vasecto-

mies are not against public pol-

refusal to

icy and that, indeed, the liberal-

ization of California's anti-abor-

tion law and the liberalization of

California law dealing with the

dissemination of information

about contraceptives establishes

that there is no public policy

against curtailing the birth rate.

The brief states: "The only rea-

son it was not further liberalized

or abolished outright in 1967 was

not a concern about a reduced

birth-rate (with California's bur-

geoning population such a con-

cern would be fanciful) but be-

cause of the belief in some quar-

ters that an abortion involves

the destruction of a human life.

That consideration has no rele-

vance where vasectomy is in

issue."

Familial Privacy

The amicus brief concluded

with a discussion of the decision

of the United States Supreme

Court in Griswold v. Connecticut

holding that Connecticut's law

prohibiting the use of contra-

ceptives violated the constitu-

tionally protected right of fam-

ilial privacy. `Even the most

grudging reading of Griswold

leads to the conclusion that the

fundamental right to familial

privacy protected by the Four-

teenth Amendment to the Con-

stitution leaves decisions about

contraception to the husband and

wife in consultation with their -

physician." _

A decision-from the Court of

Appeal on the right of vasec-

tomy is expected in spring or

early summer.

Mes. La Verda O. Allen

Alfred J. Azevedo

Albert M. Bendich

Leo Borregard

Rev. Hamilton Boswell

Price M. Cobbs, M.D.

Prof. John Edwards

Jerome B. Falk, Jr.

Prof. Marc Franklin

Robert Greensfelder.

Rev. Aron S. Gilmartin

Evelio Grillo

Francis Heisler

Neil F, Horton

- Daniel N. Loeb

Gerald D. Marcus

Ephraim Margolin

Dr. John N. Marquis

Honorary Treasurer:

Joseph $. Thompson

Honorary Board Member:

Sara Bard Field

Mrs. Gladys Brown

Mrs. Paul Couture

Mes. Margaret C. Hayes

Prof. Carlo Lastrucci

John J. Eagan

Joseph Eichler

r. H. H. Fisher

Board of Directors of the American Civil Liberties Union

of Northern California

! CHAIRMAN: Howard H. Jewel

' VICE-CHAIRMAN: Prof. Van D. Kennedy

Helen Salz

i SEC'Y-TREAS.: Howard A. Friedman

. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: Ernest Besig

GENERAL COUNSEL: Wayne M. Collins

STAFF COUNSEL: Paul N. Halvonik

ASS'T STAFF COUNSEL and LEGIS. REP.; Charles C. Marson

ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT: Mrs. Pamela S. Ford

CHAPTER DIRECTOR: Carel R. Weintraub

Committee of Sponsors

Mrs, Paul Holmer

Mrs. Mary Hutchinson Prof. Wallace Stegner

Prof. Wilson Record

Prof. Ernest Hilgard Dr. Norman Reider

John R. May

Richard L. Mayers

Martin Mills, M.D.

Robert L. Nolan, M.D.

Richard Patsey

Mrs, Esther Pike

Henry J. Rodriguez

Eugene N. Rosenberg

Mrs. Muriel Roy

John Brisbin Rutherford

Prof. John Searle

Warren H. Saltzman

Mes. Alee Skolnick

Stanley D. Stevens

Jerry Tucker

Justin Vanderlaan

Don Vial

Joe J. Yasaki

Dr. Marvin J. Naman

Mrs. Theodosia Stewart

" Re. Rev. Sumner Walters

Richard Johnston

Roger Kent

Mes. Ruth Kingman

Prof. Theodore Kreps

Seaton W. Manning

Rev. Robert W. Moon

Clarence E. Rust

' Prof. Hubert Phillips

Norman Lezin

ESE ELE LOSTEE TIERS GIES SIE SSIS DS IE OE I I I

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION NEWS

Published by the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California

Second Class Mail privileges authorized at San Francisco, California

` ERNEST BESIG .. . Editor

503 Market Street, San Francisco, California 94105, 433-2750

Subcription Rates -- Two Dollars and Fifty Cents a Year

; Twenty-Five Cents Per Copy 1

of opinion,

Historic High Court Decision

Students Rights

To Freedom of

Speech Upheld

Last month the ACLU NEWS briefly reported the Feb-

ruary 24 landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dis-

trict which upheld the right of secondary school students

to wear black armbands as a protest against the Vietnam

war. Following are excerpts

from the prevailing opinion,

written by Justice Fortas, in the

7 to 2 decision:

