vol. 45, no. 1

Guardian Photo

acl

- Tranian S tudent Deport ation Fought

student facing deportation

on November 13,

January-February 1980

The we of tens of thousands of

`Iranian students in the U.S. and the

government's use of immigration laws

to affect foreign policy have been the

subject of widely varying court opinions

during `the last three months.

opinions are in response to an ACLU

lawsuit aimed at halting the un-

constitutional round-up and

terrogation of Iranian students in this

county. -

On November 10, in response to the

`taking of hostages in the American

embassy in Iran, President Carter

ordered that measures be taken against

Iranian students in the U.S. The

Attorney General was instructed to

`identify Iranian students in the United

States who are not maintaining status

and to take immediate steps to com-

- mence deportation proceedings against

_ such persons."

DIRECTIVE

Attorney General Benjamin Civiletti,

issued a directive

(214.5) requiring all Iranian students in

the country to report within thirty days

to the Immigration and Naturalization

Service (INS) to prove compliance with

Let Girls Join - Judge

Ruling Opens Boys Club

A landmark decision in November by

Santa Cruz County Superior Court

Judge Chris Cottle in an ACLU sex dis-

crimination lawsuit determined that the

Santa Cruz Boys Club policy of ex-

cluding girls is illegal, and that mem-

bership to the club must be open to all

children regardless of sex.

The announcement of the decision

brought tears of joy to the youthful .

plaintiffs and their Tees in the

courtroom.

The suit was brought on behalf of

Victoria Isbister, Naomi Goldfrank,

and Paula Smith who were denied

access to the club's facilities because

they are girls, and Michael Frick and

Zachery Wormhoudt, two boys who

belong to the club but claimed that its

membership policy deprived them of

their right to a non-discriminatory en-

vironment.

ACLU staff attorney Alan Sen lbscer

said, ""This is the first case in California

to clarify the intention of the state's

prohibition on discrimination in busi-

ness establishments (Unruh Civil

Rights Act) with regard to community

facilities.

"We feel that the judge correctly in-.

terpreted the intention of the legislature

to mean that the California policy

against sex discrimination is as import-

ant, and must be adhered to as firmly,

as the policy against racial discrimina-

tion, and that community facilities such

as the Boys Club are subject to the pro-

hibition against discrimination."

The case was handled by Schlosser

and ACLU cooperating attorneys Susan

Paulus and Diane Thompson.

The Santa Cruz Boys Club has the

only community indoor heated

swimming pool in northern Santa Cruz

County and runs a unique after-school

recreation program for the 8-18 age

group. There is no comparable facility

or recreational or educational program

available for girls.

"This community facility exists not

-only to provide recreational resources

but also to instill attitudes in young

people. The ruling against sex discrimi-

nation creates a healthier, more demo-

cratic environment for all of the

children who will use this facility. That

is why this decision is particularly im-

portant,'' Schlosser concluded.

aie:

in- -

their student visas. According to the

order, non-compliance with the

directive would be immediate grounds

for deportation. |

`CHALLENGE

The American Civil Liberties Union

challenged the government's disregard

for constitutional rights in issuing the

discriminatory directive on several

fronts.

On November 21, the ACLU- NC,

with several other Bay Area legal and

community organizations, organized a

press conference charging that the

Department of Justice directive was

both unconstitutional and conducive to

. creating a public climate of hostility

against Iranians.

At the press conference ACLU-NC.

executive director Dorothy Ehrlich read

a joint. statement criticizing the

"singling out of Iranian citizens in the

U.S. for special treatment by the INS as

totally unjust and unjustifiable" and

condemning the government' Ss action.

(See full text of joint statement and list

of signatories in box, page 2.)

The groups outlined several ways in

which they planned to challange the

governmental action.

Karl Nobuyuki

American Citizens

of the Japanese

League _ stressed

that, as an organization of American

citizens who were at one time subject to

the suspension of their own civil

liberties as a group, solely on the basis

`of ancestry, the Japanese American

Citizens League cautioned the

American public to prevent the

revocation of civil rights.

_ Nobuyuki said, `"`To take action

against people on the basis of ancestry

is wrong, but to act swiftly against those

individuals who choose to act outside

the law is just."'

Paul Harris announced that the

National Lawyers Guild had set up a

legal services hot-line for Iranian

students facing the INS questioning.

Ehrlich announced the filing of a

national ACLU lawsuit on behalf of the

Confederation of Iranian Students

which sought to declare the directive

unconstitutional and invalid.

INTERROGATION

Meanwhile, the Attorney General's

directive had set the creaky INS

machinery cranking into action. Almost

50,000 Iranian students throughout the

U.S. were ordered to report for visa

review.

At universities and colleges in

northern California INS _ personnel,

sometimes bolstered by Border Patrol

agents, began questioning,

photographing and _ fingerprinting

several thousand Iranian students.

Inside - Legislation: Review and Predictions

news

No. 1

At some campuses, including San

Jose State and Stanford, university

authorities decided against using the

campus as a facility for the INS in-

terrogations. Marvin Baron, foreign

student advisor at UC Berkeley said,

"The kinds of things they're (INS)

talking about doing - interrogating,

`taking fingerprints, and so forth, are

Nick Allen

things that just don't belong on a

college campus." Baron added that he

thought the immigration checks would

be futile and were intended as a

symbolic display of American power

during the crisis in Iran.

But Northern California INS

director, David Ilchert took a different

view. `""We're not going to take a lot of

friction from schools and we're not

going to haggle with them,' Ilchert

said. ``We'll just tell them to tell every

one of their Iranian students to get the

hell up here."'

PUBLIC HOSTILITY

Aggravated by the government

directive singling out Iranians, public

attitudes against Iranians began to

deteriorate. Iranians and _ those

thought to be Iranians - became

victims of harassment. Shari's Food

Safari in San Francisco was attacked by

anti-Iranian vandals who ransacked the

restaurant and smashed plate glass

windows in an Iranian-owned travel

`agency upstairs. A similar attack took

place at an Iranian-owned gas station in

Sacramento.

continued on page 2

Jan-Feb 1980

aclu news

~ Tranian Student Deport ation Fought

continued from page I

A San Francisco attorney, Douglas

Hatfer, reported that three Iranians-

being held in Santa Rita for visa

violations had been assaulted, insulted

with racist taunts, and deprived of food

-and water for up to 20 hours. _

The flames of anti-Iranian hysteria

were often fanned by jingoistic

reporting and editorializing in the

media (see excerpts of pro- "and anti-

editorials in box.)

The ACLU-NC monitored press

reports and challenged the media's -

distorted representations. ACLU-NC

Board and staff members appeared on

radio and TV talk shows explaining the

unconstitutionality of the Department

ot Justice directive. Many letters were

written from the ACLU-NC office in

response to anti-Iranian editorials, and

the ACLU-NC organized a meeting

with S.F. Chronicle editor Templeton

Peck in response to a_ particularly

hostile Chronicle editorial on Iranian.

students.

|

The ACLU. national lawsuit

challenging the directive was argued on

December 4 by attorney David Carliner

in the Federal District Court in

`Washington, D.C.

On December 11, Judge Joyce Hens

Green declared the directive. un-

constitutional in its entirety, and issued

a' permanent injunction. The defen-

dants (Attorney General Civiletti and

acting INS chief David Crosland) were

enjoined trom enforcing the directive in

any way and from continuing depor-

- tation hearings against any Iranian

student whom they learned of or ob-

tained information about as a result of

the directive.

