vol. 44, no. 1

Sa

aclu news

Volume XLIV January/February 1979 `No.1

| , ee . . 8 o

Freedom of Anonymous Expression Established

Masked Iranians secret police), as documented inreports from exercising their rights of free "Unfortunately," he said, `"`the

Vindicated by Andy Mosher

The California Court of Appeals ruled

on December 14, 1978, that demon-

' strators have a First Arnendment right

to wear masks to conceal their identity

while engaging in lawful activity.

The decision stemmed from a 1977

challenge brought by the ACLU of

Northern California on behalf of two

Iranian students who were arrested in

1976 for violation of California Penal

Code, Section 650a, which prohibits

"concealment of the face in public by

means of a mask or other regalia or

paraphenalia"' for purposes other than

amusement or entertainment.

The students are both members of

the Iranian Students Association, which

is vigorously opposed to the Shah's

government: in Iran. The ISA also

condemns U.S. aid to the Shah's regime

and routinely holds demonstrations and

distributes literature aimed at changing

American public opinion toward the

Iranian government.

Each plaintiff was arrested while

picketing in front of the Iranian

- Consulate in San Francisco on the

ground that, by concealing their

identities by means of a leaflet placed

between face and glasses, each was in

violation of section 650a.

ACLU staff attorney Alan L.

Schlosser maintained from the outset

that the statute unconstitutionally

infringed upon the First Amendment

rights of demonstrators in that it served

to discourage persons from exercising

those rights.

"Given the treatment of Iranian

dissidents by SAVAK, (the Iranian

bv Amnesty International (which were

__-t of the court record in this case) the

fear of reprisal was par-

students'

Leroy Clarke, LNS

ticularly acute,'' said Schlosser.

The students' petition stated that,

had they known that the law prohibited

them from concealing their identities,

they would not have participated in the

demonstration, nor would they do so in

the future if the law were allowed to

stand.

The State argued that, while the

students may have feared reprisals, the

law itself did not directly stop them

ACLE-NC Baard Nonunaions |

As provided by the ACLU by-laws,

revised in 1976, the ACLU NC mem-

bership is entitled to elect its 1979-1980

board directly. The nominating

committee is already seeking

suggestions from the membership to fill

eleven at-large positions.

ACLU members may participate -

| in the nominating process in two

ways:

[1] They may send suggestions for

the Nominating Committe's con-

sideration before April 15, 1979.

(Address your suggestions to the

Nominating Committee's attention,

ACLU, 814 Mission St., suite 301,

S.F. 94103. Include your suggested

nominee's qualifications and how he

or she can be reached.)

[2] They can submit a petition

with the signatures of 15 current

ACLU members. Petitions for

nomination, which should also

include qualifications, must be

submitted to the Board of Directors

by May 1, 1979.

Current ACLU members are those

who have renewed their membership

during the last twelve months. Only

current members are eligible to

submit nominations, sign petitions of

nomination, and vote.

ACLU members will elect Board

members from the slate of can-

didates nominated by petition and by

the nominating committee. The

ballot will appear in a special May

_ issue of the ACLU News.

The following by-law governs the

ACLU's Board of Directors nominating

process:

3. Recommendations and

Cont. on back page

speech. The court, however, disagreed,

saying ``the assertion is patently in error

. (A)bridgement of such rights, even

though unintended, may inevitably

follow from varied forms of government

action.'

"It is clear that in flatly prohibiting

anonymous public appearances by

persons exercising their First Amend-

ment rights, section 650a sweeps too

broadly," said Justice Sidney Feinberg,

writing for the three-judge panel.

Schlosser had also argued that the

language used in the statute, par-

ticularly the definition of masks ``and

other regalia or paraphernalia,' and

the exemption of persons wearing

masks for the purposes of amusement

or entertainment, was unconstitution-

ally vague and discriminatory.

Again the court agreed, saying that

the statute `does not give a citizen

notice of what is prohibited; it fails to

set standards for law enforcement

officials; and it will have a chilling

effect on constitutional rights."