Pure Speech

"As we shall discuss, the

wearing of armbands in the cir-

cumstances of this case was not

entirely divorced from actually

or potentially disruptive conduct

by those participating in it. It was

closely akin to "pure speech"

which, we have repeatedly held,

is entitled to comprehensive pro-

tection under the First Amend-

ment. :

"First Amendment rights, ap-

plied in light of the special

characteristics of the school en-

vironment, are available to

teachers and students. It can

hardly be argued that either stu-

dents or teachers shed their con-

stitutional rights to freedom of

speech or expression at the

schoolhouse gate. This has been

the unmistakable holding of this

Court for almost 50 years... .

"The problem presented by

the present case does not relate

to regulation of the length of

skirts or the type of clothing, to

hair style or deportment. It does

not concern aggressive, disrup-

tive action or even group demon-

strations. Our problem involves

direct, primary First Amend-

ment rights akin to `pure

speech.' ofa

to eo. Ne Disorder .-o

"The school officials banned

and sought to punish petitioners

for a silent, passive, expression

unaccompanied by

any disorder or disturbance on

the part of petitioners. There is

here no evidence whatever of

petitioners' interference, actual

or nascent, with the school's

work or of collision with the

rights of other students to be

secure and to be let alone. Ac-

cordingly, this case does not con-

cern speech or action that in-

trudes upon the work of the

' school or the rights of other stu-

dents.

"Only a few of the 18,000 stu-

dents in the schoo] system wore

the black armbands. Only five

students were suspended for

wearing them. There is no indi-

cation that the work of the

school or any class was disrup-

ted. Outside the classrooms, a

few students made hostile re-

marks to the children wearing

armbands, but there were no

threats or acts of violence on

school premises,

Fear of Disturbance

"The District Court concluded

that the action of the schoo] au-

thorities was reasonable because

it was based upon their fear of a

disturbance from the wearing of

armbands. But, in our system,

undifferentiated fear or appre-

hension of disturbance is not

enough to overcome the right of

freedom of expression. Any de-

parture from absolute regimen-

tation may cause trouble. Any

word spoken, in class, in the

lunchroom or on the campus,

that deviates from the views of

another person, may start an ar-

gument or cause a disturbance.

But our Constitution says we

must take this risk; and our his-

tory says that it is this sort of

hazardous freedom-this kind of

openness-that is the basis of

our national strength and of the

independence and vigor of

Americans who grow up and live

ACLU NEWS Page 3

APRIL, 1969

in this relatively permissive,

often disputatious society.

Justifying Prohibition

"In order for the State in the

person of school officials to jus-

tify prohibition of a particular

expression of opinion, it must

be able to show that its action

was caused by something more

than a mere desire to avoid the

discomfort and unpleasantness

that always accompany an un-

popular viewpoint. Certainly

where there is no finding and

no showing that the, exercise of

the forbidden right would `ma-

terially. and subsequently inter-

fere with the requirements of

appropriate discipline in the

operation of the school,' the

prohibition cannot be sus-

tained... .

"., . the action of the school

authorities appears to have been

based upon an urgent wish to

avoid the controversy which

might result from the expres-

sion, even by the silent symbol

of armbands, of opposition to

the Nation's part in the con-

flagration in Vietnam ...

