vol. 38, no. 5

Volume XXXVIII

Rep. Stark sues to end

bombing in Cambodia

War in Indochina has been challenged

repeatedly in the Courts by the ACLU and

other groups, always with the same result.

The Judiciary has dodged the core

constitutional question of whether the

executive branch may commit long-term

military force without a declaration of war

by the Congress each time.

In the past, the courts interpreted

certain congressional actions to imply

-consent of the continued war in Indochina. |

The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, renewal

of the Selective Service Act and passage of

defense appropriations bills have all been

considered as justification for the war.

ACLU-NC filed a suit last month on

behalf of Representative Fortney H. (Pete)

Stark (D-Oakland) against the Secretaries

of Defense, the Air Force and the Navy,

which charges that there is now no

implied Congressional support for the

bombing in Cambodia, but that the

reverse is true.

CONGRESS OPPOSES BOMBING

In his brief, Legal Director Charles

Marson asks the Court to declare the

bombing of Cambodia unconstitutional on

the grounds that it directly contradicts law

that has been passed by the Congress and

signed by the President. He points out that

the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution has been

repealed and that Congress has explicitly

San Francisco, June 1973

prohibited the President from engaging in

combat operations in Cambodia.

Not only has Congress failed to

authorize combat operations in Cambodia,

but it has stipulated that no military

activity should continue in Indochina once

all ground troops and POW's have

returned home. . The Mansfield

Amendment, which was passed in 1970,

says just that.

INHERENT'? AUTHORITY

In addition, every military

appropriations bill since the Cambodian

incursion of 1970 has contained a

paragraph known as the Fullbright Proviso

which states that ``... nothing herein

shall be construed as authorizing the use

of any such funds to support Vietnamese

or other free world forces in actions

designed to provide military support and

assistance to the governments of

Cambodia or Laos."'

Finally, when Congress approved

foreign aid to Cambodia, it included a

specific limitation in the law which said

`* . it shall not be construed as a

commitment by the United States to

Cambodia for its defense.''

Already the Administration has

recognized that it can no longer justify the

bombing of Cambodia on Congressional

actions and has developed an alternative

mey !

Charles Marson announce suit

theory. Last month, when Secretary of

Defense Elliot Richardson was testifying

before the Senate Foreign Relations

Committee, he introduced the novel

thought that the President has

`inherent?' authority to conduct the

bombing which derives from his power to

seek a negotiated settlement. In other

words, the Administration is saying that

Congress is powerless to stop military

operations ordered by the President

because the military might of this country

1s only a foreign policy tool for his use.

Richardson did not say where the

Constitution explained this.

`COURT MUST DECIDE'

Marson charged that this "represents a

severe threat to our Constitutional system

of checks and balances and it is the judicial

, Executive Director Jay

to halt bombing at press conference.

No. 5

Miller and Legal Director

branch of the government which must

resolve the conflict between Congress and

the Executive. Thus, it is incumbent on

the courts to declare continuation of the

`bombing unconstitutional.''

Congressman Stark stated that he was

bringing the suit `because I think it is

imperative that we do everything legally

and humanly possible to stop the killing in

Indochina. Through this action, we are

trying to stop people from being killed,

wounded and captured in an

_unconstitutional war.''

A companion case was filed on behalf of

Congressman Ronald V. Dellums (D-

Alameda) by USF Law Professor Peter

Donnici. Both cases will be combined for

argument before U.S. District Court Judge

Alfonso Zirpoli in the near future.

Eighty attend second chapter conference in Carmel

More than eighty Affiliate and Chapter Board members

attended the second annual weekend Chapter Conference

at Carmel Valley last month. From Friday night until

Sunday afternoon, participants and staff worked non-stop

through meetings, workshops and speeches.

The Conference began with a general session in which

Executive Director Jay Miller reported on the Affiliate's

successes and shortcomings in the past year. He pointed

out that the decision to merge financially with National

ACLU had resulted in a 54 percent increase in

membership which has resulted in the strengthening of

the ACLU program in Northern California.

Miller commented that the already strong legal:

program continues to benefit greatly from a dependable

and extremely competent volunteer complaint section.

Also, he added, two legal committees have been orgaized

to formalize legal input from the Chapters and to

capitalize on the talents of good attorneys who are outside

the ACLU Board. Utilization of an increased number of

volunteer attorneys has also contributed to legal activity,

Miller pointed out.

Other programs that were instituted in the past year

were the public education and speakers' programs which,

INSIDE ACLU NEWS

Repeal the draft eccececcccecccee 2

New Foundation Projects .ccccee 3

Women and the Law psececoccccced

Crime and Civil Liberties cvcccecesd

Street Musicians Album ceccsoce 6

according to Miller, were still developing and would

become better in the coming year. The Legislative

program which currently is staffed only half-time by

Joseph Remcho is expected to receive a full-time attorney

by 1974, releasing Remcho to do full-time legal work in

the Affiliate.

Miller then reviewed the Affiliate's progress in the four

priority areas established at the Chapter Conference in

1972. In the Women's Rights field, he explained that

much litigation already existed before the priority was

agreed upon but that even more has been carried by the

ACLU in the past year. In addition, a Women's Rights

Committee is currently in the process of developing a

proposal for a project to be funded by foundation grants in

the near future.

Decriminalization of victimless crimes was another

priority that came out of last year's Chapter Conference

-and Miller reported that sufficient funding was finally

acquired last March to hire staff and begin a project.

Catherine Smeland has been hired as director of the

and she begins work in June.

SUCCESSES IN PRISONS AND PRIVACY

Prisoners' Rights litigation has long been a major

endeavor of the ACLU legal program: and it too was a

priority item last year. Now, however, even more prison

cases will be possible since the San Francisco Foundation

has just provided a grant to the ACLU to have Peter

Sheehan work full-time in this area.

Except for the recent moves toward an affirmative

action policy, Miller commented that he didn't think last

year's priority for equality of rights had gone very well.

There was some scattered litigation but he pointed out

that much still needed to be done. A significant area

which the ACLU needs to become even more active, he

said, were the immigration problems of Chinese, Chicano

and Filipino people in the Bay Area.

Another area of activity which did not come out of last

year's conference but which emerged as a priority anyway

was privacy, and Miller commented that the passage of

the privacy initiative last November and the at least

partial success so far in the bank secrecy case and a major

computer privacy case represent significant achievements

for the ACLU.

WORKSHOPS DISCUSS CHAPTER PROBLEMS

Following the report on the Affiliate's activities,

representatives from each of the Chapters told of their

activities and achievements during the past year and

discussed some of their collective and unique problems.

On Saturday morning, at first a general session with

Associate Director Laura Monroe and then in four

organizational workshops, chapter problems and

solutions were discussed further. Monroe offered

techniques and ideas for fund raising and involving more

members of ACLU at the Chapter level since most of the

Chapter representatives felt these to be their chief

problems. The workshops focused in detail on legal,

public education and organizational aspects of Chapter

programs.

Saturday afternoon was devoted to discussion of

substantive areas of ACLU work. Legal Director Charles

Marson began with an explanation of some of the new

ACLU policies dealing with libel and airport searches.

Then the group broke up into workshops on prisons,

victimless crimes, criminal justice, affirmative action and

women's rights.

In the evening session, Arlie Schardt, Associate

Director of the National ACLU office in Washington,

D.C., addressed the group on the outlook for civil liberties

in the wake of the Watergate scandal. He stressed that the

Nixon Administration's thrust for ``law and order'' has

Cont. on p.8

LEGAL

ACLU sues Navy to secure sailors' rights

One right that is unmistakably guaranteed to persons in

the military is the right to petition Congress. Last month,

enlisted man Michael Ferner, serving aboard the aircraft

carrier U.S.S. Hancock, attempted to exercise that right.

When the Hancock was ordered to prepare for a tour of

duty off Indochina, Ferner composed a letter to

Representative Fortney H. ``Pete'' Stark, whose district

encompasses Alameda Naval Air Station where the

Hancock is stationed. The letter requested the

Congressman to initiate an investigation of whether the

Hancock should make another Western Pacific cruise

since the U.S. is supposedly no longer at war there and

because the carrier was commissioned nearly 30 years

ago.

Discipline and Discharge

Ferner requested permission to circulate his letter

among the other men of the Hancock before sending it to

Congressman Stark. While Captain A.J. Monger, the

commanding officer of the carrier, delayed a response,

Ferner asked some of his friends aboard the ship if they

would be interested in signing the petition. He also

submitted a second request for authorization to circulate (c)

it. Shortly thereafter, Captain Monger denied the request.

Two days later, Ferner was called before a disciplinary

hearing presided over by Captain Monger. Ferner was -

held guilty of failure to obey a lawful order because he had

continued to ask fellow sailors if they wanted to sign the

petition. Although Ferner protested that he wanted his

lawyer present, Monger reduced him in rank, fined him

$150, and restricted him to ship for 20 days.