Finally, the court also held the

statute denied equal protection.

"Section 650a metes out differential

treatment based upon the content of a

masked person's message ... Content

control is the essence of forbidden

censorship under the Equal Protection

clauses."

Interestingly, the California

legislature became aware of the case

before the decision was handed down.

Said Schlosser, `The legislature

commendably recognized the con-

stitutional defects of section 650a and

repealed the statute in eueu of this

pas year."

- Governor (Edmond G. Brown, Jr.)

chose to cater to the law and order vote

and vetoed the bill one month before

the election, stating that it was

necessary as a deterrent to masked

rapists."

"Fortunately, the Court of Appeals

rejected this argument, labeling it a

"red herring," recognizing that more

narrowly drawn statutes exist to protect

legitimate state interests.'"' This

reference was to Penal Code Section 185

which prohibits the wearing of masks

but only when connected to criminal

activity.

Schlosser sees the court's ruling in

this case as a vital step toward

recognition of anonymity as an im-

portant component of First Amend-

ment guarantees.

' "It is significant for the courts to

recognize that the right to remain

anonymous can be an integral part of

the First Amendment scheme of free

expression. The right to anonymity can

be particularly critical for dissident and

controversial individuals and

organizations because these are the

people who have the most fear in ex-

`pressing their views." Schlosser said.

"The ACLU's recognition of its

`importance is reflected in several cases

in which we have participated, in-

_ cluding a successful challenge to an

election code provision that forbids

anonymous campaign literature, (see

related story below) and our un-

successful challenge to compulsory

disclosure requirements demanded by

the Fair Political Practices Commission

as applied to contributors to the anti-

Briggs Initiative campaign."

Os aa Election Leaflets OK'd

The ACLU's aioe that a section

of the California Elections Code which

prohibits the distribution of anonymous

election material is unconstitutional has

been upheld by a municipal court

Judge.

The section in question was

challenged when a violation allegedly

-occurred in Brisbane during a City

`Council election in spring of 1978.

_ A leaflet which charged that three

incumbent Council members supported

the construction of high rise buildings

against the wishes of taxpayers caused

the controversy. The leaflet urged voters

to keep Brisbane a "`safe little village,"

and was signed "Citizens for a Better

Brisbane."

For allegedly distributing the leaflet,

Luman Drake was charged with a

criminal violation of Section 29410 of

the California Elections Code, which

makes it a misdemeanor for a person to

print, reproduce, or distribute any

written material or poster "having

reference to an election, to any can-

didate, or any measure" without the

name and address of the "person

responsible for it."' :

Municipal Court Judge James O.

Miller agreed with ACLU staff Counsel

Alan Schlosser that the statute is an

unconstitutionally overbroad in-

-fringement of Drake's freedom of

speech and association.

Drake, who had lost his job over the

incident, was pleased with the judge's |

ruling. "I was pretty confident that it

would go our way because it's a bad

law," he said. "But in a small town,

local politics are not very graceful."

Jan-Feb 1979

aclu news

Grand Jury Abuses Corrected

A recent California Supreme Court

decision virtually abolishing the state's

grand jury indictment system came as a

direct result of a case argued by ACLU-

NC Advisory Counsel Ephraim Margo-

lin.

The ACLU has long criticized the

grand jury method of prosecution.

First, those prosecuted by a grand jury

indictment are denied some of the

protections allowed those tried from

charges brought directly by the

- prosecutor. Second, the grand jury has

become a rubber stamp for the prosecu-

tion. Of 235 cases presented to the San

Francisco grand jury between 1974 and

1977, all 235 resulted in indictments.

On November 9, 1978, the court

handed down its decision in three re-

lated cases, concluding that the grand

jury system, in denying the same pro-

tections granted to a person accused

directly, is a violation of the states guar-

antee of equal protection under the laws.

Attorneys throughout the state have.

been taking action to rectify the inequi-

ties since 1975, jockeying for a case to

bring about the abolition of the indict-

ment procedure. People v. Levins,

brought by the ACLU, was the first

such case to be granted a hearing by the

state supreme court. Two related cases

were also influential.