Some Symbols Allowed

"It is also relevant that the

school authorities did not pur.

port to prohibit the wearing of

all symbols of political or con-

troversial significance. The rec-

ord shows that. students in some

of the~schools wore buttons re-

lating to national political cam-

paigns, and some even wore the

Iron Cross, traditionally a sym-

bol of nazism, . . . Clearly, the

prohibition of expression of one

particular opinion, at least with-

out evidence that it is necessary

to avoid material and substan-

tial interference with school

work or discipline, is not con-

stitutionally permissible.

Freedom for Students

"In our system, state-operated

- schools may not be enclaves of-

totalitarianism. Schoo] officials

do not possess absolute author-

ity over their students. Students

in school as well as out of school

are `persons' under our Consti-

tution. They are possessed of

fundamental rights. which the

State must respect, just as they -

themselves must respect their

obligations to the State. In our

system, students may not be re-

garded as closed-circuit recipi-

ents of only that which the

State chooses to communicate.

They may not be coniined to the

expression of those sentiments

that are officially approved. In

the absence of a specific show-

ing of constitutionally valid rea-

sons to regulate their speech,

students are entitled to freedom

of expression of their views. As

Judge Gewin, speaking for the

Fifth Circuit said, schoo] offi-

cials cannot suppress "expres-

sions of feelings with which they |

do not wish to contend.'

Not Limited to Classroom

"..A student rights ... do

not embrace merely the class-

room hours. When he igs in the

cafeteria, or on the playing

field, or on the campus during

the authorized hours he may

express his opinions, even on

controversial subjects like the

confiict in Vietnam, if he does

so `without materially and sub-

stantially interfering with appro-

priate discipline in the operation

of the school' and witheut collid-

ing with the rights of others.

But conduct by the student, in

class or out of it, which for any

-Continued on Page 4

Case Against

Pamphleteer

Dismissed

John Ross was arrested for

"interfering with the lawful

business" of a San Francisco

super-market. Ross interfered

by standing at the market's en-

trance passing out grape boy-

cott handbills to prospective cus-

tomers. The market's feeling

that the pamphleting interfered

with its business is understand-

able; the arrest of Ross for the

exercise of his right to inter-

fere by expressing his opinions

is not at all understandable.

Even more mysterious was the

District Attorney's apparent in-

sistance on bringing the case to

trial.

On the day set for trial the

prosecution and the defense ar-

rived with their witnesses pre-

pared for the business of select-

ing a jury. The District Attor-

ney then proposed a deal: the

case would be dismissed if Ross

agreed not to pass out more

pamphlets at the market; "no

deal" was Paul Halvonik's re-

sponse, After some agitated dis-

cussion the District Attorney de-

cided to dismiss the case without

an agreement that Ross give up

his right of expression.

After the dismissal Ross

vowed to return to the market

with his handbills. So far he

has not been re-arrested.

Death Row Case

State High Court

Upsets Sanchez

Conviction

The State Supreme Court has reversed the conviction

and sentence of death imposed on San Quentin inmate Ar-

mando Sanchez. In reversing the conviction the Court also

vacated its 1967 decision which upheld the conviction and

the death penalty sentence. The Court decided to review

the Sanchez case when his newly

appointed attorneys, Charles

Boltz of Pillsbury, Madison and

Sutro, and Kenneth W. Graham,

Jr., a UCLA law professor, dis-

-eovered that a portion of the

trial: court record in Sanchez's

case had not been before the Su-

preme Court in its 1967 decision.

Boltz and Graham were joined

by staff counsel Paul Halvonik,

appearing as a friend of the

court, in urging that Sanchez

was denied due process of law

in his trial.

A Sex Beef

Sanchez had been convicted,

under Penal Code Section 4500,

of killing a shop foreman, with

malice aforethought, while under-

going a life sentence in San

Quentin. Sanchez did not dis-

pute that he had killed Canning;

he apparently went beserk when

he discovered that Canning was

Anti-Draft Demonstration :

Attack on Disturbing Peace

Unlawful Assembly Laws

Alexander Hoffman, a Berkeley attorney, was arrested

for disturbing the peace, unlawful assembly, and obstructing

a street during the anti-draft demonstrations held in Oak-

land in December of 1967. Hoffman was present at the dem-

onstrations in order to consult with his demonstrator-clients

about their legal rights.