After giving notice that he would appeal the

disciplinary action, Ferner was discharged from the Navy

the very next day on a ``conscientious objection''

discharge request he had submitted months before which

the Navy had never acted upon. In addition, he was

ordered under pain of 6 months' imprisonment and a

$500 fine never to enter Alameda Naval Air Station

again.

OTHERS ON SHIP INTIMIDATED

Last month, ACLU-NC volunteer attorney David M.

Cobin filed suit in U.S. District Court to prevent any

punitive action which may be taken against sailors who

wish to petition Congress in the future. The suit also asks

that Defense Department regulations that restrict the

right to petition Congress be declared unconstitutional.

Five enlisted men who wanted to sign and circulate

Ferner's petition and all other personnel aboard the

Hancock who may desire to petition Congress are named

Draft to continue unless

repealed by Congress

Mass. Sheriff

ufges prison,

as plaintiffs.

The ACLU argues that the outcome of Ferner's

attempt to petition Congressman Stark has led others on

the ship to fear similar punitive action should they

attempt. to communicate with their Congressmen or

women.

CAPTAIN `CAPRICIOUS AND ARBITARY'

Cobin explained that Captain Monger's action in ,

Ferner's case ``violated the First and Fifth Amendments

as well as a Federal statute that specifically guarantees

that any member of the Armed Services has. a right to

communicate with members of Congress.''

He added that "`the capricious and arbitrary attitude of

Captain Monger represents clear intimidation of the

others still aboard the Hancock and has a `chilling effect'

on their First Amendment right.'' Cobin asks the court

to order the Navy to remove all restrictions on free

communication with Congress and to declare those

regulations used against Michael Ferner unconstitutional.

The right to petition Congress may be unmistakeable,

but the exercise of that right apparently still carries some

penalties in the military.

When Representative James W.

| Wadsworth introduced the Selective

colleagues that ``This is an emergency

measure ... It is not an attempt to

establish a permanent policy of the United

States.' Now, 33 years later, that Act

still remains in force and it does not expire

on-June 30 as many people, even most

| Congresspeople, believe.

The Administration is actively

spreading the impression that the draft

does end next month but in fact, the only

Selective Service function scheduled to

expire is that portion of the law enabling:

[the President to induct 19-year-olds.

| Everything else - lotteries, registration,

classification, physical exams, and the

power to prosecute for failure to comply -

Tremains intact. In addition, some 15

| million men who have received

deferments and are still under age 35 may

be inducted even after July 1.

bound to register, keep their local boards

informed of their whereabouts, or even

that they may still be drafted. The result

has been an increase in arbitrary

prosecutions for draft violations that

smack of discrimination and _ serious

affronts to civil liberties. Thousands of

men could be indicted at any time and they

don't even know.

TWO REPEAL BILLS"

Obviously, the peacetime draft is one of

Constitution extant today. Its existence

has been the most important device

enabling Presidents Johnson and Nixon to

wage war in Indochina. As long as any

President has a vast pool of manpower at

This beckoning, Congress' constitutional

power to raise armies and declare war is

moot.

Two bills now in Congress call for total

abolition of the Selective Service System.

In the House, the bill to support is H.J.

Res. 382, sponsored by Rep. Spark

{Matsunaga of Hawaii. The Senate bill is

- S.J. Res. 54, sponsored by Oregon's Mark

{Hatfield.

These bills only have a chance if the

House and Senate Armed Services

Committees hold hearings and pass them

out to the floor of either chamber.

Individuals should write their own

Service Act of 1940, he assured his |

Most men do not know they are still "

the most conspicuous abuses of the -

Armed Services Committee

Congresspeople and urge them to ask the

Committees to schedule hearings and also

request that they join the repeal bills as co-

sponsors. Letters should also be written to

members of the Committees. s

Hearings are already set in both

Appropriations Committees to consider

the Selective Service budget. Drastic

budget cuts could eliminate the Selective

Service System just as such cuts

eventually eliminated the Subversive

Activities Control Board. The

Appropriations Subcommittees (entitled

HUD, Space, Science, and Veterans

Administration) will hold their hearings

in early June and there is an excellent

chance that at least the Senate Committee,

chaired by William Proxmire, an advocate

of draft repeal, will recommend a zero

budget for the SSS. Again, letters should

be sent to members of these committees

urging them to oppose the draft budget.

VOLUNTEER ARMY

Chances have never been better than

they are now to abolish the Selective

Service. Congress is showing signs of

reasserting its independence and the

Administration is committed to an all

volunteer army, at least on the record. If

Congresspeople can be convinced that

large numbers of people are aware that the

draft does not expire and that the people

are concerned about this, we may end the

dratt im 1973.

Pamphlets, films and _ further

information on draft repeal can be

obtained from the Northern California

Draft Repeal Coalition - 2160 Lake

Street, San Francisco 94121; phone:

752-7766. Write your representatives and

senators now - there isn't much time and

it may do a world of good.

Chairmen of key committees and

subcommittees dealing with draft

_tepeal:

Edward Boland (D-Mass) - House

_ Subcommittee on HUD, Space, Science

and Veterans

William Proxmire (D-Wis) - Senate -

Subcommittee on HUD, Space, Science

and Veterans

F. Edward Hebert (D-La)

Armed Services Committee

John C. Stennis (D-Miss) - Senate

- `House

heroin reform

Sheriff John Buckley addressed ACLU-

NC Board members, ~ chapter

representatives and staff last month at a

seminar held at the Sheraton-Palace Hotel

in San Francisco. As he said himself, it is a

rare occasion when a Republican sheriff

lectures members of the ACLU about

jails, crime and the criminal justice

system but Sheriff Buckley is not an

average sheriff.

Elected as the chief law enforcement

officer of Middlesex County, Mass.,

Buckley has earned a national reputation

for his efforts in prison reform and the

decriminalization of victimless crimes. He

has been to Great Britain to study the

heroin maintenance system there and has

come away as a leading critic of the

handling of drug problems in this country.

He believes that heroin abuse must be

treated as a mental and social problem and.

not a criminal matter before any solutions

can be found. ``Unless the profits are

taken out of the heroin trade, we can be

assured no amount of law enforcement

will stem the flow,'' he warned.

Buckley is also credited with a great deal

of innovation in the field of prison reform.

He has instituted nearly every plausible

reform in his own jail but still concludes

that reform just does not work. ``The only

way to change prisons is to get people out

of them. Centuries of reform have done

nothing to increase the rehabilitation

success of prisons.'' But he adds, ``as long

as people are in jail, we have to at least

have humanism in the institution or the

assured result is that prisons will create

more crituinals.'' Buckley has pioneered a.

variety of alternatives to jail including

work furloughs, education furloughs, and

various forms of probationary freedom

outside the prison. He says these are the

only meaningful reforms.

He emphasized, however, that two of

the most effective reforms of the criminal

justice system which should be instituted

everywhere are liberalized, state-

subsidized bail procedures and the

recognition that people should not be

arrested for "`victimless crimes.'' The

whole idea is to keep people out of jail,

and Sheriff Buckley is demonstrating to a

lot of people that it can be done. He just

hopes public opinion will follow.

RENEW

Howard Jewel, Chairman of the Board

aclu NEWS

9 issues a year, monthly except bi-monthly in March - April, July - August,

and November-December :

Published by the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California

Second Class Mail privileges authorized at San Francisco, California

Jay Miller, Executive Director

Mike Callahan , Edstor and Public Information Director

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

Membership $15 and up of which $2.50 is the annual subscription fee for aclu News.

PROJECTS

`Victimless' Crime Project to"

get underway this month

Thanks to grants provided by the Van Loben Sels

Foundation, the Luke B. Hancock Foundation, and the

Playboy Foundation, the Victimless Crimes Project will

under `way this month which will attempt to develop an

alternative to law and order measures in the effort to

control crime.

Director of the Project will be Catherine Smeland. She

has an M.A. in Political Science and Sociology from

California State University, San Francisco. Prior to

joining the ACLU, she was a field coordinator for the

Democratic State Central Committee and before that for _

the McGovern for President Campaign. In 1968, she was

a community organizer with the NAACP helping Father -

James Groppi achieve open housing in Milwaukee.

Her job and the purpose of the Project will be to

convince people that the decriminalization of "`victimless

crimes'' will help control ``real'' crimes while extending

and preserving the civil liberties of all citizens. .

For years, people across this country have been

wringing their hands and supporting desperate efforts to

stem the rising crime rate. But no matter. what they do,

they cannot stop crime. In the attempt to do so however,

a good many civil liberties have suffered.