The issue in Levins was whether or

not a prosecutor could first chatge a

suspect by information, then obtain a

grand jury indictment, have the charges

dismissed, and follow the less difficult

path of prosecution by indictment.

"Levins itself revolved around the

fairly narrow issue of selective enforce-

ment,' said Margolin. `""We knew the

court could simply rule that it is imper-

missible to bring two cases against the

same person at the same time. But we

chose to argue against the indictment

procedure itself, as a violation of equal

protection."'

One of the related cases, Hawkins v.

Superior Court, directly highlighted the

discrepancies between the two methods

of prosecution. In the decision on that

case, Justice Stanley Mosk used argu-

Cont. on back page

`Surveillance records to be

disclosed, judge rules

A Sacramento Superior Court Judge

granted the ACLU of Northern

California access to documents com-

piled by the Organized Crime and

Intelligence Branch (OCCIB) of the

Department of Justice on December 5;

1978.

The ruling was the result of a law suit

brought against the OCCIB in 1976,

following the organization's refusal to

divulge legislative reports, inventories

of bugging devices and summaries of

private information on individuals and

organizations.

The ACLU of Northern California,

charging that the information was

subject to disclosure under the

California Public Records Act of 1966,

filed requests to inspect nine categories

of OCCIB documents prior to filing the

lawsuit i in July, 1976.

Curfew Ordinance Challenged

The constitutionality of a juvenile

curfew ordinance has been challenged

by the ACLU of Northern California

and California Attorneys for Criminal

Justice, in an amicus curiae brief filed

in the California Supreme Court on

December 4, 1978.

ACLU Staff Counsel Amitai

Schwartz and cooperating attorney

Steven Stathatos, authors of the brief,

argue that a Dixon, California city.

ordinance which prohibits persons

under the age of 18 from "`loitering,

idling, wandering, strolling, or playing

at night in all public areas after the

hour of 10:00 PM" drastically and

impermissibly curbs fundamental

rights guaranteed by the federal and

state constitutions.

adopted by

Driving a car on city streets can in no

way be considered loitering within the

restrictive definition of that term

California courts.

Therefore, we believe that the police

officer had no authority whatsoever to

stop the car for an investigation. A stop

without legal authorization is unlawful.

"We did not at that time directly

`brief the issue of whether or not the

curfew. ordinance itself was con-

stitutional because none of the parties

to the case had raised the issue."

The defendant in the case (entitled

People vy. Teresinski) had been stopped

by a Dixon police officer while driving

through the city late at night because ~

the officer believed the occupants of the .

car were juveniles violating the city's

curfew ordinance. The stop led to the

discovery of evidence which resulted in

the arrest of the suspect on a burglary

charge. The evidence was suppressed by

the Yolo County Superior Court. The

prosecution appealed the decision, and

the case went to the state Supreme

Court.

The ACLU orginally entered the

case on.a limited Fourth Amendment

issue. According to Schwartz, "We first

took the position that an ordinance

which prohibits juveniles from loitering

does not encompass the driving of a car.

During the argument of the case,

Justice Frank C. Newman raised a

question as to. the constitutionality of

the ordinance.

"Tn light of the court's i inquiry," said

Schwartz, "we filed a supplemental

amicus curiae brief addressing the

additional constitutional question."

In the brief, Schwartz and Stathatos

argue that the Dixon ordinance

"subjects all persons under the age of

18 who are out at night to interrogation |

by police without the slightest suspicion

of wrongdoing," and unconstitutionally

restricts juveniles' First Amendment

rights of movement, speech, assembly,

and association. Pointing to the

development of constitutional law over

the past decade, the attorneys contend

that those fundamental rights are by no

means reserved for adults. A similar

ordinance applied to adults would not

survive constitutional attack.

Should the court strike down the

Dixon curfew, Teresinski would be

another important step toward securing

basic constituional rights for juveniles.