The Judge agreed with the basic

ACLU argument that the directive was

invalid in that it discriminated against

Iranians solely on the basis of their

national origin, something prohibited

by the equal protection guarantee of the'

Constitution.

` Rae raeie oe |.

Bee aAaloeee vive]

"To countenance the disparate treatment of Iranian students oe the most cherished consti-

_ tutional precepts applicable to all of us, citizen and alien alike .

ORNS THE ACLU

." Judge Joyce Hens Green

Statement on Iranian Visa Holders

Citizens of the United States and

their public officials are now going

through a period of difficult in-

f ternational political conflict with Iran.

f In any such _ conflict, tension,

| frustration, and concern for the safety

| of our citizens are high. It is, however,

just such conflicts which test the moral

| and legal framework of our system of

F government.

f:. We, therefore, tind the action of

' government officials in singling out

Iranian citizens in the United States for

| special treatment by the Department of

| Justice and the Immigration and

| Naturalization Serivce totally unjust

; and unjustifiable.

In selecting Iranian citizens, and only

s Iranian citizens, for indiscriminate,

} massive review of their status, ad-

| ministration officials are clearly acting

| in a manner that contradicts basic

' constitutional guarantees to equal

i treatment for all individuals without .

f regard to race, nationality, or belief. We

# cannot tolerate the targetting of one

fF nationality or ethnic group for

| discriminatory treatment in __ this

| country.

f In addition td governmental

misconduct, we fear that the ad-

| ministration's action may well lead to a

public climate where Iranian nationals,

| and persons of similar ethnic identity,

f could be marked for unwarranted

| abuse and discrimination.

Lastly, we feel the administration's

current actions are an abuse of this

country's immigration laws. Are we to

expect that each time U.S. hostages are

taken in a foreign country, or other

action is taken against the U.S. which

may upset our political leaders, that

there will be reprisals against the

appropriate national, ethnic, or

religious group in this country?

We are united in our condemnation

of the governmental action against

Iranians in this country, and we share

the fear that this action will lead to even 0x00A7

wider disregard for our basic moral and 0x00A7

legal systems, which should protect not f

only Iranian visa holders, but all of us.

November 21, 1979

Karl K. Nobuyuki

National Executive Director

Japanese American Citizens League

Dorothy M. Ehrlich |

Executive Director

ACLU of Northern California

"Naomi Lauter, Vice-Chairperson

ACLU of Northern California

Father Cuchulain Moriarty, Chairman

Social Justice Commission of the

Roman Cathoics Diocese of

San Francisco

Marc Van Der Hout

National Lawyers Guild

Jesus Carbajal .

Coalition for the Rights of

Immigrants

The judge further stated that the'

Attorney General had exceeded the

authority granted to him by Congress

by using the immigration laws in such a

way as to discriminate against one

national group, and that she could find

no reason of `overriding national in-

terest" for the

directive.

As a result of Green's ruling, ihe INS

hearing centers were immediately shut

down.

An ACLU member who was at the

hearings when news of the judgement |

arrived told the ACLU News ``We were

all waiting while the questioning and

photographing was going on. Suddenly, 0x00A7

an INS employee said he had an an-

nouncement, and began dismantling all

of the cameras and fingerprinting

equipment when he reported the

judge's ruling. Loud cheers came from. |

the crowd of Iranian students and their

lawyers."

But the cheers were to be short- lived.

The government immediately appealed

Green's ruling and a December date

was set for a hearing in the U.S. Court:

-of Appeals. The INS hearings began

again, with a slightly extended deadline

of December 31.

APPEAL

On December 27, the Appeals Court

panel, Circuit Judges Tamm.

McKinnon and Robb, reversed Green's

decision and ruled that the challenged

regulation must be sustained.

Unlike. Judge.Green, the Appeals

Court panel did not agree with the

constitutional issues of the ACLU

argument. Rather, they determined

that the regulation lay within the scope

of authority given to the Attorney

General by Congress in administering

and enforcing the Immigration and

Nationality Act.

Furthermore, they ruled that the

district court judge had erred in stating

that there was `no overriding national

interest' justifying the _ original

directive.

The Appeals Court stated that in

| undertaking to. evaluate the policy

reasons upon which a regulation is

based, the District Court ``went beyond

an acceptable judicial role. Certainly

| in a case such as the one presented here

it is not the business of the courts to

pass judgement on the decision of the

President in the field of foreign policy,"

the Court stated.

DEADLINE

Unfortunately, the Appeals Court

| ruling came at a time when many of the

| students were on holiday from school,

and could not be contacted, yet the

| December 31 deadline: for reporting was

| not extended.

The ACLU and the National Lawyers

| Guild are advising all students that if

`| they have not yet reported to the INS,

i they should definately seek legal advice,

j and preferably be accompanied by a

| lawyer,

| Iranian student legal services hot-line

| telephone number is 415-285-5066.

when they do report. The

The ACLU has filed for a re-hearing

E in front of all the judges of the Court of

| Appeals. At the time of going to press,

| there has been no reply from the court.

| If this hearing is refused, the ACLU will

'f| appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

issuance of such a 0x00A7

Siete.

Papers Say

America will gain nothing - and a

could lose much - if its people seek

to express their opprobrium in ways

that compromise our own laws, our

own traditions or our honor.

Los Angeles Times,

November 13, 1979

If by putting a little heat to the feet

of Iranian students not lawfully in

this country the U.S. government

can create a certain amount of pres-

sure on those ranting mobs in Teh-

ran who are holding the hostages in

our embassy, we find nothing offen-

sive about that. at all.

San Epancisco Chronicle,

November 28, 1979

The decision by U.S. Attorney Gen-

eral Benjamin Civiletti to end rou-

tine raids in Mexican neighbor-

hoods, but to allow such raids in .

search of Iranians ts blatantly dis-

criminatory. |

We share the widespread frustra-

tion over the events in Iran and the

threat to world peace it presents.

However, no situation ts so critical

that it should cause the U.S. to do

away with the principles of its own

Constitution.

_ Oakland Tribune,

November 28, 1979

The ACLU said they were acting to

prevent an attack on the constitu-

tional rights of these students. On

the surface that sounds noble.

enough - doesn t it? But the fact is

that it is nonsense. It is nonsense

constructed out of a notion that

rights, liberties, constitutional guar-

antees, or anything else, for that

matter, are absolute. -

The Sacramento Union,

December 2, 1979

| It's hard to argue with the legal basis

of U.S. District Judge Joyce Hens

| Green's finding. The federal govern-

| ment's concentrated effort to investi-

| gate the status of all Iranians who

| entered the United States as students

| does run smack up against constitu-

tional guarantees of equal protection

. . it is the necessity to uphold con-

| stitutional protection for even the

| most unpopular persons and causes.

| that must prevail."

Los Angeles Times,

December 13, 1979

| There is a growing backlash in this

| country against Iranians who live

| here. To persecute them for their

nationality will only spread the crisis

- not solve it. Let's hope we ve got-

ten beyond the mentality that led to |

| our shameful disregard for so many

| loyal Japanese-Americans during

World War II.

KCBS News Radio Editorial,

J Anuar 4, 1980

Jan-Feb 1980

aclu news

Feiffer Draws Crowd, Baez Is Honored

A Standing Room Only crowd

packed the ACLU's annual Bill of

Rights Day Celebration at the Sheraton

Palace Hotel on December 16 to honor

Joan Baez and hear keynote speaker

Jules Feiffer talk about the "separate

but equal civil liberties of the '70's."