Writ of Prohibition Sought

The California Court of Ap-

peal has been asked to prohibit

the Oakland Municipal Court

from trying Hoffmann on the

grounds that two of the statutes

he is accused of violating, the

disturbing the peace and unlaw-

ful assembly statutes, are uncon-

stitutional on their face and that

the third statute, obstructing a

sidewalk, cannot constitutionally

be applied to an attorney who is

on the street for the purpose of

consulting with his clients.

The brief in Hoffman's case,

prepared by staff counsel Paul

Halvonik, is the first full-scale

attack on the disturbing the

peace and unlawful assembly

statutes ever to reach the ap-

pellate courts of California.

Disturbing Peace

The breach of the peace

statute is challenged on the

grounds that it is a vague and

overbroad regulation of First

Amendment rights. The com-

plaint in Hoffman's case charged

`him with disturbing the peace in

that he was "offensive and tu-

multuous." ACLUNC argues that

such a statute gives the execu-

tive almost unlimited power to

harass those with whose conduct

or morals it is at odds and per-

mits the government to punish

persons for expressing ideas ob-

noxious to the government. It

argues that "the First Amend-

ment protects, at the very least,

the right to hold and express

ideas that are offensive." As

the United States Supreme

Court stated almost twenty years

ago:

"The function of free speech

under our system of govern-

ment is to invite dispute. It

may indeed best serve its high

purpose when it induces a

condition of unrest, creates

dissatisfaction with conditions

as they are, or even stirs

people to anger. Speech is

often provocative and challeng-

ing. It may strike at preju-

dices and preconceptions and

have profound unsettling ef-

fects as it presses for accept-

ance of an idea."

Unlawful Assembly

The unlawful assembly statute

is challenged on the same

grounds. An unlawful assembly

is defined in the Penal Code as

occurring `whenever two or

more persons assemble together

to do an unlawful act, and sepa-

rate without doing or advancing

toward it, or do a lawful act in

a violent, boisterous, or tumultu-

ous manner .. ."' Under the

terms of the unlawful assembly

statute everyone who attends a

football game is guilty of unlaw-

ful assembly. A football game,

after all, is an event where peo-

ple do a "lawful act" in a "vio-

lent, boisterous, or tumultuous

manner." Persons who attend

football games, however, are

never arrested for unlawful as-

sembly while those who attend

rallies promoting unpopular

causes are the only persons who

seem to be arrested for unlawful

assembly.

A Form of Tyranny

The ACLUNC declares that

"the vice of the unlawful assem-

bly provision which provides

police and courts with such arbi-

trary and oppressive censorial

power over the citizenry is com-

pounded by the potential that

the power will be used to re-

press free speech and assembly.

The assertion of sweeping and

limitless discretion by govern-

ment officials to declare the

conduct of individuals a crime

and punish them without warn-

ing is a form of tyranny most

destructive of every personal

freedom."

The brief in the Hoffman

case will serve as the basis for

a friend of the court brief filed

on behalf of San Francisco State

College students who have been

charged with unlawful assembly

and disturbing the peace for

their participation in a non-vio-

lent rally held at the college in

January.

going to report him to the au-

thorities for improper sexual

conduct. Sanchez was found,

covered with blood, standing

over Canning with a knife in his

hand stating that he had killed

Canning because "he was going -

to give me a sex beef." An au-

topsy sebsequently revealed that

Canning had suffered sixteen

stab wounds, two of which had

punctured his heart causing

death.

Coerced Confession

Although Sanchez admittedly

killed Canning a death sentence

could not be imposed unless the

prosecution proved that he had

done the killing not in a fit of

passion but with malice afore-

thought. In order to prove the

necessary state of mind the

prosecution introduced into evi-

dence at Sanchez's trial a con-

fession he made after the killing.