Judge Carr ruled that the ACLU

- could gain access to six categories of

information. The judge had inspected

all of the documents, including com-

puter printouts and summary cards on

individuals, at an earlier date in her

chambers.

In a tentative decision issued before

the ruling, the judge acknowledged that

the summary cards, prepared by

members of the Law Enforcement

Intelligence Unit (LEIU), contained

information "which is a combination of

facts from public records, together with

surmises rumor and

hearsay."

from gossip,

-

In response to the defendant's ar-

gument that the ACLU did not have a

right to inspect the files, Judge Carr

stated that: "This court is unaware of

any organization or individual more

actively concerned with an engaged in

defending and protecting constitutional

rights and resisting unlawful invasions

of privacy by over-zealous spying, sur-

veillance, and covert activities than the

plaintiff.

Among materials to be released for

inspection are monthly bulletins and

annual reports to the Legislature which

show how the OCCIB spends its budget

of more than 2 million every year.

ACLU Staff `Counsel Amitai

Schwartz explained that the release

of documents will show the extent of the

OCCIB's involvement with the Law

Enforcement Intelligence Unit. "This

nationwide system is a network of some

230 local `intelligence' units - formerly

known as `red squads' - throughout

the United States and Canada,' he

`said. "It was set up under the guise of

investigating organized crime; yet it has

engaged in surveillance of social

organizations and individuals. The

California Department of Justice

coordinates the information: gathering

process for a " he continued.

Scan are anticipated that the in-

formation will.shed a great deal of light

on the Department of Justice practices

which have violated or potentially will

violate the privacy rights of individuals

and organizations. He also forsees an

appeal of the decision by the Depart- (c)

ment of Justice.

Wiretapping Goes Unpunished

A Supreme Court decision outlawing

warrantless federal wiretaps for nation-

al security purposes does not apply to

wiretaps carried out before that deci-

sion was handed down, according to a

recent decision of the U.S. Court of

Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in a case

brought by the ACLU of Northern Cal-

ifornia. -

In the consolidated cases of Hallinan

v. Mitchell and Weinberg v. Mitchell,

brought by former ACLU-NC legal di- (c)

rector Charles Marson, plaintiffs Wein-

berg and Hallinan sought to recover

damages from the federal government

for warrantless pre-1972 phone surveil-

lance. The high court had held in 1972

that surveillance authorized by the

Attorney General for purposes of secur-

ing information with respect to domes-

tic threats to national security cannot

be carried out unless a proper warrant

is issued.

The Court of Appeals decision, in its

refusal to apply the Supreme Court's

decision retroactively to pre-1972 wire-

tappings, was disappointing to Marson.

"The idea that [Mitchell] could not rea-

sonably have known that a warrant was

needed for phone surveillance before

1972 is ridiculous," he said. ""The rul-

ing amounts to giving him immunity for

tapping people's phones."

Writing the decision for the appellate

court, Judge Charles M. Merrill held

that the Supreme Court's 1972 decision __

represented a new principal of constitu- -

tional law that was not foreshadowed by

previous court decisions, and was there-

fore unsuitable for retroactive applica-

tion. Merrill maintained that, before

1972, the high' court had skirted the

- issue of curtailment of domestic securi-

ty surveillance, and that the practice of

such surveillance by previous adminis-

trations was widespread.

Bill of Rights Birthday Celebrated

_ By Andy Mosher

For the sixth consecutive year, men

and women from Northern California

and elsewhere expressed their interest

and concern for the cause of civil liber-

ties by gathering at San Francisco's

Sheraton Palace Hotel for the ACLU

Foundation of Northern California's

annual Bill of Rights Day Celebration.

An enthusiastic crowd of more than

five hundred ACLU members and

friends filled the Palace's Grand Ball-

room to celebrate the 187th birthday of

the Bill of Rights and to honor award

recipients both expected and unexpected.