-Feiffer, who was introduced by

ACLU-NC chairperson Drucilla Ramey

as a Satirist, social commentator,

playwright, novelist and creator of the

first comic strip that the New York

Times saw fit to print, had the audience

alternately rolling with laughter and

pondering with concentration as he.

described with inimitable wit and

precision the effect of the self-interest

atmosphere of the decade on his own

and others' attitude towards~ civil

liberties.

"Technically, I like the ACLU," said

Feiffer; "My kind of liberal always

does. But I am a creature of my time,

_and this is the '70's. So, please, don't

bug me with your civil liberties issue.

"`Nowadays," he

Everybody is for free speech, but .

When your civil liberty cuts across my

personal politics or morality, the hell

with your civil liberty.

"Why should I care about the issue of

_ capital punishment? I'm not likely to be'

a murderer. And, if I ever do become a

murderer, I'm white and rich enough to

be saved.

. "Besides, while' I'm

opposed to capital punishment, in my.

heart I'm really for it. I'm in favor of

capital punishment for the electric

utilities, the phone company. Kids on

the street playing transistor radios?

_Nuke'em!

Michael Viapiana

continued,

"everybody is not for free Hone

theoretically

"In times like these, all out support

for civil liberties is hard to come by. We

draw a circle of wagons around our-

selves and our own self-interest.

`We don't see the light at the end of

the tunnel, we just see more tunnel. We

adjust to the tunnel - to Vietnam, to

Watergate, to the institutionalisation of

racism. We adjust to the tunnel by

developing tunnel vision. It's the

Proposition 13 ethic. We want less

government interference and more laws

that say so."

But Feiffer, who said in_ self-

description, ``I never thought i was

cynical, I always thought I was full of

hope,'' led his listeners beyond the

bleak picture to a more optimistic view

of the future

Jules Feiffer - _ Free Rieech. but.

Disabled Rights: "Timely Review'

by Michael Vader

The Rights of Physically Handicapped

People

Kent Hull

American Civil Liberties Union Hand-

boek/ Avon Books, 1979

The Rights of Physically Handi-

capped People is a comprehensive and

_ provocative book that provides insight

and important information about the

rights of persons with physical disa-

bilities.

The author, Kent Hull, presents an

overview of the significant civil rights

issues confronting ee oad

_ persons today.

Additionally, the book furnishes eXx-

amples of early day struggles for the in-

dividual rights of handicapped persons.

It is interesting to note that many of the

same battles which occurred over one

hundred years ago are still relevant in

our society today.

The book includes a timely review of

_the more significant federal and state

laws that have been enacted concerning

ciyil rights for handicapped persons.

The reader should be most interested in

the discussions on the Rehabilitation |

Act of 1973 and the specific impact of .

Sections 503, 504 and the 1978 amend-

ments regarding affirmative action,

non-descrimination, and equal oppor-

tunity for the disabled.

Also of interest are the reviews of the

Architectural Barriers Act, the Edu-

cation for All Handicapped Children ~

Act, and the controversial Transbus

Mandate which regulates accessibility

to government financed mass transit

vehicles built after September 1979.

After reading the book one is more

aware of the magnitude of the issues

and amazed at the incredible amount of

legislation that has been enacted just

during the past ten years to protect the

rights of people with disabilities.

One also realizes, with some frus-

tration, how little actual implemen-

tation, coordination,

important, accountability has been

achieved. It will be obvious that the

struggle for equal opportunity and pro-

tection for handicapped persons against

discrimination is a battle yet to be won.

Whether you are disabled/handi-

capped or not, an advocate or a person

who is empathetic, a parent of a child

with special needs, or someone who just

wants to read a good book, you will find

The Rights of Physically Handicapped

People to be well worth your time to

read and to retain as a useful resource.

Michael Vader is an ACLU-NC Board

member and Manager for the State of

California's Affirmative Action Pro- |

gram for the Disabled.

and most

Joan Baez - 1979 Award Winner

"We have learned that if political

activism doesn't work, it works alot

better than apathy, resignation and

cynicism. After all these years, if the

American people have not learned to

-love the Bill of Rights, they are coming

around to the idea that they better learn

to live with it.

"We're getting ready to go again. To

move the wagons out again. Fashion

conscious as always, we will not let the,

opportunity. of changing decades pass

us by, and we're entering the 80's.

"I think in the long run we will be

tougher and stronger than in the past,

and that strength, and what I hope

proves to be wisdom, will turn the tide.

At least 1 hope so, simply as a matter of

my own self interest - I'm running low

on material."'

Michael Miller

ACLU Board member |

Francis

Heisler dubbed Joan Baez _ the

"troubador of human rights" as he

presented her with the seventh annual

Earl Warren Civil Liberties Award.

Baez received a standing ovation from

the appreciative crowd.

In response, she thanked the

audience by sharing her experiences in

the movement for human rights over

the past two decades.

She recalled her first political act of

refusing to participate in a bomb drill

in high school. "I was called a pinko

commie at 16, and for 20 years after

that, at which point 1 became an agent

of the CIA!" she joked.

"But I was born wanting to do the |

things I do, and I love it. My aim is to.

fuse music with the things I do

publicly," she added. And, in keeping,

she ended her presentation with a

traditional American ballad, `Fare

Thee Well."

According to a Strauss, coor-

dinator for the Bill of Rights Day

Celebration since its inception seven

years ago, `This was the most suc-

cessful birthday party for the Bill of .

Rights that the ACLU-NC has had. We

were overjoyed at the size of the crowd

- over 1100 - and our honoree and

keynote speaker made it a very special

occasion.

The Bill of Rights Day fundraisin

raised over $66,000 for the ACLU-NC

support extensive litigation work in the

coming year.

Ehrlich addresses Bill of Rights Day Crowd

"Colchenke Bill of Rights Day All Year Long

Please send me

Total amount enclosed $

copies of Feiffer's speech (transcript) at $1.00* each $

copies of cassette tape (60 min.) at $4.00* each $

Address .

City

e

i

i

i

i ]

| Name

I

i

i

|

*Price includes postage arid handling charges

Hee ce se ees me ty ns mS A SN Sh A St SRE eT SEY SE

Zip

_Phone

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

Elaine Elinson, Editor Michael Miller, Chapter Page

2

ACLU NEWS (USPS 018-040)

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

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

-Foundation. The funds will be used to.

boars

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

Jan-Feb 1980

aclu news

CIVIL LIBERTIES IN THE STATE CA

ibde. Me-generation Legislation

By Brent Barnhart

ACLU-NC Legislative Advocate

The most disturbing evidence of

Me-generation meanness

California Legislature's products this

past year has been the growing

raucousness with which basic notions

of equal protection have been hooted

off the stage. :

One deplorable example is the

complete collapse of the Assembly

Democratic leadership in the face of

the anti-busing lynch mob which

thrust Senator Alan Robbins' SCA 2

onto the ballot in November in the

form of Proposition 1. The rout of

California's best and brightest -

notably Speaker Leo McCarthy and

then-Majority Leader Howard

Berman - left the Assembly Black

Caucus and a handful of white

legislators alone to resist the in-

creasingly transparent racism which

in recent years had been somewhat

closeted.

_ Abortion funding for medically

indigent women may still be

provided in 1980, but it must be

in the

conceded that anti-abortion zealots

~ have wrestled the funding question -

- to a stalemate, which stands little

chance of being broken in the

coming year. Sadly, the fact that the

beneficiaries of Medi-Cal funding for

abortions are poor people seems to

have spelled the difference in this

hotly contested battle. (Contrast, for

example, the early death of a

measure which would have placed

restrictions on abortions paid for by

_ private health insurance benefits.)