The confession would support

the inference that Sanchez had

not killed in a fit of passion but

after some calculation. That

confession, however, was secured

after four San Quentin guards

had beaten Sanchez senseless.

As a consequence of the beating

Sanchez suffered a broken nose

and lacerations around his eyes,

one of which took six stitches

to close.

Court Holding

The confession, the Supreme

Court decided, was not volun-

tary. In assessing "the totalitv

of the circumstances" surround-

ing Sanchez's confession Justice

Sullivan, speaking for the Court,

said:

"Defendant had _ received

only a fifth or sixth-grade edu-

cation with a record of fail-

ures and poor attendance and

had manifested difficulty with

the English language. Defend-

ant's mental level was `bor-

derline defective.'

"He was beaten in the Ad-

justment Center within thirty

minutes before his confession;

he was kicked the final time

upon leaving the cell in the

Adjustment Center to go to

the captain's office; he was

given a towel to place on his

bleeding face; he was dizzy

and remained dizzy while in

the captain's office. As a re-

sult of the beating the de-

fendant required. several

stitches and eventual hospital-

ization. His interrogator while

not personally involved in the

beating was in charge of the

guards responsible for the

violence."

"We are satisfied from the

totality of the circumstances

established by the uncontra- -

dicted facts in the record that

defendant's confession was in

fact coerced and not the prod-

uct of a rational intellect and

a free will. We hold that such

confession was involuntary

and that its use before the

jury denied defendant due

process of law guaranteed by

the Fourteenth Amendment to

the Constitution of the United

States. Our conclusion that it .

was involuntary rests not only

on our conviction that defend-

ant's will was overborne at the

time he confessed and that the

use of the confession offends

a sense of justice but also on

society's deep rooted feeling

that the police must obey the

law while enforcing the

law.

Lack of Standards

Death Penalty

Challenge Goes

To High Court

ACLUNC and the NAACP Legal Defense Fund have

taken their constitutional challenge to the death penalty to

the United States Supreme Court. The petition to the high-

est court is on behaif of five men who were sentenced to

death by California juries. The five are: Robert Page Ander-

son, Frederick Saterfield, Walter

C. Hines, Dorman Fred Talbott

and Gerald Albert Bievelman.

Hines, Talbott and Bievelman

are currently under sentence of

death; Anderson and Saterfield

had their death penalties re-

versed when the California Su-

preme Court, by a four to three

decision, upheld the constitution-

ality of the death penalty but, at

the same time, ruled that the

juries that had condemned the

two to death had been improper-

ly selected.

Due Process Clause

The petition for certiorarj asks

the United States Supreme Court

to rule the death penalty uncon-

stitutional on the grounds that

the death penalty in California

is in violation of the due process

clause of the United States Con-

`stitution because it is imposed

without standards and guide-

lines. Juries are "permitted to

choose between life and death

upon conviction for any reason,

rational or irrational, or for no

reason at all; at a whim, a vague

caprice of the color of petition-

er's skin if that does not please

them." It was that constitutional

claim that the California Su-

preme Court rejected by 4-3 vote.

_ Cruel Punishment i

The petition also urges that

the death penalty is "cruel and

unusual punishment" proscribed

by the Eighth Amendment to

the United States Constitution.

It is cruel because it is a method

of mental torture. It is cruel be-

cause there is no justification for

it; it is not a greater deterrent

to crime than the alternative of

life imprisonment. Vengeance, of

course, is not a legitimate legis-

lative purpose and the legitimate

legislative purposes besides de-

terrents that are served by pun-

ishment, ie., isolation and re-

habilitation, can also be better

served by a sentence of life im-

prisonment, an alternative less

subversive of the fundamental

constitutional right to life.