The Foundation's Earl Warren

Awards, presented annually for out-

standing personal contributions to the

fight for civil liberties, were presented

to Harriet Pilpel, long-time champion

for reproductive freedom, and Carey

McWilliams, prominent civil rights

author and historian and former editor

of The Nation magazine.

To celebrate Bill of Rights Day, a

Foundation of Northern California.

ACLU-NC_ Executive Director

Dorothy Ehrlich presented a special

award from the Board of Governors to

celebration coordinator Frances

`Strauss, commending her for her long-

time commitment to the ACLU and for

her ` `persistent conscientiousness and

joyful spirit" in directing the Bill of

Rights Day program for the past six

years. The Board further expressed its.

"highest admiration of her guidance,

her energy, her humor and her dedica-

tion."

Upon accepting her Warren Award,

Pilpel treated the audience to a candid

and often outrageous account of her

personal and professional involvement

in the reproductive rights movement. In

assessing the present state of the move-

ment, she sounded an optimistic note,

saying that the anti-abortion forces in

America are louder than they are num-

erous; they do not represent as vast a

`majority of Americans as they claim.

Frances Strauss receives commendation from Dorothy Ehrlich as Board of Direc-

tors Chair Drucilla Ramey looks on.

booklet was issued outlining the ex-

panding legal docket for 1979 and list-

ing the names of those who made tax

deductible contributions to the ACLU

She added a word of caution, however,

and warned of the alarming measures

proposed by those who would seek to

constitutionally outlaw abortion. The

NAVY THREATENS CREWS.

RIGHT TO PETITION |

The United States Navy and the De-.

partment of Defense are appealing a

federal circuit court decision concern-

ing the First Amendment rights of mili-

tary personnel.

The case, Allen v. Monger, was

originally filed by former ACLU staff

counsel Joseph Remcho: on behalf of

crew members of two U.S. aircraft car-

riers in spring of 1973. The seamen had

been prohibited from circulating peti-

tions to their Congressmen which pro-

- tested the movements of their ships.

Members of the U.S.S. Hancock had

objected to a West Pacific cruise, and

members of the U.S.S. Midway had

protested the change of that carrier's

home port to a city in Japan.

The captains of both ships denied the

crew permission to circulate the peti-

tions. They invoked a naval regulation

which required "prior approval" for the

distribution of materials which present-

ed ``a clear danger to the loyalty, discip-

line, or morale of military personnel,'

or which would ``materially interfere

with the accomplishment of a military

mission."

In 1975, District Court Judge Robert

F. Peckham struck down the regulation.

-as `"`an unconstitutional restraint on

. First Amendment activity," and a

court order was issued prohibiting the

navy from inflicting such regulations.

On October 4, 1978, a circuit court

upheld the lower court's decision. The

appellate court found that the regula-

tion was in violation of a federal statute

which stipulates that "no person may

restrict any member of an armed force

in communication with a member of negative mood? How shall they act

responsibly, defend the Constitution

Congress, unless the communication is

unlawful or [in violation of] regulations

necessary to the security of the U.S."

While the October appeal was decided

`on statutory grounds, thereby skirting

the constitutional issues, Remcho saw

the decision as significant. "In the pro-

cess of securing this right," he said,

"servicemen have now enabled them-

selves to circulate among themselves, in

the form of a petition, information

which they might never have been able

to circulate before. Their constitutional

rights have prevailed over the unbridled

discretion of their superiors."

Carey McWilliams speaks on civil rights

greatest danger, she noted, lay in the

possibility of a Constitutional conven-

tion, which could put the entire Bill of

Rights in jeopardy.

McWilliams took time to recount the

gradual growth of civil rights-for indivi-

duals and minorities in particular. He

expressed his concern for the future of

the cause, calling the mid-Fifties the

highwater mark of the expansion of

civil rights, and noting a persistent

downswing since that time.

"McWilliams said that recent distur-

bances regarding the Nazi Party and

the People's Temple, among others,

and the forces underlying the existence

of these groups, were indications that

"there's a lot of turmoil coming," tur-

moil which will present increasingly

complex civil liberties issues for the

ACLU in the not too distant future.