Preventive detention, ``no-kneck'' house searches,

increased wiretapping and reversal of recent Supreme

Court decisions guaranteeing minimum rights to suspects

- in short, the increase of police powers has been the

government's response to the despair over crime.

These police tactics do nothing to stem the rise of real

crimes. They have virtually no effect on violent crimes

nor on the causes of the crime rate. The typical payoff of a

wiretap is the apprehension of a few smalltime

-bookmakers. The intent of a "`no-knock'' search is to

`avoid giving the people inside time to flush their

marijuana down the toilet. In other words, the sacrifices

of civil liberties to the god of ``law and order'' have been

aimed at substantially "`victimless'' crimes rather than

``real'' crimes which the people worry about.

Over half the arrests and work of the average large-city

police force involve crimes without victims such as

homosexuality, prostitution, vagrancy, loitering, use of |

drugs, gambling, drunkenness, and various forms of

disorderly conduct. These are hardly the crimes which

cause people to be afraid if they have to venture out on

city streets at night.

Not only does enforcement of laws against these acts

waste police resources, but it can also be argued that the

`prosecution of vicimless crimes creates more real crime.

Courts are so jammed they cannot enforce laws against

real crimes and non-criminals are sent to prisons where

they are rapidly trained to be criminals.

Perhaps the most serious consequence of the

criminalization of victimless crimes is apparent in the

handling of the "`hard'' drug problem. By making these

drugs illegal, the government has managed to cause the

price of the drugs to skyrocket, thereby subsidizing

underworld pushers and guaranteeing that the user must

commit real crime to acquire the drugs.

The Project will document and publicize the ill effects

of the government's attempt to legislate morals and the

resultant increase, mot decrease, of real crime.

Eventually, also, the project will initiate litigation that

challenges the constitutionality of laws relating to

selected victimless crimes.

Years of ``law and order'' measures have brought us

nothing of the kind. Perhaps an alternative theory has a

chance today.

Prison Project

Last September, the ACLU-NC Board of Directors

voted to give priority status to the area of prisoners' rights

and last month's chapter. conference reaffirmed the

concern.

Constitutional litigation on behalf of prisoners has long

been a major area of emphasis in the ACLU-NC docket.

As of June 1, the number of prison cases should

become even greater, as the San Francisco Foundation

has just awarded a grant to ACLU for the establishment of

a Northern California Prison Project to be directed by

Associate Staff Counsel Peter Sheehan. i

A graduate of Boalt Hall Law School in 1971, Sheehan

came to the ACLU as a CORO Foundation intern in

1972. At the ACLU, his activities have included a heavy

load of general and prison litigation. He has represented

the ACLU at all levels of the state judicial system as well

as in Federal District Court and the Ninth Circuit Court

of Appeals.

__ As director of the project, Sheehan will concentrate on

developing constitutional test litigation, including class

actions, in an effort to achieve widespread reforms in

California's prisons. In addition, he will coordinate the

efforts of law students and volunteer attorneys who are

interested in engaging in prison litigation.

Besides litigation, the Project will serve as a clearing-

house for information on prisoner rights and will prepare

model pleadings, briefs and memoranda for use by other

groups working in this area. :

Past ACLU cases have already achieved significant

results in recent years. Several cases have helped establish

the right of prisoners to receive literature as well as

engage in confidential communications with their

attorneys. Restrictions of their First Amendment rights

while on probation or parole have been struck down as

unconstitutional in ACLU cases.

Criminologists are virtually unanimous in their view

that as long as we treat those in prison without dignity or

respect, almost totally isolated from contact with the

outside community, the crime cycle will not be broken.

Rather, prisons will continue to serve as expensive,

publicly supported schools for crime.

Sheehan to direct

Past accomplishments have barely affected the

mismanagement of prison and parole systems however.

The more than 18,000 prisoners in California's penal

institutions, like all members of society, are at least-

entitled to minimal due process guarantees: advance

notice of charges, hearings before impartial tribunals, the

`tight to representation by counsel, the right to examine

witnesses and the right of appeal.

Securing basic constitutional rights will also be

a major pursuit of the Project. Prisoners still do not have

the right to read what they wish or to correspond by

uncensored mail with family or friends. Their medical and

psychiatric needs are ignored and many are not free to

exercise their religion. Most importantly, many inmates

are the daily victims of cruel or unusual punishment.

Sheehan is already handling an-impressive list of

prisoner rights cases that, if successful, could make

significant inroads for prison reform. Two cases challenge

California Department of Corrections regulations which

ban the press. from interviewing individual inmates

without being watched by prison officials, If the press

wins access to the prisons, perhaps the public will begin

to understand the correlation between high crime rates

and the prison experience.

PROJECT DIRECTOR PETER SHEEHAN

SO ET DIE us A TREE SITE AND

Franklin wins

first round in

Stanford suit

Judge Joseph P. Kelly of the Santa Clara County

`Superior Court handed down a significant victory last

month in the ACLU's suit to have fired Stanford English

Professor H. Bruce Franklin reinstated. Stanford had filed

a series of motions designed to dispose of the suit but

Judge Kelly denied every one of them, declaring that

Franklin had a right to a trial.

Stanford had argued that it was a private institution and

that its firing of Franklin could not be considered *`state

action.'' If that were the case, Stanford would not be

bound to honor Franklin's First Amendment rights

because only a government agency is required to follow

the Constitution. Even if that were true, the ACLU suit

still argued that as a private employer, Stanford had

violated the state Labor Code which prohibits political

firings.

Franklin was dismissed from his position at Stanford

after a Faculty Advisory Board decided that he had

`"incited to riot'' through speeches he had made at

Stanford. The University had also argued that Franklin

had exhausted all proper remedies in the Board hearings.

Judge Kelly rejected Stanford's contentions that

Franklin's dismissal was not state action and that he was-

not entitled to a hearing by the court. This means that

Franklin will have the opportunity to prove in court that "

Stanford is so subsidized by federal monies, mainly from

the Pentagon, that it cannot be considered a wholly

private instituion. In the 15-page opinion, Judge Kelly

stated that it is the duty of the court to provide Franklin

with a ``plenary trial of the facts. The Board's decision

cannot be consulted as a source of facts because it is

hearsay."'

He also ruled that Stanford ``had the burden of

~ presenting competent affidavits revealing that Stanford's

contacts with government are minimal. This they failed

to do."'

Legal Director Charles Marson, who is representing

Franklin, expressed pleasure and gratitude at the ruling,

calling it ``courageous and clearly right. Stanford has

already tried Franklin in Stanford's court; now its |

Franklin's turn to try Stanford in the courts of the people

of the State of California."'

We still need you

to make Big Gamble'

pay off.

Get two new members

foday.

ce

-WOMEN`S PLACE UNDER CALIFORNIA LAW

by Harriet Katz Berman

""But you can't legislate change in

people's attitudes'' is not an uncommon

reply to supporters of women's rights

legislation. This attitude holds that the

second-class status of women in our

society is a cultural rather than a legal

concern. In fact, however, California law |

is riddled with statutes authorizing

different treatment for women than men.

Many of these statutes have undoubtedly (c)

reflected social reality and not just

`stereotyped prejudices, but at the same

time, by their continued existence and

enforcement, these laws have supported

and perpetuated sex- discrimination.

Further, there are many areas of abuse

where the state legislature could

legitimately step in but instead has given

tacit approval to discriminatory practices

by remaining silent.

The stereotyped American family -

husband at work, wife at home with the

kids - is virtually spelled out in California

statutes.` "Every man shall support his wife

and his child'' (Civil Code Section 242),

while the woman's duty is to ``support

her child''; she is only expected to

(5

support her husband when he is ``in

need'' (Civil Code Section 243). A father

who fails to.support either a legitimate or

illegitimate child can be found guilty of a

misdemeanor (Penal Code Section 270). A -

husband's abandonment or non-support of

his wife is also a misdemeanor (Penal Code

Section 270a). Until recently, mothers

were given preference over fathers in child

custody cases; now, each parent is

entitled to equal consideration by the

court. (Civil Code Section 4600a as

amended, 1972).

The law establishes the man in the

house as the family financier. Each partner

has an equal interest in the family''s

possessions, property, etc., but almost all .

of the couple's community property is

`"under the management and control of

~-the husband'' (Civil Code Section 5105).

The wife has control of her earnings until

they are comingled in the community

property (Civil Code Section 5124).

Community Property Law

Community property law was formerly

viewed as a protection for the wife, giving

her a stake in the family's assets even if

they all stemmed from the husband's

earnings. A wife's traditional ``woman's

work'' - household duties and child care

- receives no earnings.