Evidentiary Hearing

The petition also maintains

that the California Supreme

Court erred in not granting a

motion for an evidentiary hear-

ing. At the hearing, the indigent

petitioners intended to prove

that the State of California vio-

lates their constitutional rights

by not providing lawyers after

the appeal of their case to the

United States Supreme Court.

Many legal avenues are open to

a condemned man after initial

petition to the United States Su-

preme Court. He can file various

writs challenging his conviction

and. sentence in the state and

federal courts and he can seek

clemency from the governor of

the state. California does not

provide counsel for indigent con-

demned men during these criti-

eal proceedings.

Hanging Jurors

The petitioners also intended

to prove at the evidentiary hear-

ing that the exclusion of scru-

pled jurors from death penalty

trials violates the due process

and equal protection clauses of

the United States Constitution.

California has a bifurcated death

trial system. A jury first deter-

mines whether or not the ac-

cused person is guilty. If a guilty

verdict is returned that jury, or

another one, then decides what

ACLU NEWS

APRIL, 1969

Page 4

penalty to exact. Any person op-

posed to the death penalty is re-

moved from both phases of the

trial ACLUNC and NAACP Le-

gal Defense Fund maintain that,

as to the "guilt" phase of the

trial, this exclusion of scrupled

jurors is absolutely unnecessary

and results in a jury that is not

a representative sampling of the

community and that is in fact un-

constitutionally stacked in favor

of the death penalty. Last year

the U. S. Supreme Court held, in

Witherspoon v. Illinois, that the

exclusion of jurors for cause

from a death-imposing jury sim-

ply because of scruples against

the death penalty, as distin-

guished from an inability to vote

for the death penalty in any

case, resulted in an unconstitu-

tional "hanging jury." In With-

erspoon the Court declined to

pass on whether the exclusion

of scrupled jurors from a guilt-

determining jury denies an ac-

cused due process.

It was on the basis of the

Witherspoon ruling that the Cali-

fornia Supreme Court reversed

the death penalties of Anderson

- and Saterfield. The petition ar-

gues that as to Hines, Talbott

and Beivelman (whose death

penalties were not reversed by

the California Court) the Cali-

fornia Court has read Wither-

spoon too narrowly.

Many Lawyers On Appeal

The petition for certiorari is

primarily the work product of

cooperating attorney Jerome B.

Falk, Jr., of San Francisco, It is

based to a large part on work

earlier done in the litigation by

Falk, Professor Anthony G. Am-

sterdam of the University of

Pennsylvania, representing the

NAACP Legal Defense Fund,

staff counsel Paul N. Halvonik

for ACLUNC and cooperating at-

torneys Gary Berger, Harry

Kreamer and Roy Eisenhardt, all

of San Francisco, Appearing on

the brief also are NAACP Legal

Defense Fund lawyers from New

York, Charles S. Ralston for the

San Francisco office of the Legal

Defense Fund and Volunteer at-

torneys Demetrios P. Agretelis

of Berkeley, W. Reese Bader of

San Francisco and Patrick J.

Sampson of La Verne, retained

counsel for Talbott.

Stays Of Execution

Hines, Talbott and Beivelman

have all received stays of execu-

tion from Justice Douglas. Addi-

tionally Justice Douglas has is-

sued stays of execution for con-

demned men Reeves and Massie

on petition of Jerome Falk. The

granting of the Massie stay was

a singular victory because Mas-

sie's insistence that he be execu-

ted has made his case a particu-

larly difficult one.

Meanwhile, on the basis of the

ACLUNC - Legal Defense Fund

arguments, two more condemned

men, Tahl and Lavergne, have

received stays from Federal Dis-

trict Judge Alfonso Zirpoli, Tahl

was represented by private coun-

sel advancing the arguments; ad-

ditionally Jerome Falk appeared

as a friend of the Court support-

ing a stay. Falk obtained the stay

for Lavergne the day after he

was appointed to represent La-

vergne.