It simply seems unfashionable to (c)

2/3 of the current legislators to act

on humane impulse, or to finance ~

`programs in the public interest

which do not directly benefit the |

majority.

In this context, it seems ap-

propriate to point out by contrast the

very significant bail reform measure,

AB 2, which passed only through the

most herculean efforts of Assem-

blyman Howard Berman and J.

Anthony Kline, Governor Brown's

Legal Affairs Assistant.

AB 2 as enacted only benefits

misdemeanor defendants, and has a

5-year sunset clause (meaning we

revert to the old law if AB 2 is not re-

enacted at the end of 5 years), so it

ushers in no millenium. But for

thousands of poor misdemeanor

defendants, AB 2 makes freedom

pending trial attainable and results

in less coercion to plead guilty to

petty charges.

In that sense, AB 2 - passed over

the implacable opposition of the bail

bond industry and the powerful

insurance interests who fund it -

bucked the Me-generation tide. The

success of Berman and Kline is a

fascinating case of legislative ar-

tistry. More importantly, it also

shows that with skill and resolve, the

tide can be successfully resisted.

In brighter times this generation

promised a new age of freedom and

equality. The disquieting chant and

cadence of the

threatens to drown that dream and

demoralize its adherents in a clamor

of meanness and derision.

The finest ideas nurtured by

American culture: freedom, fairness,

equality and fullness of life for

everyone are just as attainable. But

-now perhaps, we understand that

sheer recognition of their worthiness

does not accomplish them, and that

they are attainable only through

toughness, discipline and positive -

action.

Robbins' SCA 2 and the Medi-Cal

abortion struggle prove that the

greatest ideals can be trashed. But

we've known that since we emerged

from the caves. The bail reform act

and other good measures passed this

session - such as those on tenants'

free speech, limitation to searches,

and medical record privacy - prove

that they also can succeed.

_.. 1980 Election Year Madness

Normally, at the beginning of a

new year, we like to make a few

predictions about what to expect.

But the unforeseen Assembly

leadership battle which exploded in

December between incumbent

Speaker Leo McCarthy and his

Majority Leader Howard Berman,

has turned the whole legislative

world topsy-turvey, and makes any

realistic assessment of predictions

impossible.

We fully anticipated that 1980

ould be a- bitter and partisan

election year session. Conservative -

attacks by the like of Howard Jarvis

and J.L Richardson have become

particularly strident, and millions of

dollars have been amassed to

displace liberal incumbents in

November.

Even those legislators who have.

announced their intention not to run

are not safe. The California

Republican. Assembly claimed in a

legislative fund-raiser that Speaker

pro tem John Knox had authored

legislation which would "render

decent citizens defenseless against

attack from perverted sex-crime

offenders."" They added that Knox

did not care about people in his

district since he would not be up for

re-election.

- The 1980 state election is par-

ticularly crucial because the majority

party in 1981 will reapportion state -

legislative and congressional districts

for the next 10 years. Although ~

Democrats currently enjoy a 50-30

margin over Republicans in the

Assembly and a 22-17 margin in the

Senate, Democrats perceive it

`Berman

possible that they may lose control of

either or both houses.

The intensity of this concern

surfaced dramatically on. December

11th when Assemblyman Howard

Berman announced to a crowded

news conference that he was

resigning his position as Majority .

Leader in order to challenge his

friend and long-time political ally,

Leo McCarthy, for the Speakership.

Both McCarthy and Berman have

been particularly sensitive to civil

liberties issues throughout their

legislative careers, so a split between

the two is hardly a desirable atueson

for the ACLU.

Whatever the outcome of the

Speakership battle, the only safe

prediction i is that there will be a lot of

changes in Committee leadership

and composition, since Berman

partisans include many Committee

chairs who will probably lose their

posts if Berman fails. Already,

supporter

Robinson has been removed as chair

of the Joint Legislative Audit Com-

mittee and replaced by McCarthy

backer Floyd Mori.

As a result of Committee ap-

pointments, every piece of legislation

will undoubtedly be affected, as a

leadership change is almost

chromosomal in nature. Whether

these,changes will be better or worse

for civil libertarians is anybody's

guess.

Among the primary issues to be

dealt with will be Alan Robbins' SB

1244 which seeks to nail the lid onto

the coffin of school integration. Anti-

abortion measures which would

- Richard .

impose Boe notification and so-

called "informed consent'

provisions to discourage abortions

will be debated, and we can an-

ticipate the annual attack on Medi-

_ Cal abortion funding.

Election year is always bullish for

legislative panaceas which promise

to rid society of crime, and 1980 will

be no exception.

Bills have already been Gar carted

_to change the law of diminished

capacity - using the Dan White

case as justification for putting it to

the poor and powerless. The annual

attack on the exclusionary rule has

passed the Senate as has the measure

to expand law enforcement's

authority to use electronic sur-

veillance.

On the Route side, the ACLU

will be supporting provisions to

make employment discrimination

based on sexual preference or refusal |

to grant sexual favors unlawful; to

make jury selection procedures more

equitable; and to eliminate the use of

sex offender registration provisions

to coerce guilty pleas in sexual

solitication cases - a favorite police

tactic in harrassment of gays.

The ACLU will be backing

legislation to expand last year's

search warrant protections for in-

nocent third parties beyond

physicians, lawyers and clergy.

The ACLU will probably seek

codification of judicial rulings in-

volving the privacy of telephone and

credit card records and will sponsor

legislation to give lawyers access to

their own State Bar files.

Me-generation -

Abortion

Medi-Cal funding for Abortions

The Brown Administration con-

`tinued funding of abortions under the

Medi-Cal system for women unable to

afford them. But, once again, anti-

abortion forces were able to hold the

entire 1979-80 budget hostage. In July a

compromise was reached: Assem-

blywoman Leona Egeland presented an

amended bill, AB 1348, which would

provide authorization for Medi-Cal

abortion funding without the 2/3

majority vote usually required for

budget allocations. However in August,

Pro-Life amendments were grafted onto

it, and Pro-Choice legislators barely

beat back attempts to pass AB 1348 in

the new form.

The bill is in Conference Committee,

and barely alive, but barring a complete -

reversal in the majority orientation of

both houses, things look very bleak for

Medi-Cal abortion funding from the

legislative angle. (ACLU +)

Warrants

AB 1609 (Levine) - o- - Third Party Search

Warrants

Introduced to counter the police-

state effects of the U.S. Supreme

Court's ruling in Stanford Daily v.

Zurcher, which permitted the use of

search warrants to search the premises

of an innocent third party for evidence

of crime.

Compromises limited the bill's

protection to privileged information

maintained only by lawyers, physicians

and clergy. Though newspapers are

already protected by 1978 legislation,

accountants, hospitals, union officials,

`researchers, and other innocent third

parties remain vulnerable to police

raids on their homes and offices, even if

they' ve committed no crime.

AB 1609 requires that searches for

documentary evidence maintained by

physicians, lawyers and clergy must be

performed by a special master ap-

pointed by the court. The subject of the

search must be allowed to accompany

the special master who performs the

search. The subject may then demand

that any evidence be sealed until

reviewed by the court itself, and

arguments presented by both parties

regarding the privileged nature of the

material. (ACLU +)

-

APITOL-A 1979 REVIEW

`THERE ARE MANY THINGS IN LIFE THAT ARE NOT FAIR. THE FEDERAL.

GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT ACT TO MAKE OPPORTUNITIES FOR

RICH AND POOR EXACTLY EQUAL."--7 carieER

Protection |

SCA 2 - School Integration

A constitutional amendment placed

on the. November, 1979. ballot. and

passed by the electorate as Proposition

1. Supplants California's de facto

standard of segregation with federal de

jure standard.

The latest U.S. Supreme Court

decisions, however, indicate that in

application there may be very little

difference. Senator Alan Robbins is

now scrambling about with a new bill to

amend the California Evidence Code to

prevent the federal standard from being

applied in the same way it is applied in

federal courts.

SB 1244 (Robbins) - School

Secregation

Quickly authored by Robbins after

the U.S. Supreme Court Ohio rul-

ings that make segregation provable

even under the de jure standard, this

bill would make it practically impos-

~ sible to prove that segregation exists, or

that it has been intentionally caused

and perpetrated by a school board.

The practical effect of SB 1244 would

be to wipe out all remedies to intention-

al segregation in California. This would

include not only busing, but school con-

struction, decisions regarding which

schools to abandon in the face of declin-

ing enrollment, and reassignment of

pupils to undo schemes which deliber-

ately gerrymander schools according to

. race.

In the recent Ohio cases, the U.S.

Supreme Court stated that proof of in-

tentionally segregative school board ac-

tions in a meaningful portion of a

school system establishes a prima facie

case that intentional segregation exists

`system-wide. This rule effectively shifts

to school authorities the burden of

- proving that other segregated schools

_within the system are not also the result

_ information

of intentionally segregative actions.

School integration litigation involves

a massive assembly of facts and figures

which only the defendants (school

districts) possess. If plaintiffs in these

cases have to prove intentional segrega-

tions in all segregated schools before a

system-wide remedy can be granted, it

would be effectively impossible to prove

segregation under the federal standard.

SB 1244 would provide that no Calif-

- ornia court could `"`shift, ameliorate or

modify" the plaintiff's burden of proof

in an integration case.

SB 1244's constitutionality is, of

course, pretty suspect. But its passage

means years of litigation to further de-

lay integration. (ACLU - )

Patients'

Rights

SB 480 (Smith) - Medical Privacy

Attempts to provide some control on

the dissemination of personal medical

by private insurance

companies and employers. Requires,

generally, that the individual patient

give written consent to each use of his or

her medical information, and restricts

use and disclosure only to the specific

purpose to which the patient has

consented. (ACLU +)

Bail Reform

AB 2 (Berman) - Bail Reform

Enables posting of bail bond directly -

to court, thus allowing poor pre-trial

defendants to be out of custody pending

trial. Traditionally, persons arrested of

a.crime in California may either be

released on their own recognizance

(OR) or post money bail. Practically

speaking, poor people are not con-

sidered good risks for OR, so they must

acquire a bail bond in the amount of

the money bail set by the court, by

paying a bail bonding company a 10%

premium. AB 2 allows a misdemeanor

defendant to post 10% of the bond

`directly with the court. When the (c)

fefendant appears for trial, 90% of that

10% deposit is returned. ;

AB 2 therefore makes it possible for

poor people to get out of jail pending

trial, since most all of the money

(perhaps loaned by friends and

relatives) will be refunded. (ACLU+)

`complete

procedure, and a stampede by the

Jan-Feb 1980

aclu news

Rape

SB 13 (Richardson) - Rape Penalties

Sends rape penalties through the

ceiling. Repeat offenders likely to do

more time than murderers. Opposed by

many women's groups in the belief that

juries will be less likely to convict.

Attempts (probably unsuccessfully) to

prevent plea bargaining in rape cases.

Its passage represented an almost

breakdown in_ legislative

Democratic majority in the face of

outrageous demagoguery. (ACLU -)

AB 546 (Mori) - Spousal Rape

Creates a new felony for forcible rape

of a spouse. Unlike persons convicted

under the current rape statute, persons

convicted of spousal rape need not

register as sex offenders. Maximum

penalty is 1 year in prison. (ACLU +)

Tenants'

pL

ie LNS WOMENS GAPHi

AB 771 (Hart) - Tenants' Free Speech

Makes defense of retaliatory eviction

more viable. Also provides a cause of

action for tenants against their land-

lords, if they are evicted in retaliation

for exercise of their first amendment

rights, or for engaging in tenant

organizing activities. (ACLU +)

LEGISLATIVE ARTISANS _

. Knox - Attacked by the Right

. McCarthy - Civil Liberties Ally

- ro

//0x00B0 N71 |

|

a

(c)

Sa

@ Jan-Feb 1980

aclu news

by Dave Linn

The California Supreme Court in

People y. Blair ruled on November 9

that police officers may not obtain

credit card account information on an

individual from a credit card company

without judicial authorization, in agree-

ment with an ACLU amicus brief.

Blair involved a murder case in which

a Pennyslvania resident was accused of

killing two Californians in their Los

Angeles home. The prosecution case

was based in large part on circum-

stantial evidence that defendent Blair

had been in the Los Angeles area on the

night of the murders.

The prosecution entered into

evidence information provided by credit

card companies to prove the

defendant's whereabouts. However, the

information had been obtained without

judicial authorization.

The first trial ended in a hung jury,

and the defendant was convicted on re-

trial. Blair appealed on the grounds

that the credit card information had

been obtained in violation of the Cali-

fornia Constitution's protection against

unreasonable search and seizure.

The defense argument was given

weight by the 1974 California Supreme

Court's decision in Burrows v. Superior

Court, which held that police may not

obtain bank records without authori-

zation by a judge. However, the appel-

late court refused to extend Burrows to

the facts in Blair, making certain dis-

tinctions between credit cards and bank

_ accounts.

Unwarranted

The ACLU has successfully appealed

the conviction of Eleanor Kraft, a Santa

Clara County attorney, arrested for

interfering with police officers following

her demand to see a search warrant

during a police raid of her client's

Sacramento home. .

The Appellate Department of the

Sacramento Superior Court agreed in a

unanimous opinion with the ACLU

argument that a person's right to ask

the police to present a search warrant

prior to a search is protected by the

First and Fourth Amendments.

- The Appellate Department ruled that

two instructions given to the jury at the

first trial in March 1979, were incorrect.

The Court held that the Penal Code

does not require that a warrant be

shown and that words alone may not

form the basis for a conviction for

interfering with police officers, when

the words are the good faith assertion of :

a constitutional right.

The Court did not order the case

dismissed, but instead remanded it to

the trial court for a new trial.

Ms. Kraft had previously been

sentenced to do 60 hours of community

work, and has long since completed the

work. Should she be convicted at the

second trial, the Constitution prohibits

a greater sentence in the absence of

extenuating circumstances.

Nonetheless the District Attorney o

Sacramento has announced that he will

retry the defendant. The retrial is set to"

begin on February 19.

The ACLU entered the case on

appeal to the Supreme Court.

The ACLU amicus brief, prepared by

volunteer attorney Robert Florey III,

argued that the police could obtain a

`virtual current biography" of a person

simply by compiling credit card

records. Florey also pointed out that

with 500 million credit cards in use in

the U.S. the potential for police abuse

of individual privacy rights in this area

is almost unlimited.

The Supreme Court unanimously

agreed with the ACLU argument. Said

Justice Mosk in the opinion, ``As with

bank statements (Burrows), a person

who uses a credit card may reveal his

habits, opinions,tastes and political

views, as0x00B0well as his movements and

financial affairs . . . the pervasive use

- of credit cards for an ever-expanding

variety of purposes - business, social,

personal, and family - and the

intimate nature of the information re-

vealed by the records amply justify (a

strong expectation of privacy).''