Gayle Sondergaard, the reknowned

actress whose name has graced Acad-

emy Awards and blacklists alike, cap-

tured the crowd's spirit with a reading

of collected writings of past and present

civil libertarians. Earl Warren himself

Jan-Feb 1979

aclu news. cent

Harriet Pilpel receives her award

graced the proceedings with his

presence by means of the videotape "A

- Conversation With Earl Warren,'' pro-

vided by KQED-TV.

Capitol News Public Service Televis-

ion taped the award ceremony for a

``McWilliams Retrospective' to be

shown in late January.

The festive atmosphere was tempered

only by the remembrance of the trage-

dies of the past year. Accordingly, the

Foundation paid tribute to the Bay

Area's slain leaders - San Francisco

Mayor George Moscone, San Francisco

Supervisor Harvey Milk, and Peninsula

Congressman Leo Ryan - as well as to

ACLU-NC co-founder Helen Salz, who

passed away earlier in the year.

When all was over and done, Fran

Strauss took a moment to thank those

who made the event a reality. Special

thanks were extended to Marlene

DeLancie, who conducted negotiations

with KQED in acquiring the Warren

tape, and to Nancy McDermid, who

compiled the civil liberties works read

by Ms. Sondergaard.

1979 Legislative Mood -

`Lynch Mob"

by Brent Barnhart, ACLU Legislative Advocate

As the 1979-80 Legislative Session

gets underway, the usual tired jokes

make the rounds once again: "`What if

we amend the Constitution so that

Legislators can only pick up their per

diem on- days they don't show up?"

_ These jokes, though well-worn on the

Sacramento saloon circuit, are par-

ticularly apt when applied to the

` coming session.

Thoughtful legislators are

struggling to be responsive to -con-

- stituents. But how should they propose

positive programs in response to a

against thoughtless incursions, and

resist pressures to vote expedience over

principle, in the face of a public mood

of meanness and belt-tightening?

The task is doubly hard given the

Governor's determination to exploit the

public mood. Consequently, the aged,

blind, and disabled are having to do

without the cost of living increases; as if

$326 a month were sufficient for a

- person to live on! The fact that even the

Republican leadership is aghast at such

miserliness underlines how responsive

the Governor is. Responsive, in this

case, to a lynch -mob.

And where does that leave Assembly

speaker Leo McCarthy and President

Pro Tem James Mills? McCarthy

presides this year over a house which no

longer has a two-thirds democratic

majority. Two of Mills' most solid

liberal supporters (Senators John

Dunlap and Arlen Gregorio) were

defeated this past election. Republicans

_in both houses will be doing their best

to seize control of California govern-

ment, and, considering public sen-

timent, they cannot perceive that it is in

their interest to beat a path to the left of

Jerry Brown.

Gay Rights Bill:

One bill, AB 1, brightens the gloomy

early 1979 legislative picture. Spon-

sored by Assemblyman Art Agnos, this

bill would prohibit discrimination

because of a peron's sexual orientation,

because of a refusal `to grant a sexual

favor, or because of pregnancy, if

passed. Originally introduced in a prior

session as AB 1320, AB 1 will be

supported by both gay rights advocates

and feminists. By creating a definition

of the word "`sex'' in the labor code, the

Cont. on back page

Jan-Feb 1979

aclu news

CHAPTERS |

Legislative forecast

Cont from p. 3

bill expands what is meant by

discrimination on the basis of sex. A

nearly identical Senate bill, SB 3, is

sponsored by Senator Marks.

Desegregation in Jeopardy:

A State Constitutional Amendment

has been proposed in the wake of recent ~

state court decisions which have or-

dered several racially segregated school

districts to integrate their schools. The

amendment, SCA 2, would change the

state constitution to provide that state

or local public education agencies need

do no more to desegregate their schools

than is minimally required by the

federal constitution, regardless of the

cause of segregation. SCA 2 is not the

answer to the busing controversy. The

passage of the amendment would cause

several adverse consequences: 1) It

would deny the established rights of

children to equal educational op-

portunity. 2) It would change the

California. Constitution for a political

issue, setting a dangerous precedent for

the erosion of other freedoms. 3) It

would lead to a delay in desegregation

and increased costs to taxpayers. The

_ amendment is being considered by the

Senate Education Committee. If it were

to pass both houses by a 2/3 majority, it

would be brought before voters as a

ballot measure at the next general

election.