But she does not really have a fair share

at all. While neither spouse can dispose of

community real property, e.g. their

house, without the other's consent, the

husband can mostly do as he pleases with

community money and possessions. He

cannot give away community property on

his own, but, with one exception, he can

sell it. As befitting the traditional

``woman's role'', one particular area of

personal property is presumed to be the

wife's important domain: the husband

cannot ``sell, convey, or encumber the

furniture, furnishings, or fittings of the

home, or the clothing or wearing apparel

of the wife or minor children that is

community without the written consent of

the wife.''? (Civil Code Section 5125). A

husband may sell the family's car without

his wife's consent, but not the pots and

pans.

While the community property is under

the husband's management and control,

he is generally liable for his contracts and

debts. He is not liable for contracts made

by the wife after marriage ``unless such

contracts are secured by the husband's

pledge or mortgage of the community

property.'' (Civil Code Section 5116).

The pros and cons of community

property laws are perhaps felt most keenly

in divorce cases, but they also have an

economic crutch for women who remain

married. The widespread business practice

of issuing credit to a married woman only

with her husband's consent is derived

from community property laws. Since

credit when it is then issued is usually put

in her husband's name, a woman who

becomes divorced is frequently denied

credit because her credit history is all

attributed to her former husband.

Legislation has now been introduced,

Assembly Bill 312 (Waxman), to prohibit

discriminatory denial of credit to women.

Also aimed against discriminatory

treatment of women in financial affairs is

A.B. 282 (Cline) which would prevent

securities brokers from requiring the

husband's consent ``as a condition to

transacting business with a married

woman.' A.B. 2000x00B0 (Deddeh) would

prohibit differences in various insurance

rates on the basis of sex, race, religion,

etc.

The implicit assumption that the man is

the breadwinner in the -family runs

throughout California's Codes. In order to

establish her own business, a married

woman must go through ``sole trader''

court proceedings (Code of Civil

Procedure Sections 1811-1817, 1819-

1821); there are no such obstacles for a

married man.

Retirement

Under California's public employees

retirement system, a male member's wife

receives ``automatic continuance'' of

benefits upon his death (Government

Code Section 21250). A surviving

husband is eligible if he received at least

half of his support from his wife

(Government Code Section 20041).

Similarly, survivor benefits under

workmen's compensation law are

`"conclusively presumed'' to go toa wife;

a surviving husband must first

demonstrate his dependency upon his wife

- (Labor Code Sections 3501 and 3502).

Though a woman public employee's

mandatory contributions to the retirement

system will in many cases be of no benefit

under present law to her husband if he.

sutvives her, more than 40 percent of

California's state employees are women.

As with many laws that appear to

`""favor'' women, extending automatic

survivor benefits to a husband would be of

more immediate help to men. In the long

run, such extensions would help upgrade

the status of women so that they would be

considered as equally likely to be a primary

source of family: income.

Maternity Leave

The assumption that it is the woman's

role to take care of the children appears in

various laws concerning maternity leave.

(Paternity leave is not even mentioned).

School districts (Education Code Sections

13496,7 13593, 1361513) and state

agencies (Government Code Section

19384) are authorized to establish

maternity leave policies for female

employees.

If a husband and wife are both public

employees and they decide that one of

them will continue working and the other

will take care of the baby, they will

undoubtedly be influenced by the fact that

the wife can take a leave of absence for a

while, but the husband cannot.

There is no uniform state policy on

maternity leave. The time allowed for

EDUCATION

leave varies with each agency from a few

weeks to several months; in some school

districts maternity leave is mandatory

after the fifth or sixth month of

pregnancy, and the teacher is not allowed

back to work until some months after

giving birth.

The question of parental leave is closely

related to the even more pressing issue of

child care centers, sorely needed by so

many working couples, working mothers,

and parents now on welfare.

Labor Laws

The standard-model American family is

obviously becoming a myth. According to

the 1970 census, 42.2 percent of all

women in California work. The number of

women in the labor force in this state -

figured as all women 16 years or older who

are employed or seeking employment - is

more .than 3 million. Women workers

form 37.9 percent of the (nonmilitary)

labor force in California.

State labor law influences several -

statutes and a host of administrative

regulations authorized by statute,

concerned solely with working women.

They embody the stereotype of woman as

"`the weaker sex.'' Classic examples of

protective legislation, they were designed

as a buffer for women against exploitative

labor practices, but their net effect has

often been to make it more desirable, from

the employer's point of view, to hire men.

Extending protective labor laws to men

could bring benefits to male workers and

-at the same time further employment

opportunities of women. :

ae

Protective labor laws deal with wages,

hours, and working conditions. The state

minimum wage, established by the

Industrial Welfare Commission, is

currently $1.65 an hour, and applies to all

women workers except government

employees, household domestics, and

agricultural workers whose employers had

less than five women working for them at

any one time. Legislation enacted in 1972

has enabled the IWC to set a minimum

wage for men to be promulgated in 1974.

(The federal minimum wage has from the

- outset applied equally to men and women.)

California statutes fixing maximum

hours women can work - 8 hours a day,

~48 hours a week for some occupations

(Labor Code Section 1350); 10 hours a

day, 58 hours a week with overtime for

certain other occupations (Labor Code

Section 1350.5) - have been struck down -

by a U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeal

decision in 1971 holding that such

limitations discriminate against women by

barring them from particular jobs and

promotions that demand longer hours.

In the same case, Rosenfeld v. Southern

Pacific Co., the court threw out

restrictions against women lifting more

than 50 Ibs. (Labor Code Section 1251)

because of their similar discriminatory

effect. The "`protective'' law reflected a

classification of all women as ``weak,''

regardless of the strength and capacity of

the individual person.

Most other protections on working

conditions for women have been

established by Industrial Welfare

Commission regulations, under legislative

authority (Labor Code Sections 1172 ff).

`They delineate minimal standards of,

decency and personal comfort for women

on the job, such as drinking fountains,

lighting, ventilation, clean toilets, and a

rest break of 10 minutes for every 4 hours

worked. A bill to apply these standards to

cover male as well as female workers was

passed last year by both houses of the state

legislature but was vetoed by Governor

Reagan. A similar measure has been

introduced this year, as Assembly Bill

478 (Brown).

Job Discrimination

California's Civil Service Act bans job

discrimination in public employment, but

authorizes the State Personnel Board and

agency heads to decide that some jobs

should be reserved for one sex

(Government Code Section 19702). There

are no women on the force of the.

California Highway Patrol.

For private employment, California law

mandates equal pay for equal work (Labor

Code 1197.5a) and prohibits job

discrimination on the basis of sex, race,

religion, etc. (Labor Code Section 1412).

Enforcement of this provision rests with

the Fair Employment - Practices

Commission (analagous to the federal

Equal Employment Opportunities

Commission), but legislation to enable the

FEPC to initiate investigations and

complaints, instead of waiting for persons

to come forward and file complaints has .

been vetoed by the Governor two years in

a row.

California also has a_ constitutional

provision (Article XX, Section 18) that:

"*a person may not be disqualified because

of sex, from entering or pursuing a lawful

business, vocation or profession.'' Under

this provision, as well as state and federal

equal protection clauses, the California

Supreme Court in Sail'er Inn, Inc. v.

Kirby, (1971), unanimously struck down

a Business and Professions Code statute

prohibiting females from tending bar.

`*The pedestal upon which women have

been placed,'' wrote Justice Peters, ``has

all too often, upon closer inspection, been

revealed as a cage."'

While an exhaustive compilation of

state laws affecting women could fill an

entire code book, the family law and

employment statutes discussed here stand

out as primary targets of concern because

of their vast economic implications.

When the federal Equal Rights

Amendment receives national ratification,

most of California's laws differentiating

between men and women will be clearly

out of line. But we need not wait that long.

We can work now towards changing these

laws, and supporting the host of

iffirmative measures for women being

ntroduced in the state legislature.

EDUCATION

Crime as a civil liberties issue

By Aryeh Neier,

National Executive Director

Aryeh Neier is the Executive Director of National

ACLU. The article below is adapted from a piece he wrote

for the Village Voice. A previous article in the Voice had

criticized the ACLU for not recognizing the right to be

safe from crime and instead championing the rights of the

criminal in disregard of the law-abiding citizen's rights.

This is not a new charge levied against the ACLU; but

recently, as the crime rate continues to rise and

politicians revel in being labelled ``law and order

candidates,'' more and more people view their rights in

conflict with the rights of the accused.

Mr. Neier argues that it is a mistake to view support of

civil liberties as an anti-police commitment and that, in

fact, crime prevention and civil liberties complement each

other in many instances. His article is reprinted here

because it expresses many of the assumptions behind the

Prisoner's Rights Project and the Victimless Crimes

Project which begin operation at ACLU-NC this month.

While the ACLU does not define crime as a civil

liberties issue, we devote a lot of attention to crime. That

is because our chances of protecting civil liberties depend

a great deal on whether people see civil liberties in conflict

with the prevention of crime.