Credit Cards Don't Hold Charge

The Court concluded that the trial

court had erred by admitting into

evidence credit card records obtained

without judicial process.

According to staff attorney Margaret

Crosby who worked on the case, `"The

threat represented by large private data

compilation systems to individual

privacy is an area in which the ACLU

has been extremely active for a long

time. This case represents a significant

extension of our victory in the Burrows

case, which the ACLU also handled."

The holding did not turn out so nicely

for defendant Blair, however, as his

murder conviction was affirmed. The

Supreme Court held that the trial

court's error in admitting the credit

card evidence was ``not prejudicial"'

since the evidence was corroborated by

independent testimony.

Crosby commented that this holding

`does not diminish the protections af-

forded by the basic principle articulated

in the opinion, which will ensure that

similar evidence is excluded in future

trials."'

Book Reading Leads to Content

On December 4, the U.S. Supreme

Court let stand the anti-war bombing

conspiracy conviction of Oregon pro-

fessor Frank Giese who argued that the

verdict was based solely on his reading

of a book of revolutionary writings.

The ACLU entered as amicus curiae

in the case after the Ninth Circuit Court -

of Appeals by a vote of 2 to'l upheld the

federal district court conviction. The

ACLU usually does not file amicus

briefs until after the Supreme Court has

decided to review a case. But the dan-

gerous precedents established by the

Court of Appeals decision compelled

the ACLU to depart from long-standing

practice.

During the course of the trial, the

prosecution emphasized the fact that

/ LIBERATION NEWS SERVICE

Giese's fingerprints were found in the.

book (which was found in another

defendant's possession) and forced Giese

to read aloud inflammatory passages

from the book in the courtroom.

The ACLU brief, prepared by volun-

teer attorney Peter Sly, argued ``The

state cannot constitutionally punish an ~

individual for his reading material; to

do so is tantamount to seeking to

control his thoughts.

``A more chilling threat to the free-

dom of thought is difficult to

imagine."'

The implications of the Supreme

Court decision are formidable: not only

for Professor Giese who had already lost

his teaching position as a result of the

earlier verdict and now faces prison,

but also for the First Amendment. As

former Court of Appeals Justice Shirley

Hufstedler said in the dissenting

opinion. "The contents of the book were

not admissable for any purpose in this

case and the compulsory reading from

the book made the error even more _

egregious. 2

"The prosecutor's transparent pur-

pose in requiring Giese to read the

inflammatory passages in the book was

to convey to the jury that the words of

the author were the words of Giese.

`Freedom of speech would be totally

destroyed if the shadow of the

prosecutor fell across the pages of the

books we read."

Leegal Briefs'

Military Gays

On January 4, the ACLU filed an

appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals on

behalf.of a former U.S. Army lieutenant

who is seeking a declaration that his

court martial conviction is

unconstitutional.

An earlier ACLU motion for

summary judgement was rejected by the

U.S. District Court on November S.

Lt. Joseph Hatheway, having served 4

years with the Army, was ten days away

from being honorably discharged when

charges of sexual misconduct with an

enlisted man were brought against him.

Hatheway was convicted by a court

martial and all his military appeals

were denied.

The ACLU is arguing that the court

martial conviction should be struck

down in Federal court on the grounds

that not only are private sexual acts be-

tween consenting adults protected by

the Constitution, but also that the sec-

tion of the Military Code under which

Hatheway was convicted was' never en-

forced against heterosexuals, thereby

denying homosexuals equal protection

under the law. y.

The ACLU motion for summary

judgement was argued by cooperating

attorney Christopher Coates who was

the lieutenant's legal counsel during

the original: court martial in Germany

and is now with the ACLU's Southern

Regional Office.

ACLU staff counsel Alan Schlosser

said of the district court decision, ""The

Court gave no explanation as to why

they denied our request. The ACLU

position of the unconstitutionality of

the military conviction still stands and

that is why we have taken the case to the

Court of Appeals.

The former lieutenant is currently en-

rolled in a PhD program at the Uni-

versity of Wisconsin where he is

specializing in civil liberties' abuses of

Germany's Third Reich. |

{itty est VHT

na

Prison Privacy

The California Supreme Court last

month agreed to hear the case of

DeLancie v. McDonald, a major ACLU

prison privacy case which was won in

the California Court of Appeal in

October (ACLU News, October 79).

The appellate court had ruled that

the San Mateo County Sheriff's practice

of covert electronic monitoring and

tape-recording conversations between

prisoners awaiting trial and their

visitors, as well as conversations be-

tween prisoners in their cells violated

the California Constitution's guarantee.

of privacy. .

The recent Supreme Court decision

to hear the case means that the decision

of the lower court is vacated and the

electronic surveillance will continue

until the Supreme Court makes its final

~ decision.

A hearing date has not yet been set.

XN

Na

Jan-Feb 1980

aclu news

~ ACLU Anti-Draft

Lobbyist Tells All

In December, David Landau, vice-

chair of the Committee Against

Registration and the Draft (CARD) and

staff counsel with the ACLU's

' Washington office, visited the Bay Area

to speak on the national anti- draft

campaign.

Landau is the ACLU's chief lobbyist

against the draft in Congress, and has

had to use a wide variety of tactics and

arguments in his lobbying work. The

ACLU News asked him about some of

the conflicts inherent in trying to lobby

against the draft on behalf of the

ACLU.

News: In your view, what made CARD

successful in opposing draft

registration?

Landau: Well,

organization of a large, nationwide

anti-dratt .movement. Since more

people are against the draft than are for

it, most' of ahe letters that

Congresspeople got were on our side of

the issue.

I think that the key element, though,

was the establishment in Washington of

a very. sophisticated, - concentrated,

direct-lobbying campaign. Rather than

concentrating on mass action, as in past

anti-draft movements, we all wore suits

and ties and went into Congress to speak

part of it "was the

to them about the substance of the-

issue.

`News: Which is?

Landau: Which. is the All. Volunteer

- Force (AVF). Congressmen might say to

"Oh, you're the ACLU: of course

you're going to oppose the draft.' But

then we could come back and say,

"Yeah, I'm opposed to the draft, but let

me tell you something else: you think

the All-Volunteer Force isn't working,

but I know that it cents. working, and a

are the statistics which prove. it." So

then the Congressman asks. himeclt

"Well then, why do my colleagues want.

to bring back the draft? I don't un-

derstand!"

On this issue we were joined by a

number of other Washington lobbying

groups: the United Church of Christ,

the Friends Committee on National

Legislation, and other religious and

peace people. :

News: Things look pretty strange when

the Friends and the ACLU "start

defending the AVF, that is, defending

the military.

Landau: Well yes, that was

comfortable for most of us to do. But

even people who are opposed to the

military altogether, if their principal

objective is to stop the draft, must first.

undercut the argument that the AVF

doesn't work. Actually, we are very

fortunate that the AVF does work: if it:

didn't, we would only be able to oppose

the draft with moral arguments . ; : this

way we can sound pragmatic as well,

and thus take them on their own turf

News: I can still hear some ACLU

members out there saying that it's not

our job to defend the army.

Landau: Right: but it's our job to stop

the draft, and in doing so, I think we

have to use any good argument that is

available to us and which is likely to be

effective.

un--

News: Might there be an argument

which would be against the principles of

the ACLU to use? What would be going

`too far?

Landau: There are many things a

lobbyist has to do to win a battle: you

develop a sense of ruthlessness on

Capitol Hill, because the opposition is

ruthless too. I don't know what would -

be going too far at this point. ...

News: But shouldn't we remain

principled to an extent? When do we

become open to charges of op-

portunism?