Mandatory Sentence for Gun Use:

The public's reaction to the Supreme

_ Court's removal of the mandatory

sentence provision for gun use in the

commission of a crime has been

overwhelmingly negative. Therefore a

large number of bills proposing

reinstatement of the mandatory sen-

tence are expected this session.

Ironically, the Supreme Court decision

reflected more wisdom than the public

outcry wculd indicate. Since the

original provision became law in 1976,

violent crime involving the use of a

handgun has not declined. The

mandatory sentence gave no discretion

to judges and absolute discretion to

district attorneys who decide which

crimes to charge. Mandatory sen-

tencing provisions have much more to

do with creating better leverage for

prosecutors in plea bargaining sessions

than they have to do with stopping

violence or sending gun weilders to

prison.

If these issues are a sample of what

we can expect in 1979, we should

consider the appropriateness of H.L.

Menken's pithy remark: "For every

complex problem in our society, there is

a solution that is simple, plausible, and

WRONG." Hopefully, the theme of

that `"`state of the State'' message will

not hold true for the entire two year

legislative session to come.

frontline civil liberties work??

Have we got a place for you!

The crucial business of the Bill of

Rights begins up front - at the

ACLU's "complaint. desk.'' Here

trained counselors aid people with

diverse questions; meet daily with staff

attorneys to review issues; and serve as

a vital link between the ACLU and the

people in the community. Your help is

needed... =]

If you have an interest in helping

people who often have nowhere else to

go... if you are able to donate from 4-8

hours once a week . .. and if being the

hub in the action wheel turns you on,

please call Marci Gallo at the ACLU

NC office at (415) 777-4880.

Volunteers Neede

Do. you yearn for the excitement of

Volunteer George Hutchinson Assists

A Caller Photo by Michael Miller

Nominations

Cont from p. I

Nominations by Members of the Union.

Members of the Union shall have the

right to suggest names for consideration

to the committee appointed to

nominate members-at-large. to the

Board of Directors. Furthermore, any

fifteen or more members of the Union

in good standing may themselves

submit a nomination to be included

among those voted upon by the general

memberhip by submitting a written

petition to the Board not later than May

Ist.of each year. No member of the

Union may sign more than one such

petition and each such nomination shall

be accompanied by a summary of

qualifications and the written consent

of the nominee. This provision of the

By-laws shall be printed on the first

page of each January issue of the ACLU

News, together with an article advising

members of their rights in the

nominating process.

Grand jury

cont from p. 2

ments advanced by Margolin and attor-

ney Sheldon Portman, writing: "The

defendant accused by information

immediately becomes entitled to an im-

pressive array: of procedural rights."

These include a pretrial hearing before

a neutral and legally knowledgeable

magistrate, legal representation, exam-

ination of witnesses, and presentation

of evidence in the defendant's behalf.

"In vivid contrast," wrote Mosk, "the

indictment procedure omits these safe-

guards."

`These Supreme Court decisions will

have a tremendous effect on Califor-

nia's judicial system," said Margolin.

`"`We can say that Levins, through Haw-

kins, served to bring an end to the in-

justices of the indictment procedure,"

he concluded.

Errata: The ACLU News ran a photograph on page

7 of the Nov/Dec '78 issue without crediting the

photographer, Linda Gordon. Our apologies.

@

Marin

The Marin Chapter Board has been

negotiating with the College of Marin

on two civil liberties issues. The first

concerns a

Education Code which requires

organizations wishing to use school

buildings for their meetings to file a

loyalty oath. The second concerns the

right of students to hand out literature

without permission form the college.