To a very limited extent they may be in conflict. The

positions taken by the ACLU sometimes make the work

of law enforcement officers more difficult. Their task

might be simplified if we didn't insist on the right to

counsel, the right to trial by jury, the right against self

incrimination and the right not to be illegally searched.

These rights exist to protect the innocent. Occasionally,

they also protect the guilty.

For the most part, however, I am convinced that civil

liberties approaches hold out the best hope for solving, or

at least reducing, the crime problem.

The principal law enforcement response to crime in the

U.S. is to isolate the criminal. This is done first by

confining the person in a jail or a prison and subsequently

by disseminating the record of the person's arrest or

conviction as widely as possible so as to enable public and

private institutions to keep people with "`records'' from

becoming their employees, neighbors, students, licensees

or debto:s:

Prisons became popular in the early part of the

nineteenth century. If a man could be completely

removed from the corrupting influence of his

environment' and put into a new sanitized environment,

so the theory went, he could be rehabilitated. The idea

caught on and spread from here to other countries.

Prisons were located from cities and communication with

family and friends outside was made extremely difficult,

all in the interests of making a complete break between

the prisoner and the environment which was thought to

have corrupted him. (The story of the development of

prisons and other closed institutions is told in David

Rothman's important book, "`The Discovery of the

Asylum.'') -

Today, after 150 years of experience, we know that

prisons can't rehabilitate. Instead, they disrupt whatever

ties to stabilizing influences - such as family, job and

community - a person had before going to prison. People

get out of prison even readier to commit crimes than

when they went in.

The ex-prisoner's chances of integrating himself into

society after emerging from prison are made even more

difficult, if not impossible, by the dissemination of his

record. The records tell us who the ``troublemakers'' are

and enable us to shield ourselves from them. But those_

troublemakers don't simply disappear from the face of the.

earth. They live among us, many of them in our black

ghettos. Having insulated ourselves from them by

keeping them out of our places of employment, we still

have to live with them. Are they less likely to commit

crimes against us if we have kept them from getting jobs?

And when they commit crimes against us, our fears

increase, so we find new ways to insulate them from part

of our lives, only to encounter them again in other parts

of our lives.

The situation of the person who has been arrested, and

million do not end

not convicted of crime, is almost as serious. Law

enforcement agencies generally make no distinction

between arrest records and conviction records in their

dissemination of data. Of some 7!% million non-traffic

arrests in the U.S. during the course of the year about 312

in convictions. Nevertheless,

principally through the FBI but also through state and

local agencies, those records are made available to

potential employers, licensers, creditors, renters and

others in a position to confer or deny benefits. We have

created a pariah class in the U.S. of millions of persons.

That pariah class is the crime problem.

According to the FBI, Albuquerque, New Mexico,

had the highest crime rate of any city in the country (and,

incidentally, one of the smallest black populations)

followed by Miami, San Francisco, Los Angeles and New

York, in that order. The common characteristics of these

cities is that they are places to which people move from

other places. Crime is very much a problem of

rootlessness and our prison and arrest record

dissemination policies help to create rootlessness.

Here in New York, and to an increasing extent in other

cities, crime is also a problem of narcotics. The prevailing

estimate is that narcotics addicts are responsible for about

50 percent of the property crime in New York. Every new

get-tough law enforcement approach to narcotics only has

the effect of driving the price of heroin higher and forcing

addicts to commit additional crimes to satisfy their habits.

Narcotics addiction was not always a crime problem. In

the latter part of the nineteenth century and in the early

part of this century there were more narcotics addicts in

the U.S. than there are today. But narcotics were cheaply

- and legally available and, therefore, not a crime problem.

In part of the U.S., doctors were treating elderly addicts

with narcotics until fairly recently. Those elderly addicts

did not have to commit crimes in order to get the money

to purchase narcotics. Narcotics, including heroin, are

legally available to addicts in England and, as a

consequence, not a significant crime problem.

Heroin has become a crime problem in direct

proportion to the efforts to deal with it as a crime

problem.

The mythology about narcotics is so deeply ingrained

that I despair of being able to deal with it in the space of

National ACLU filed a lawsuit last week against White

House aides, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting,

and the Public Broadcasting Service to prevent their

alleged censorship and interference with public television

programming and attempted removal from the air of

controversial public affairs, particularly programs critical

of the Nixon Administration.

Systematic White House interference and pressure on

directors of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting to

influence their voting was described as ``a part of the

Nixon Administration's pattern of intimidation of the

press."

The suit was also directed against recent efforts of the

Corporation for Public Broadcasting and the Public

Broadcasting Service to reach an agreement ``dividing

up'' control of public television programming and the

interconnection over which programs are delivered to the

local stations. ``Under the Public Broadcasting Act of

1967, neither CPB nor PBS can legally control program

content,'' according to Jay Miller, Executive Director of

ACLU-NC.

Melvin Wulf, Legal Director of the National ACLU

Foundation, said that the lawsuit is intended to prohibit

censorship of content and control of programming and

program distribution in violation of the First

Amendment.

Plaintiffs in the suit include viewers and supporters of

public television from ; St. Louis, Miami, Los Angeles,

San Francisco, Chicago and New York, and television

writer Paul Jacobs, director Saul Landau and producer

John Kuney, all of whom allegedly have had productions

censored on public television. The ACLU and the

National ACLU sues PBS, CPB

for censorship on public T.V.

this ticle. For anyone seriously interested in the subject,

I recommend the Consumer's Union's new book, ``Licit

and Illicit Drugs.'' The book advocates an approach to

narcotics which combines respect for civil liberties with

the best thinking on how to break the nexus between

addiction and crime. Contrary to some of the misleading

reports which circulated here a few years ago, it describes

the British experience with drug maintenance as

""magnificent.'? The Consumer's Union recommends

that: es

The heroin black market must be abolished by the

only way it can be abolished: by eliminating the

demand for black market heroin.

On the central issue of narcotics addiction,

accordingly, Consumer Union recommends (1) that

United States drug policies and practices be promptly

revised to insure that no narcotics addict need get his

drug from the black market; (2) that methadone

maintenance be promptly made available under

medical auspices to every narcotics addict who applies

for it; (3) that other forms of narcotics maintenance,

including opium, morphine and heroin maintenance,

be made available along with methadone maintenance

under medical auspices on a carefully planned

experimental basis.

The prohibition approaches to marijuana, gambling,

prostitution, homosexuality and pornography are also

part of the crime problem in the U.S., and of that special

subdivision of the crime problem, police corruption. This

is beginning to be understood, though not a great deal is

being done about it.

Much of the energy of the ACLU is devoted to breaking

down the isolation character of prisons, limiting the

dissemination and use of arrest and conviction data,

encouraging a maintenance approach to narcotics

addiction `and repealing laws which create ``victimless''

crimes. We do these things because they are important for

civil liberties quite aside from the effect they would have

on the crime problem. At the same time, we are

`concerned with the impact they have on the crime

problem because that is likely to determine our chances of

prevailing.

Network Project, a public interest research group at

Columbia! University, are also plaintiffs in the suit.

Specifically named as defendants are Clay T.

Whitehead, Director of the White House Office of

Telecommunications Policy and Patrick J. Buchanan of

the Executive Office of the President. John Erlichman,

President Nixon's former Director of the White House

Council on Domestic Affairs, is cited for interference

with the Corporation but it is not named as a defendant

since he resigned from office.

The suit, filed in Federal District Court for the District

of Columbia, seeks to set aside the announced schedule of

programs for fiscal year 1974 (commencing July 1, 1973)

on grounds that it is, tainted with White House,

Corporation and Service interference.

Plaintiffs also seek removal of Irving Kristol from

participation on the Board of Directors of the Corporation

for Public Broadcasting because his appointment has

never been confirmed by the Senate. They allege further

that the composition of the entire Board fails to satisfy the

Act's requirement of diversity.

San Franciscans Jacobs, Landau and Kuney all charge

that a 12-minute segment they produced for the ``Great

American Dream Machine'"' series, dealing with agents-

provocateur and the FBI, was censored by PBS. KQED

(Channel 9) in San Francisco aired the segment but PBS

refused to distribute it throughout the network. ACLU-

NC Chairman Howard Jewel is also a plaintiff in the suit

and charges that he and fellow viewers of public television

have a right to receive uncensored and unrestricted -

programming.

Volunteers, musicians pool

efforts for benefit album

Two years ago, a few street musicians

were arrested in San Francisco for

soliciting without a license and

obstructing traffic. Paul Halvonik, then

Legal Director of ACLU-NC, paraphrased

the charges as ""committing Mozart in a

public place.'" The ACLU has since

engaged in a series of legal confrontations

on behalf of the street musicians.