State Court Action

In addition to the federal court

actions, ACLUNC and NAACP

Legal Defense Fund continue to

press for reversals of death con-

victions in the State Supreme

Court. On April 3, Paul Halvonik |

Students' Rights

Of Speech Upheld

Continued from Page 3-

reason-whetiier it stems from

time, place, or type of behavior-

materially disrupts classwork or

involves substantial disorder or

invasion of the rights of others

is, of course, not immunized by

the constitutional guaranty of

freedom of speech.

"Under our Constitution, free

speech is not a right that is

given only to be so circum-

scribed that it exists in principle

but not in fact. Freedom of ex-

pression would not truly exist if

the right could be exercised only

in an area that a benevolent gov-

ernment has provided as a safe

haven for crackpots. The Consti-

tution says that Congress (and

the States) may not abridge the

right to free speech. This pro-

vision means what it says. We

properly read it to permit rea-

sonable regulation of speech-

connected activities in carefully

restricted circumstances, But we

do not confine the permissible

exercise of First Amendment

rights to a telephone booth or

the four corners of a pamphlet,

or to supervised and ordained

discussion of a school classroom.

"Tf a regulation were adopted

by school officials forbidding

discussion of the Vietnam con-

flict, or the expression by any

student of opposition to it any-

where on school property except

as part of a prescribed class-

room exercise, it would be ob-

vious that the regulation would

violate the constitutional rights

of students, at least if it could

not -be justified by a showing

that the students' activities

would materially and substan-

tially disrupt the work and dis-

cipline of the school. In the cir-

cumstances of the present case,

the prohibition of the silent,

passive `witness of the arm-

bands,' as one of the children

called it, is no less offensive

to the Constitution's guaran-

ties. ..."

Chapters Elect

Board Members

Continued from Page 2-

Loeb is presently completeing

her Masters in psychiatric social

work at U.C.

Loeb graduated from Bowdoin

College and the Harvard Law

School in 1961. He practiced

briefly in Portland, Oregon, and

then clerked for Justice Mathew

O. Tobriner of the California

Supreme Court for one year.

Following his clerkship, he be-

came associated with the San

Francisco law firm of Hanson, .

Bridgett, Marcus and Jenkins. Af-

ter about three years he took his

present job at the Western Addi-

tion office of the Foundation.

Loeb has handled a broad

range of problems for low-in-

come people. He is Housing Co-

ordinator for the Foundation

with the responsibility for the

coordination and formulation of

the Foundation's efforts in the

area of housing, He is a member

of the Housing Committee of the

San Francisco Family Service

Agency. He is presently writing

an article for the Hastings Law

Journal on the problems of the

low-income tenant.

DANIEL N. LOEB

will argue the case of Edward

Louis Arguello before the Cali-

fornia court which is being asked

to vacate Arguello's death sen-

tence on the ground that it was

imposed by a "hanging jury." |

Sacramento Legislative Report

Chaos On the

Campus Is the

Number 1 Issue

The dire predictions about the climate of the Legislature

and the effect of the Republican take-over began to prove

true last month, although some limits were apparent. These

were some of the developments in civil liberties areas:

Death Penalty Fen

The annual battle over capital

punishment has run its course.

On February 26th the abolition-

ists, including ACLU, made a

two-hour presentation of the

arguments against the death pen-

alty to the Assembly Criminal

Procedure Committee. At issue

were bills to abolish the death

penalty, and to declare a four-

year moratorium on executions.

Predictably, both lost. The four

Democrats on the committee

voted in favor of the bills; four

of the five Republicans (one was

absent) voted against. Five votes

were necessary to. send the bills

to the Assembly floor, All con-

cerned parties vowed to return

next year.

Campus Unrest

Chaos on the campus remained

the number. one issue in Sacra-

mento, This last month's activi-

ties are a good illustration of

the differences between the As-

sembly and the Senate.