Landau: Well, our principle is to

oppose the peacetime draft, and draft

registration.

News: What about the issue of

economic conscription: that is, that the

All Volunteer Force is really a draft,

since poor people have no choice

economically other than to join the

military?

Landau: Well, the National Board has

not taken a position on this.

News: Yes, but the National Board has

not taken a position favoring the

concept of the All Volunteer Force

either, but this doesn't stop you from

defending it in Congress.

Landau: Yes, but it is implicit in the

Board's policy that we should have a

military.

News: Really?

Landau: That's my interpretation. I

mean, the ACLU admits that wartime

conscription is constitutional, and we

Michael Miller

have issued lots of statements saying

that national security interests are very

important. I don't think you'd find

anyone on the board who would dispute

that.

Perhaps now in the more reasonable

atmosphere of peacetime we could get

the National Board to reconsider its

position on' a wartime draft. The

Minnesota Civil Liberties Union, for

example, has already.come out against

a draft under all circumstances. But

until the National Board comes out

against the military and against a

wartime draft, I have to appear to favor

the military in Congress, and of course

it is therefore both principled and in

our interests to support the All

Volunteer Force as an alternative to a

peacetime draft.

`News: Does. the ACLU make other

arguments against the draft as well?

. like

minus,

IF only iF

prevented

~ War..!

Landau: Yes. The principal obligation

we have in Washington is to make the

civil liberties and constitutional

arguments against the draft, and that is

what we do. But in the beginning of the

battle against the draft, nobody was

making the arguments in favor of the

All Volunteer Force and how effective it

really was. So what we did initially was -

to go to the administration and try to

prod them to defend the All Volunteer

ent eG: feral cf aa

RECISTRATION |

SS

PIR

oS

PU TCL aR

Sy

SS

ers

Leer

EEE

SEG

=

SSS SSS ag

a CDRs

SES

ey,

Pe

since knew the ad-

Force,

ministration did not want this draft.

we

After' a lot of prodding the ad-

ministration began to strongly defend

the AVF, and we were then free to make

the civil liberties arguments. Thus once

our administration got its act together,

I can assure you that our principal

lobbying effort dealt with constitutional

questions, rather than defending the

AVF.

Letters

As a Marin County "`liberal'' whose

"limousine" is a 1970 Dart with myriad

dents and a steadfast heart; whose truly

"comfortable life style'' is accomodated.

to an annual cash income of below

$5000; who matches the `"`uncounted |

--years -

Mr. Charles J. Maisel, Jr. of San Rafael

of dedication to civil liberties by

with half a century of his own, I should

to present a more _ localized

response to Mr. Maisel's letter than Mr.

-Shattuck's cogent reply.

For that same half century | have

been dedicated to the ecological im-

perative, as | perceived the indivisibility

of the two causes. What shall it avail the

oppressed to win the right to share Our

House if the termites destroy it in the

meantime?

It seems incredible that anyone who

reads anything current should fail to

perceive the long-standing violation of

civil rights, and the burgeoning threats

of more, inherent to nuclear

proliferation. It all portends a toss-up

as to whether the last vestige of those

rights or life on earth goes first in a

cloud of greed-fired nuclear madness.

As a conservationist in that mythical

Marinland, I have encountered on hikes

and camp-outs a number who can

reconcile nukes with survival in a

viable ambiance of free people. They

turned out to be acolytes of the Bechtel

Temple across The Bridge.

1 fear Mr. Maisel knows no more

about the Joe McCarthy he invokes

than about the sordid history of nuclear

"incidents." Joe would have adored

Bechtel; and. Teller. Such as 1 he

touched only with.a ten-foot polemic.

If anyone is interested in how I live so

well in Fabulous Marin on five-grand-

I shall be happy to show my

vegetable garden and give lessons in

doing your own plumbing - just for

starters. 4

Glenn B. Meagher

Fairfax

~some very relevant details.

Those who see serious threats to civil

liberties in nuclear power are hardly

using the ACLU for "`non-related

purposes" as Charles J. Maisel claims

in his letter in the December ACLU.

News. John Shattuck's reply mentioned

We need

more.

I would like to see specific aspects of

the problem explored in further issues.

For example, Roy Lewis in `Nuclear

Power and Employment Rights" ex-

plores major encroachments on the

rights of workers employed in the

nuclear industry. A report by the

National Advisory Committee on

Criminal Justice (March 1977) contains

the suggestion that legislation

suspending congressional debate and

Supreme Court review be prepared to

deal with nuclear emergencies.

It is indeed relevant for ACLU

members to press for public discussion

of these and similar ominous proposals.

In the meantime I mention some

informative reading material and ask

that additional items from _ other

readers be listed as the controversy

evolves. The New Tyranny: How

Nuclear Power Enslaves Us by Robert

Jungk details the suppression of civil

liberties because of nuclear power in the

U.S. and other nations.

Jungk writes, ``Numerous studies

have shown how nuclear energy en-

dangers human life. This book will

show how it also.threatens our basic

freedoms.' And the book does that very

convincingly.

An article in the January issue of The

Progressive entitled ``nuclear Big

Brother' cites specific instances of

erosion of civil liberties that have

already occurred. It includes a list of

organizations active in documenting

surveillance and harassment of the anti-

nuclear movement in the U.S.

Sarita Cordell

_ San Francisco

Jan-Feb 1980

aclu news

Chapter Fights Police Abuse

ACLU chapters often find they can ~

do little. about police. misconduct

complaints, except to tell the caller

"find a good lawyer.'' However, when

the Avila case, discussed below, came to'

the Monterey Chapter, the Board

responded by helping to build a local

defense committee, whose out-of-court

activities proved crucial. The Avila trial

is over, but the citizen's committee and

the Monterey Chapter continue to work

against police abuse in Marina. - Ed. .

By Richard Criley

Monterey Chapter Chair

"Arrest for Minor Traffic Violation

Turns into Major Disturbance; Eight

Booked,'' read the Monterey Peninsula

Herald headline. Police misconduct is

probably the most pervasive local civil

liberties problem, but it is a difficult

issue to organize a reform movement

around. This story, however, is dif-

ferent.

On March 6, 1979, Helen and Alfred

Avila, one son, two daughters, and

three friends were all arrested by the

`Marina police for disturbing the peace,

assaulting a police officer, resisting

arrest, and more.

Marina, which is adjacent to Fort

Ord, has a reputation for having the

worst police department on_ the

Monterey Peninsula. Allegations of

brutality are common, but usually very

hard to prove.

I visited Helen Avila, a Native

American mother of eight, to get this _

family's story.

Avila said that one month earlier her

son Joey, a star pitcher in his high

school League, had been severely

beaten by the Marina police following

his arrest on a minor charge. Helen

began to consider filing police brutality

charges, and discovered a dozen cases,

which she relayed to the editors of the

Herald, and in a letter to the weekly

Marina Tribune. Less than a week

later, police arrested the Avilas and

their friends on the pretext of in-

_vestigating a legally unfounded traffic

violation. The arrests were the scene of

a protracted ``battle'"' in a neighbor's

home.

During the fracas, police invaded the

house and seized Helen Avila while she

attempted to telephone a Herald

reporter. All of the arrested persons,

including a 14-year-old daughter, were

manhandled, handcuffed, and jailed. A

dozen California Highway Patrol and

Monterey Sheriff personnel were called

in, as well as the Marina Police and Fire

Departments. Public Safety Director

Gerald Galvan, a former marine officer,

was quoted as saying, `""We ee a lot of

restraint."