Now, a long-playing stereo record

album of the music of the San Francisco

Street Musicians is the first ever printed

under the ``ACLU'' recording labely.

Now, the street musicians can commit

Mozart, or Dixieland, or blues or rock in

your own living room.

About six months ago, Executive

Director Jay Miller asked Rita Friedman,

who had been a volunteer in the ACLU

Public Information Department, if she

would be |

project. Rita had been successful in placing

public service announcements on Bay

Area stations and had proven herself

extremely capable of taking an idea and

making it work. Today, Rita knows more

about producing a record album than she

ever thought she would, and probably

more than she ever wanted to.

What is even more amazing, all of the

work, technical assistance, musical talent

and ``blood, sweat and tears,' was

volunteered to the effort and recruited by

Rita. `"You can't believe what all goes

into the making of a record and I can't

believe that it's done,'' was Rita's

- comment on the completion of the album,

and she isn't through yet. Now she and

other volunteers are in the process of

marketing the product of their toil.

Six groups are featured on the album

which range the spectrum of musical style.

The thirty minutes or so of music on the

final edition of the album was selected

from over 412 hours of music which was

meticulously recorded on the streets of

San Francisco. The listener to the album

has the advantage of having the other

street sounds of San Francisco - horns,

trucks and jackhammers - deleted. That

willing to coordinate the ~

was hardly an easy chore for Rita and her

crew, though.

Nevertheless, the job of narrowing

down the selections to only thirty minutes

was a monumental task. The result is fine

quality sound and genuine entertainment.

_ Many people deserve .a great deal of

credit and profuse thanks for their

contributions to the album. John Semion,

who answered an ad in the ACLU News,

handled the sound equipment which was

provided by Swanson Sound in Oakland.

Al Regan, a member of the Marin County

Chapter Board, designed the album cover

and technical assistance was provided by

Fantasy Records. through the auspices of

Al Bendich, a former staff counsel at the

ACLU.

Attorney Robert Gordon sorted out the

legal problems of acquiring recording

rights. Eric Cedarbaum and Steve Haken

at the ``Soundworks'' in San Francisco,

and Jim Stern and Larry Lane also deserve

special thanks.

And of course, none of it could have

been possible without the musicians.

Recorded at the Cannery and Union

Square, each of the groups is a brilliant

piece of the mosaic culture of San

Francisco. The San Francisco Street

Orchestra contribute a Haydn symphony

and the Bourbon Street Irregulars add

New Orleans jazz sounds. John Skerce

takes us to the Old English countryside

Computers supposedly make law

enforcement agencies more effective but

there is growing evidence that police

reliance on them leads to some serious

problems. There have been many

complaints recently that the computer

used by the San Francisco Police

Department has caused many false arrests,

invasions of privacy and wrongful

assessments of fines. One such complaint

resulted in an ACLU lawsuit last month.

Staff Counsel Joseph Remcho filed suit

against Police Chief Donald Scott and the

City and County of San Francisco for

illegal arrest and confinement on behalf of

poet Lawrence Ferlinghetti. He charged

that Ferlinghetti was arrested on a warrant .

outstanding from a 1969 _ obscenity

charge. That case had long since been

dismissed but no one ever told the police

computer.

*SAs a result, Ferlinghetti was falsely

arrested and imprisoned on non-existent

charges in violation of his constitutional

rights,'' according to Remcho.

Ferlinghetti had been stopped by police for

a traffic citation and the officers ran a

warrant check on him through their

computer. When they told him they had

discovered a warrant for his arrest, he

Ferlinghetti sues S.F. police for

`computer error' arrest

explained that the charges had been

dropped and that the warrant was no

longer valid. Rather than check out his

story, the officers booked him.

Remcho commented that `"`this is only

one example of many unconstitutional

abuses that arise from police who are

unwilling to recognize that they can make

mistakes.'' He added that false arrests,

break-ins and searches of the wrong

homes, and reliance on computers that

have not been updated ``have led to

injustices for which the police must be

held responsible.''

Computer checks are run on almost

every citizen with whom the police come

in contact, whether you are stopped for a

traffic violation, a passenger of a stopped

car, or even if you report a crime.

`Citizens are afraid to cooperate with

police knowing that warrant checks will be

run on them,'' according to Remcho.

``The police are losing their image as

protectors of the peace through their over-

zealous and often illegal activity,'' he

continued.

The suit asks the court to award

Ferlinghetti the legal costs incurred

during his arrest and $10,000 in

compensatory damages.

with his ballads while Salz and Dupree treat. Rights handbooks now available

us with country music sounds. Rock and

roll is included with the contribution of 25

lbs. of Change, which is a group - not the

result of a good night's playing on the

streets. Finally, Jamel Chisholm and One

Mind meld saxophone sounds into the

blues.

The street musicians have donated their

- talents to the benefit of the ACLU so that

other people's rights will be protected in

the future. As a result of their generosity,

and the hard work of Rita and her

volunteers, we can look forward to

continued spontaneity and variety on the

street of San Francisco. And who doesn't

benefit from that? -

Handbooks on the rights of servicemen,

teachers, prisoners and mental patients

are now available from the ACLU.

The two most recent ACLU

handbooks, The Rights of Prisoners, by

David Rudovsky, and The Rights of

Mental Patients, by Loren Seigal and

Bruce Ennis, tell inmates about their

rights to communicate with each other

and with persons outside the institutions

`and to advocate their opinions.

In question and answer format, they

explain rights to receive humane

treatment and privacy, to be free from .

arbitrary discipline and what inmates can

do if their rights have been abridged.

The handbooks for prisoners, teachers

and servicemen sell for 95c and the 336-

page book for mental patients is $1.25.

These may be obtained by sending a check.

for the amount to ACLU-NC, 593

Market Street, San Francisco, CA 94105.

Handbooks for women, students,

defendants and the very poor will be in

print sometime this summer.

Advance Sale Prices Now Available

: fo ACLU members and friends at great savings. . .

The SAN FRANCISCAN STREET

MUSICIANS ioe the ACLU relay

The street musicians and an army of volunteers have all devoted their talents

and hard work to produce this album for the enjoyment of listeners and the

benefit of the ACLU. A limited advance edition is now available at reduced prices

before release to retailers. Order yours now and save $2.00

Send $3.00 (plus 50c mailing and handling)

to:

ACLU-NC Record Sales

593 Market Street, Suite 227

San Francisco, Ca. 94105

amount of .............

Name

Address

State

Advance Sales Order Blank

Please send me ...... copies of the `Sounds of the San F i ,

se Senc rancisco Street

Musicians" at $3.50 each. Enclosed is a check or money order in the

_ Please allow 6 weeks for delivery.

LEGISLATIVE, LETTERS

7

Assembly Committee to consider death penalty

By JOSEPH REMCHO,

Legislative Representative

The tragic death of Robert Crown, Chairman of the

Assembly Criminal Justice Committee and a long time

opponent of the death penalty, was a blow to all those who

knew him. He was a staunch supporter of civil liberties

and his reasoned voice will be sorely missed in the

legislature. His death may result in further tragedies,

however, if legislation to re-instate the death penalty in

California is now able to pass the legislature.

On May 31, 1973 Robert Moretti, Speaker of the

Assembly, announced that Alan Sieroty (D-L.A.), one of

the most consistent and able supporters of civil liberties in

the legislature, would take Robert Crown's place as

Chairman of the Criminal Justice Committee. His

appointment, after many years of service as a member of

the committee, is to be applauded by those who believe in

a fair and humane system of criminal justice. Sieroty has

been a consistent opponent of the death penalty.

Moretti's appointment of a new committee member to

fill the position vacated by Crown's death and Sieroty's

elevation to chairman, however, raises serious questions

about the re-institution of the death penalty. The new

member of the seven-man committee is freshman

Assemblyman Julian Dixon (D-L.A.), of the 63rd

Assembly District in Watts. Dixon has stated that he is

generally opposed to the death penalty, but that he will

6

keep an ``open mind'' on the subject. There are strong

indications that he might be willing to vote for a limited

death penalty bill which would apply to the murder of

peace officers or prison guards. The committee now

stands at seven persons. Three proponents of the death

penalty, three opponents, and Assemblyman Dixon with

the swing vote. Four ``yes'' votes are required to get a

death penalty bill to the floor.

Hearings have now been set before the Assembly

Criminal Justice Committee on Wednesday, June 6,

1973. Because of Dixon's recent appointment and the

large number of witnesses who will undoubtedly ask to be

heard it is entirely possible that the hearings will be

continued to another date and that no vote will in fact

have been taken by the time you read this. It is vitally

important, therefore, that ACLU members send

telegrams if possible or at least letters to Assemblyman

Dixon urging him to hold firm and not to permit a death

penalty bill to get to the Assembly floor.