Both issues are being followed up by the

Chapter legal committee and County

Counsel, Doug Maloney.

The Marin Chapter held a successful

fundraiser on January 12.

Mt. Diablo

At the Board of Directors meeting in

October, 1978, David Bortin and Guyla

Ponomareff were re-elected president

. and vice president. Mel Belknap was

elected treasurer. The secretary is to be

chosen later. Dave Bortin was re-elected

to be Guyla's alternate to the ACLU NC

Board. Barbara Henrici was elected

publicity director and Beverly Bortin

was elected newsletter chair.

e 3

Mid-Penn

The next meeting of the Mid-Penin-

sula chapter will be on Thursday, Janu-

ary 25, at 8:00 PM at the All Saints

Episcopal Church, corner of Hamilton

and Waverly Streets in Palo Alto. The

public is invited. For further informa-

| tion, call Len Edwards at 287-6193.

The February meeting will be on Feb-

ruary 22, same time, same place, same

info. .

Sacramento

A public forum: `Prostitution in

Sacramento,' sponsored by _ the

Sacramento Chapter of the ACLU, will

be held in the general purpose room of

the SMUD building at 59th and ``S"

streets on January 24 at 7:30 PM.

Admission is free. Ample parking will

be available at the parking lot at the

northeast corner of 59th and ``S"

streets.

Sonoma

Francis Heisler spoke at the Sonoma

Chapter's annual December fundraiser.

The program included an art auction

which was very successful. The Febru-

ary Board meeting will be held on Feb-

ruary 22.

section of the State

North Penn

February 20, 1979 is the date for the

North Peninsula Chapter meeting

which. was originally scheduled for

January. The meeting will be held at

Kloss Hall, Congregational Church of

San Mateo, 225 Tilton Avenue, San

Mateo. For the exact time call the |

. Chapter secretary, Danetta Ervin, 344-

4352.

Rights of mental patients to accept or |

to refuse treatment, an issue in which

ACLU is presently involved, will be a

subject of the program. The process by

which the ACLU selects matters for

court challenges will also be discussed.

The committee arranging this

- meeting is headed by Gretchen Smiley.

Members of the committee are Richard

Keyes, Emily Skolnick, Sid and Sara

Scheiber, Lois Almen and Danetta

Ervin.

Santa Clara

The Santa Clara Chapter has been

_asked by the US Commission on Civil

Rights for information concerning the

shredding of files in San Jose. The

Commission is currently investigating

cases of police misconduct in |

Philadelphia and Houston.

The Chapter also recommended the

removal of a new agility test required by

the California State Police. The test,

which appears to have been imposed ex

post facto, appears to be discriminatory

against women and older police of-

ficers.

Lawyers in the Santa Clara area are

being actively encouraged to register

with the Chapter, and to specify what

kind of civil liberties cases they are will- -

ing to take.

The Santa Clara chapter is seeking

replacements for four members of the

Board of Directors who recently resigned.

: e

San Francisco

Preparations are underway for the

Spring annual meeting. (Although we

just convened, our by-laws have been

amended so that we meet and elect new

board members in the Spring.) The

Board welcomes suggestions for a topic

to discuss at the meeting: political, legal

or ethical. Members with with ideas -

should send them to the SF Chapter,

c/o ACLU, 814 Mission Street, San

Francisco. :

A Happy New Year to all our

members. May you practice your civil

liberties and have fun doing it.

aclu news

8 issues a year, monthly except bi-monthly in January-February, June-July,

August-September and November-December

Second Class Mail privileges authorized at San Francisco, California |

Published by the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California

Drucilla Ramey, Chairperson Dorothy Ehrlich, Executive Director.

Pat Nicholson, Editor

Publication Number 018040

QD |

814 Mission S t - Ste. 301, San Francisco, California 94103 - 777-4545.

Membership $20 and up, of which 50 cents is for a subscription to the aclu news

and 50 cents is for the national ACLU bi-monthly publication, Civil Liberties.