One Avila daughter, who had seen her

ten-year-old: brother being maced, and

her mother and sister beaten, com-

mented afterwards, "I couldn't believe

what I saw: it was like a movie."

The Monterey ACLU chapter agreed

to help organize a support committee

called Concerned Citizens for Justice in

Marina, in order to protect local

citizens from police misconduct. Our

immediate aim was a fair trial for the

Avilas. We hoped that by establishing a

public record of police misconduct, we

couid open the door for improvement of

police-community relations.

In Marina, as elsewhere, most victims (c)

of police brutality plead guilty to minor

charges (often fabricated by police), in

exchange for a promise of no jail or

fine, There is an added stipulation that

no civil suits will be filed against the

police: this is how most police brutality

complaints remain "unfounded."

With the backing of Concerned

Citizens and the ACLU, the Avilas felt

confident about going ahead with a jury

trial.

Chief Galvan struck back with many

prejudicial and false statements to the

press. The nadir was reached when he

nominated Officer Brassfield, a

principal actor in the Avila indicent and

frequent target of other citizen com-

plaints, for the honor of `Marina

Public Safety Officer of the Year."

We helped Concerned Citizens draft

replies to the press, and we appeared

with local residents before the Marina

Council to request that they reprimand

Galvan.

Despite continued police harassment,

Concerned Citizens continued to

organize and raised over $3000 from

car-washes,

dinners, fund appeals and rummage

sales to finance their campaign. Over

$600 from local ACLU members was

netted from one appeal.

The organizing paid off at the trial.

The jury rejected the testimony of

eleven prosecution witnesses, mostly .

police officers, and quickly found

Alfred and Helen Avila innocent of the

five charges. A sixth charge was later

dismissed by the court.

The Avilas now hope to file a civil

damage suit if they can raise sufficient

funds. To keep the heat on, the ACLU

has requested that a County grand jury

investigate the police.

Since the trial, the Marina police

have attempted to avoid major in-

cidents of misconduct, but some have

nonetheless occurred. Some of the more

heavily criticized police, including

"officer of the year'' Brassfield, have

left the force.

The victory belongs to the people of -

Marina, who braved police retaliation

and provided the troops. But our

Marina friends insist that ACLU help

was crucial in creating confidence,

working with the citizens' committee

on press relations, and developing

policies and tactics.

The ACLU has also gained con-

siderable prestige in one of the few

multi-racial, working-class com-

munities of the Monterey Peninsula.

Action/ Reacuon

POLICE BEAT. When all the shouting

stopped following the shooting of

Melvin Black by Oakland police last

March, only two organizations sub-

mitted serious proposals for a police re-

view mechanism, the NAACP and the

ACLU's Earl Warren Chapter. The

chapter, led in this fight by Jim Pachl

and Mike Coppersmith, endorsed the

NAACP proposal and worked for the

creation of a review board which the

city council ``approved in principal"

(meaning: it may not have teeth) in

early January . . . Moving north,

the Berkeley Chapter led a successful

_ drive to have the city council. reaffirm

it's policy against police using dogs...

And to the south. Monterey imported

leading expert on police abuse and

spying, Linda Valentino, for a forum on

those subjects. Linds showed The

Intelligence Network, a movie about

national police and FBI spying.

GIVE US CREDIT. The Stockton

Chapter has put it together with the

University of Pacific to sponsor four ex-

tension education sessions on ``What's

~The Law? Rights and Responsibilities

of Students, Parents, and School

Personnel.' An A-plus to Dr. Barbara

Redalia, chairwoman of the chapter's

forum committee ... From another

angel, Marin members have been

educating Novato High authorities on

problems with their dress code ...

Seventy Berkeley-Albany-Kennsington

members learned what was on

Assemblyman Tom Bates's mind at a

wine and cheese party last month in

Mike and Pat Devito's house ...

B.A.K. needs telephone volunteers to

advise the public when they call the

` well chosen words .

ACLU for help. Wanna get involved?

Call Eileen Keech at 848-0089.

WITH A LITTLE HELP FROM OUR |

FRIENDS. Long-time faithful followers

of radio station KPFA will want to

make a special effort to attend the San

Francisco Chapter's theater benefit for

Fay Stender (see Calendar), because

just before the play, Elsa Knight

Thompson will say a few of her always

isn't just playing around. They've also

hired a part-time lawyer to help them

look at the civil liberties implications in

the charter revision process. You

should see the results about election

time.

WHAT'S UP DOC. Chris Chrisman, out

there with Mt. Diablo Chapter, is or-

ganizing a forum for this spring on the

"Rights of Mental Patients."" Watch

this space for more details . . . ACLU-

NC vice-chair Eva Jefferson Paterson

spoke in Novato on ``The Many Faces of

Racism" at a public meeting set up by

Marin board... Marin has also

assigned three of its board members to

act as liason with local minority organi-

zations.

2 NT GE A SR RE EE SE EE RE GT EE SS GS SE EE EE GR SE RE UE RE Te we

SIGN ME UP FOR THE CIVIL LIBERTIES LOBBY.

chicken with enchilada -

CHAPTERS

Gay Rights

PUBLIC FORUM. Thursday, Feb.

21, 7:30 p.m., Metropolitan Com-

munity Church, 150 Eureka (btwn.

18 and 19th), San Francisco; parking

is limited, take Muni buses 8, 24, 35,

to Castro and 18th, walk three blocks

east. Feminism and Pornography.

Coffee hour to follow.

Earl Warren

ART AUCTION. Saturday, March

1, 7 p.m., Veterans Building, 401

Hilgard Ave., Piedmont. Original

graphics, oils and water colors by in- "

ternational award winning artists in-

cluding Dali, Miro, and Chagall.

Refreshments; $1 admission.

Information: Dar Coppersmith, 415-

552-2626.

San Francisco ~

FAY STENDER THEATER

BENEFIT. Tuesday, February 19,

430 Mason Street (off Geary), San

Francisco. One Act Theater Com-

pany of San Francisco performs

`The Dock Brief,'' a comedy.

Reception with no-host wine, coffee, -

dessert at 7:15 p.m.; program at

8:15 p.m.; $15 or $25 for two; bene-

`fit for Fay Stender. Ticket orders: P.

Sarasohn, 173 Buena Vista Ave. E.,

ce F. 94117 or call (415) 621-0837.

. San Francisco |

--Calendar-,

aD

ACLU Lobby

Armed with such food for thought as

`Choice Is As American As Apple Pie,"

on January 22 in Sacramento, a hot-

cooking coalition of pro-choice organi-

zations awarded fifty California legisla-

tors apple pies for supporting such leg-

islation as full funding for Medi-Cal -

abortions.

In order to demonstrate that "The

Right To Choose Is At the Core of De-

mocracy,'' the abortion rights

advocates presented carefully wrapped

apple cores to their forty staunchest

opponents.

January 22 marks the seventh anni-

versary of the U.S. Supreme Court de-

cision (Doe vy. Wade) which held that

the `right to privacy ... is broad

enough to encompass a woman's deci-

sion whether or not to terminate her

pregnancy.'

The pro-choice coalition includes the

ACLU-NC and the Civil Liberties

Lobby which have been involved for the

past year in an intensive campaign for

full Medi-Cal funding for abortions.

AB 1348, awaiting a conference com-

mittee, would permanently cut-back

this funding by almost 90 percent.

Return to:Lobby, ACLU- NG, 814 Mission St.,

_Suite 301, San Francisco, 94103.

i Name

Address

I City - Zip_

Phone (h) (w)

I