If a death penalty bill does get to the floor it is clear that

it will pass and be signed by the governor. Dixon's vote is

critical and action by ACLU members to influence that

vote is equally critical. I urge you to contact him as early

as possible and urge him to vote ``No'' on any death

penalty legislation. All of the available information

indicates that the death penalty is mot a deterrent to -

crime. In fact, statistics show an increased level of violent

crime when executions take place. Society is far better

served by lifetime incarceration than by execution.

Even in terms of financial cost (surely a minimal

consideration when life is at stake) executions cost more

than life imprisonment because of the high cost of legal

procedures which must be exhausted before an execution :

can take place. Further, the death penalty has always

fallen disproportionately on minority groups, the poor

and the disadvantaged. If Assemblyman Dixon votes to

permit the death penalty in this State, his vote, like the

death penalty itself, will be irrevocable and irreparable.

Tell Mr. Dixon not to do it.

Be SSN IES UE

Just before this article went to press, Assemblyman

John Miller (D-Berkeley) announced his resignation from

the Assembly Criminal Justice Committee. Miller, a

staunch civil libertarian and defender of the rights of

minority groups, had been vice-chairman of the

committee for six years. He was adamently opposed to the

death penalty. He brought not. only insight and a

determined humanity to the committee but also a wealth

of experience in dealing with repeated attempts by so-

called conservatives to undercut civil liberties. No

successor has yet been named. It becomes all the more

important to reach Assemblyman Dixon and to ask his

`*No'' vote.

`Letters to the Editor:

`New Policies Applauded

--Dear Editor, : :

The April newsletter was great. The

article on your Affirmative Action policy

contained much constructive information.

I work for a major airline who is

attempting to carry out an _ effective

Affirmative Action program but there has

been much resistance from many

employees. It is good to have such sound

facts and arguments to counteract the

criticism.

Also I am glad to see you take such a

strong stand on the airport security

procedures. Typical of the personal

harassment carried to an extreme was my

experience at the Ontario International

Airport on March 31.1 was a passenger

on Western flight 328 going to San

Francisco. I am a well groomed mature

business woman who has traveled alot.

My purse and carryall were subjected to a

minute and thorough scrutiny by two

female security agents. My wallet was

opened and credit cars inspected. One was

just about to pull open two 4 ounce

commercially packed tea packages when I

protested. I was told all packages had to be

opened. I was visably upset and protested

again when the man in charge came over

and said only "*hard'' packages had to be

- opened. If someone less verbal or more

timid than I had been there the tea would

have been spilled all over the floor and

rendered useless for what purpose? A flat

soft cloth jewelry case was opened and

they even opened my tooth brush

container in my cosmetic bag. Both were

_ small enough and light weight enough

that the presence of a weapon inside would

have been impossible.

With the scare tactics the government

and the air lines use to assure continuation

of thee security checks I doubt whether

they will be eliminated but I do admire

your strong stand against them.

JEANETTE ANN PAGE

Corporal -

Punishment

Dear Editor:

Please forward this letter to whomever

might make best use of it. Having just read

the article on the class action suit to

prohibit corporal punishment in California

public schools, I am delighted that ACLU

has undertaken this project. When I first

moved to California in 1968, I was

alarmed to discover that such was the case

in California.

Both the inhumanity of corporal

punishment and its irrelevancy to

anything having to do with learning and

education make it a real block to the

growth of both our schools and teachers as

well as to our children. I think it is

especially unfortunate that those children

who most frequently experience the use of

corporal punishment by ``educators'' are

those who have already suffered setbacks

(social and otherwise) as members of

oppressed minority groups. I am with you

all the way.

If you have need of petitions to be

signed, etc., please contact me. I will be

delighted to help further the demise of

corporal punishment in our schools.

Thank you.

FRED KEIP

Airport Search Policy Opposed

Dear Editor:

I write in support of the position of Neil

F. Horton in his Letters to the Editor in

the April issue. I, frankly, feel that the

Board should reconsider its position with

respect to searches, and especially

magnetometer searches, of those boarding

aircraft. I must take issue with Mr.

Amsterdam's comment reported

elsewhere in that edition that simply

because society has not seen fit to ban

"Saturday night specials'' or cars that are

made to go 200 miles an hour justifies

failing to do at least some cursory search of

those entering aircraft. Perhaps the

nonsequitur contained in Mr.

Amsterdam's comments is apparent only

to me.

I further admit that it is entirely possible

that my feeling with respect to searches at

airports may be due to the paranoia on my

part (which results in my feeling relieved

when I am searched because I know that

everybody on the airplane with me has

been searched also). However, it occurs to |

me that the infringement on personal

privacy of an airport search is a small price

to pay to prevent a mentally unstable

individual from having the lives of

hundreds of other people in his hands. I

admit that, given the present proclivities

`of government, one grants the "`powers

that be'' perogatives in these areas only

most reluctantly. e

Apparently the Board perceives that

failure to oppose searches in this area will

open floodgates to the increasing use of the

search as a weapon of repression in this

country. However, if recollection serves,

some of the worse decisions the high

courts of this country have ever handed -

down have been based on this same

floodgate theory.

Perhaps I am merely subject to- the

``seneral hysteria'? discussed by Mr.

Marson (for whom I have the highest

personal and professional regard).

However, it appears to me that banning

magnetometer searchs simply presents an

unprecedented opportunity for the

authorities to conduct personal searches

either on those they deem to be dangerous

or purely for the joy of rousting someone

whose appearance they don't like.

The magnetometer would appear to

offer a solution which minimizes the

government's intrusion into the privacy of

the individual and reduces discretionary

searches, while at the same time offering

increased safety for those boarding the

nation's aircraft.

_ JOHN D. BARR

Soldiers freed

after `disloyalty' y

convictions

United States District Court in the

District of Columbia overturned `the

convictions of two California men last

month who had been convicted by Army

Courts Martial in 1969 for circulating

leaflets against the Vietnam war.

Daniel Amick and Kenneth Stolte, who

were both privates in the Army stationed

`at Fort Ord, authored the leaflet which

charged that ``peace can only be obtained -

through peaceful means'? and "`the

greatest contribution America can make

toward world peace is to become a peaceful

nation."' They continued, ``We are tired

of all the lies about war, the false ideals,

the empty reasoning. We see the reality of

war; it is a pointless, meaningless and

tragic battle between two differing factions

of human beings.''

After distributing their leaflet on the

base, Stolte and Amick were charged with

disloyalty and conspiracy in violation of

the Uniform Code of Military Justice. At

their courts martial, after motions to

dismiss. the charges on constitutional

grounds were denied, both men entered

pleas of not guilty. They were found guilty

-of all charges and sentenced to

dishonorable discharges, forfeit of all pay,

reduction in rank and three years of hard

labor. From May, 1968 until September,

1969, when they were paroled and while

- they appealed their convictions, tne two

were confined at Fort Leavenworth,

Kansas.

In the initial proceedings, Monterey

Chapter attorney Francis Heisler

`represented Stolte and Amick and

eventually both ACLU-NC Foundation

and the National Foundation joined the

case. All appeals through the military

courts failed to overturn the convictions.

Finally, a three-judge panel in the

District Court found that Stolte and -

Amick's First and Fifth Amendment

rights had been violated and that their

convictions were unconstitutional. Their

records have been cleared and they will

receive their back pay but nothing will

repay them for their time behind bars and

the destruction to their lives which they

have suffered.

so

=e

on

The Chapter will have an all-day picnic,

masquerading as the Mid-Year General

Membership Meeting, at the Lafayette

Reservoir July 7th. If you hate meetings,

this is your chance to meet the local

ACLU representatives painlessly. Picnic

space is reserved and will be available from

10 a.m. on. Organized activities begin at 2

p.m. and will continue until dusk with

games for children, races, random revelry

and dinner on the grounds. The election of

new board officers will figure as briefly as

possible in the proceedings.

Bring your own lunch with a little extra

tucked in - the idea is a casual potluck.

Pop, beer and wine will be available,

donations gleefully accepted.

Oakland

The Board of Directors of the Oakland

Chapter meet the third Wednesday of

every month in the community meeting

room of the Sumitoma Bank, at 8:00 p.m.

The Bank is located on the corner of

Franklin and 20th Streets in Downtown

Oakland. Drive into the Bank's parking

lot and enter on Franklin. The Board

meetings are open, and any interested

member is invited to attend.

The Oakland Chapter needs several

more volunteer lawyers, to back up other

Chapter Conference

Cont. from p.1

volunteers `who handle incoming phone

calls from citizens who may have

-experienced civil liberties violations.

Contact Charles Pezzotti at 433-2750.