The Senate passed several

measures to deal with the prob-

lem. S, B. 318, Senator Grunsky's

trespass bill, described in last

month's report, passed by a vote

of 34 to 5. More ominously, four

bills authored by Senator Har-

mer (and unsuccessfully opposed

in committee by ACLUNC)

`passed the Senate by wide mar-

gins. Two of them would require

mandatory firing or expulsion of

any teacher or student commit-

ting any act of force or violence

likely to interfere with campus

activities. The third establishes

a procedural system for disci-

plining students that lacks the

barest essentials of due process.

The fourth permits a college

president to declare a state of

emergency and to limit access to

the campus to anyone he chooses.

The Senate `has shown itself pre-

pared to pass nearly anything if

its purpose is to clamp down on

the campuses.

At least part of this cavalier

attitude is due to the fact that

the Assembly, as the Senate well

knows, will not rubber-stamp

everything the Senate passes.

The Assembly continued hear-

ings on the nature of the prob-

lem, but did nothing about spe-

cific legislation. Instead it

spawned yet another bureaucrat-

ie entity - the Select Committee

on the Administration of Cam-

pus Disorders. This committee

(which will not, as its name im-

plies, administer riots) is com-

posed of the members of the

Subcommittee on an Academic

Environment, Victor Vesey,

The first right of a citizen

Is the right

To be responsible

Chairman of the Education Com-

mittee, and three members of the

Criminal Procedure Committee

(Murphy, Moorhead, and Vascon-

cellos). It will recommend model

legislation in the field, borrow-

ing from many of the scores of

bills sent over by the Senate or

authored by individual assembly-

men, So far this has not hap-

pened; while the Governor beats

the drums, the Assembly simply

multiplies its committees.

Obscenity

A very traditional argument

took place in the Senate Judi-

ciary Committee last month, with

a very traditional result, Two ob- -

scenity bills by Senator Lago-

marsino were reported out fav-

orably, for the third straight

year, As everyone involved real-

ized this would happen, the hear-

ing was audience -oriented. At-

torney General Thomas Lynch

testified about the growing tide

of smut; the author of this arti-

ele testified that the material

at which the bills are aimed was

probably harmless and certainly

constitutionally protected; a rep-

resentative of a librarians' asso-

ciation testified that the bills

would impose on them an intol-

erable burden of confusion and

hesitation. This issue will be de-

cided later in the year by the

Assembly Criminal Procedure

Committee.

Electronic Eavesdropping

On March 10 the United States

Supreme Court handed down

three decisions in this area, and

in the resulting scramble to re-

assess the law, hearings on As-

semblyman Biddle's A. B, 253

were postponed to March 26, At

this stage it appears that some

eavesdropping legislation is like-

ly to succeed, The argument con-

cerns the premissiveness of its

provisions.

Two new bills have been intro-

duced to deal with the marijuana

problem in a non-punitive way.

One, by Assemblyman Sieroty,

makes first offense possession a

misdemeanor, At present the

judge in his discretion may im-

pose either misdemeanor or fel-

ony punishment. The other, by

Assemblyman Vasconcellos, calls

for a thorough scientific study of

the effects of marijuana and dan-

gerous drugs so that criminal

sanctions, if any, may be scaled

to the danger of the substances

rather that to ignorance or prej-

udice, The latter may have some

chance for success. - Charles C.

Marson, Assistant Staff Counsel

and Legislative Representative,

JOIN TODAY

QB 151

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION

OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA

Patron Membership ..........+-- tee wee . .$100

Sustaining Membership .......00.eecereeeeeeecs 7200

Business and Professional Membership ....... ore 20.

Family Membership .........++-- Se ee ID

Annual Membership .......0.0:-000: ee ~10

Student Membership ...... es

AGU News Subscription .0x00B0...........:...-...:. $2.50

Contributions are deductible for income tax purposes

NAME ..... Ao oo noe : Bens ee ee res Poeun teas

ADDRESS and ZIP CODE ...........+6- ee ake Co lece ns Ses eee :

TELEPHONE NUMBER es AMT. ENCLOSED....... oe

03 Market Street San Francisco, 94105

steals