Other activities of the Oakland Chapter

are a Prisoners' Rights Committee, Dave

Riemer Chairman, and an Affirmative

Action Committee, Mike Coppersmith

Chairman with Ron Chafles. Another

Committee observes the Citizens for Law

and Order (CLO) group.

Mid - Peninsula

The Chapter has been studing a variety

of discriminatory practices in schools and

industry and is prepred to challenge them.

They are especially interested in high

school requirements which force girls to

take home economics classes and boys to

take industrial arts courses. Also, they are

seeking to end practices which do not

allow high school girls to play on tennis

and golf teams.

Berkeley-Albany

The Chapter has organized a student

committee of the ACLU on the U.C.

Berkeley campus. Ron Sipherd, formerly

the chairman of the S.F. Chapter and now

a law student at U.C., is the chairman. All

students, faculty and staff are invited to

join and help plan a 1973-4 program.

Phone Michael Rappaport at 642-3634.

The Chapter is also looking for two

volunteers. One is needed to take minutes

at the Board meetings which convene at 8

p.m. on the third Monday of each month.

The other is needed to be the Chapter's

observer at the Berkeley City Council.

The Council meets every Tuesday evening

at 7:30. Interested persons should call

548-1322.

Monterey

_ The Chapter has voted to intervene in

the case. of Army Sergeant Conrad

Rondeau who is stationed at Fort Ord. He

was placed in `the stockade after he

expressed his opinion on a local television

program that amnesty should be granted

to draft resisters. When it appeared that he

might be exonerated by a general court

martial, the Army dropped all charges and

released him from the stockade. A

disciplinary reprimand was issued to him,

however, and the Chapter will help him in

his efforts to have it removed from his

files.

Sonoma

The annual Picnic sponsored by the

Sonoma County Chapter will be held at

noon Sunday, July 8, at the Jack Warnick

Apple Orchard at 10650 Green Valley

Rd., northwest of Sebastopol.

The event includes a barbecue - at

CHAPTERS

reasonable cost, according to chairman -

Mel Hildreth - and art auction, with

items donated by leading Bay Area artists.

It's the major fund-raising event for the

chapter each year.

Efforts are also being made to arrange

for a guest speaker and entertainment.

Bay Area ACLU members are urged to

join the Sonoma County group for a ``day

in the country.'' Kids are welcome, with

swimming for the youngsters and a

lifeguard on duty. . /

People coming from the Bay Area can

reach the picnic site by going north on

Hwy. 101 to the Russian River turnoff

near Cotati. That should put you on the |

Gravenstein Hwy., also known as Hwy.

12. Gravenstein Hwy. should be followed

through Sebastopol or phone the Warnick

residence at 823-4346.

For other information on the picnic, -

contact Hildreth at 528-2375 or Lee

Torliatt at 545-7507.

At its May board meeting, Sonoma

County Chapter agreed to an effort to set

up numerous working committees and

seek greater involvement of the general

membership in these programs. Chapter

members will be surveyed on their interest

in working on such committees as

prisoner rights, community awareness,

watchdog, women's rights, and

membership.

People with ACLU-related complaints

or seeking information about the Sonoma

County Chapter may call Lee Torliatt

545-7507, Jack Rudinow, 545-0748, or

Jack Warnick, 823-4346, during the

summer months.

S.F. Chapter Meeting discusses

dangers of data collection

been completely neutralized and that the ACLU need not

remain in a defensive posture.

**Significant success is within our grasp,'' he believes,

"if the ACLU and Congress take advantage of the void in

Administration policy and take the impetus.'' He said we

have a chance to repeal the draft and restore legal aid as

well as influence a great many people who have had their

attitudes shaken by the "`moral bankruptcy of the anti-

civil libertarian policies of the past five years.''

In the final day of the Conference, Legislative

Representative Joseph Remcho discussed the major areas

of civil liberties activity in Sacramento. He explained that

the most pressing issue is a series of death penalty bills

before the Assembly Criminal Justice Committee and the

importance of ACLU members writing the members of

that committee to express their opposition to

- reinstatement of capital punishment.

Following Remcho's remarks, the entire group heard

reports from the various workshops that met the previous

day and then discussed the recommendations and ideas

that came out of the workshops. One major area of

concern growing out of the discussion was that the ACLU

should focus as much of its attention as possible on the

rights of prisoners, and specifically, the overwhelming'

civil liberties problems occurring in County jails. Many

other issues and problems remained unresolved at the end

of the Conference, but the general feeling was that a start

had been made and everyone made a resolution to

continue trying for the coming year.

On May 20, the Chapter sponsored a forum on ``The

Effects of Data Collection on the Right to Privacy.'' The

discussion, moderated by Legal Director Charles Marson,

included panelists Robert Fabian, General Counsel for the

Bank of America, and president-elect of the San Francisco

Bar Association; Lance Hoffman, professor of electrical

engineering and computer science at UC Berkeley; and

Captain Ralph Schillinger, of the Berkeley Police

Department. The meeting was another in a series of

educational programs sponsored by the Chapter.

All of the participants agreed that the collection of data

is a fact of life in the fields of law enforcement and

commercial credit. They also agreed that the most serious

problem with data collection is protecting access to the

confidential information once it has been collected.

Marson pointed out that the main reason proposals for a

National Data Bank were defeated was that there would

be no means of protecting the privacy of individuals who

are filed in the computers.

Fabian emphasized that there are several legitimate

conflicts of interest posed by data collection, such as the

individual's right to privacy, the public's right to know

and the government's right to function. For both personal

and business reasons, he said, ``we want our private

affairs to remain that way; but, at the same time, the

government needs to know certain information about us

in order to function in the fields of tax collection and

criminal law enforcement.''

Next Fall, the U.S. Supreme Court will decide a case

brought by ACLU-NC which seeks veterans' benefits for

conscientious objectors who served in alternative duty.

Volunteer attorney Jack Petranker is handling the case

which could result in a landmark decision granting equal

benefits for CO's.

Henry Hernandez and Thomas Wolf were classified as

conscientious objectors by their local draft boards and

performed civilian work "`contributing to the national

health, safety and interest'' for two years. Hernandez

worked at Goodwill Industries and Notre Dame Hospital

while Wolf served as an orderly at Cowell Memorial

Hospital. Both men applied for veterans' educational

assistance after their two-year service and were denied by

the Veterans' Administration.

Supreme Court to consider CO benefits

Under the Veterans' Educational Assistance Act,

benefits may only be granted to those who have performed

two years of "`active duty'' in the armed services. The

ACLU charges that Hernandez and Wolf are being denied

the "`equal protection of the law'' guaranteed under the

due process clause of the Fifth Amendment, and that

since they were classified CO's on the basis of their

religious beliefs, refusal of benefits abridges their freedom

of religion as guaranteed by the First Amendment.

The Supreme Court announced that it would rule on

the case last month. Oral argument will probably be heard

next October. If the suit succeeds, veterans' benefits will

be available to all men who have completed alternative

service in lieu of military duty.

The Bank Secrecy Act was originally enacted as a

means of preventing tax avoidance and tracing funds into

Swiss banks, but bank records have been used by the

government for purposes other than originally intended.

In recent times, White House employees identified

Daniel Ellsberg's psychiatrist by looking up Ellsberg's

cancelled checks. Similarly, the names of members of the

Republican Party in Arkansas were obtained from bank

records, and the membership of the National Peace

Action Committee was ascertained by a Congressional

investigating committee.

Hoffman spoke of the vast growth of computer use in

the federal government. He pointed out that in 1950, th

federal government had only 2 computers, while in 1970

over 5,000 were in use. He too stressed that all data

collection need not be bad. For example, the Migrant

Student file of 300,000 farm workers' children,

maintained by the Department of Health, Education and

Welfare, was recently used to locate a child who was

diagnosed as having tuberculosis after he left the place of

his medical examination.

On the other hand, Hoffman explained that any data

file can become a personal dossier as indicated by the Civil |

Disturbance file in the Department of Justice which

contains personal information from other data sources on

some 13,000 people, many of whom have never

committed any crime.

Captain Schillinger said the police are concerned about

the privacy of individuals also but that in a mobile and

transient society, law enforcement agencies must share

their criminal information across jurisdictional

boundaries. He pointed out that the Berkeley Police

Department does have internal regulations against

unauthorized and improper disclosures.

He described the "``Miracode'' system which

microfilms, records and sorts fingerprints. The

Department has over 200,000 fingerprints on file but

only the prints of convicted persons are put into

Miracode. Juvenile prints are not fed into Miracode

either. Schillinger claimed these restrictions on Miracode

insure that innocent persons do not have their

fingerprints available to other law enforcement agencies.

In conclusion, Marson observed that data collection

will remain a threat to the privacy and civil liberties of all

citizens until foolproof methods are devised for protecting

improper disclosures of information about individuals.