vol. 45, no. 2

Primary tabs

Volume L

March 1980

Inside - Anti-Draft Guide, Abortion, Cruising

No. 2

Michael Miller

irector Dorothy Ehrlich sp

ence. Back row (I. to r.): Chris Lee, Dell Se Supervisor ae ae Lee Halterman.

As provided by the ACLU by-laws,

1981 board directly: The nominating

committee is already seeking sugges-

tions from the membership to fill at-

large positions on the board.

ACLU members may participate

ways:

[1] Amey. may send suggestions for

ACLU-NC Board Nominations | :

revised in 1976, the ACLU-NC mem- (c)

bership is entitled to elect its 1980- -

in the nominating process in two

the Nominating Committee's consid-

eration before April 15, 1980. (Add- _

ress your suggestions to the Nomina-

ting Conimittee's attention, ACLU,

814 Mission St., suite 301, S.F.

94103. Include your suggested nimi-

nee's qualifications and how he or

she canbe reached.) __

[2] They can submit a petition0x2122

with the signatures of 15 current

continued on page 8

bre ich for GI's

`By Permit Only' - Ruling

"The decision to severely limit the

First Amendment rights of military

personnel comes at a particularly bad

time when the whole issue of the draft is

being reopened. The crucial need for

Congress to be able to secure

information directly from enlisted

people will now be severely hampered,"

said ACLU cooperating attorney Joseph

Remcho about the recent U.S. Supreme

Court decision in Allen v. Monger.

The: case was filed on behalf-of crew

members of two U.S. aircraft carriers in

1973. They had been prohibited from

circulating petitions to Congress which -

protested the movement of their ships

- during the Vietnam War.

The captains of both ships, the

U.S.S. Hancock and the U.S.S.

Midway denied the crews permission to

circulate petitions. They invoked a

naval regulation which required ``prior

approval' for the distribution of

materials which presented a `clear

danger to the loyalty, discipline, or

morale of military personnel,'' or which

would ``materially interfere with the

accomplishment of a military mission."

Though the federal district court

struck down the regulation as `"`an

unconstitutional restraint on First

Amendment activity" and the appellate

court, upholding the lower court's

decision ruled ``no person may restrict

any member of an armed force in

communication with a member of Con-

gress..."', the Navy and Department of

- Defense continued their appeal to the

U.S. Supreme Court, where it was

finally successful.

In two related cases the U.S.

Supreme Court on January 21 upheld

the military regulations which require

members of the service to obtain

approval from their commanders before

circulating petitions on base.

The opinion stated, `Free speech

rights could undermine the

effectiveness of response to command.

Speech likely to interfere with these

vital prerequisites for military

effectiveness therefore can be excluded

froma military base."

Following this opinion, the court, as

expected, remanded Allen v. Monger

back to the Ninth Circuit Court for a

ruling in light of the high court. deci-

sion.

Remcho ocolained "This is a terrible

decision in that the Court went out of its

`way to reach First Amendment issues

_and to say that servicemen's rights are

strictly limited." Remcho was an ACLU

staff attorney when he first filed the

case in 1973.

~ "deja vu."

ACLU Fights Draft

Registration

-others quickly added (if they had not al-

ACLU and public response in

northern California to President

Carter's ill-advised attempt to reinstate

draft registration has been quick,

incisive, and extensive.

e January 23: Carter gives State of

Union address announcing registration

plans.

e January 24: ACLU-NC Broce

Director Dorothy Ehrlich writes a letter

on behalf of 20,000 ACLU-NC

members pledging a strong campaign

to stop the draft registration.

-@ January 25: At a well attended

press conference Ehrlich joins represen-

tatives of anti-draft organizations and

staff members from local Congressional

offices to demonstrate widespread op-

_ position to Carter's proposals.

In this same short period following

Carter's announcement, members of

the Civil Liberties Lobby who helped

defeat a similar registration proposal

last summer, began receiving organ-

izing material. These individual ACLU

members throughout Northern Cali-

fornia (as across the country) then

began to lobby local Congressional

Representatives.

Many members of the public turned

to the ACLU-NC to ask what the new

registration proposals really were, what

they meant to them or their children,

and how they could fight back.

West Coast anti-draft organizers,

themselves starved for accurate infor-

mation, started running up significant (c)

`telephone bills to Washington, D.C.,

seeking help from the national ACLU

office, the Committee Against Regis-

tration and the Draft (C.A.R.D.), and

the National Interreligious Service

Board for Conscientious Objectors

(NISBCO).

Deja Vu

In the month following Carter's State

of the Union, campus anti-draft

coalitions emerged at U.C. Berkeley,

Stanford, the state universities, and

even smaller private schools such as

University of the Pacific in Stockton.

Qn one day in February, Daniel

Ellsberg, Tom Hayden, and David

Harris spoke at different campus anti-

draft rallies in California.

Some over-30 activists, ACLU mem-

bers, and newspaper reporters called it

Comparisons to the anti-

Vietnam war period were made. Most

people, however, on campus and off,

were concentrating on stopping the

draft - 1980's style.

Traditional pacifist and anti-military |

groups, anti-nuclear organizations,

Vietnam veterans groups, and many

ready) stopping the draft to their

agenda.

Staff members with leading anti-

draft organizations - American

Friends Service Committee, Central

Committee for Conscientious

Objectors, and ACLU - went home

every night with the incessant telephone

still ringing in their ears.

Letter to Carter

In the ACLU letter to Carter, Ehrlich

said, "`I am writing to express our great

alarm and anger at your sudden

reversal of position on draft

registration.

"The ACLU has consistently opposed

peacetime draft registration. We do so

on the premise that it is in fact un-

constitutional: the Selective Service sys-

_tem violates the constitutional guaran-

tees of equal protection and of privacy

which are the very framework of our

system of government.

Therefore, the ACLU will resume

and revitalize a nationwide campaign to

stop the reintroduction of draft regis-

tration in Congress, just as we did to

stop draft legislation last summer.'

In accordance with this promise to

Carter, the ACLU-NC, in conjunction

with national and Washington offices of

the ACLU has been campaigning

vigorously to defeat the draft

' registration proposal.

Lobbying Campaign

Kim Corsaro

According to David Landau, staff

counsel for the ACLU Washington

office and vice-chair of C.A.R.D., `The

Civil Liberties Lobby has taken on anti-

registration work as a top priority.

continued on page 5

Anti-Draft rally at Berkeley

aclu news

March 1980

ACLU History

Neazly forty years after the fact, the

California Legislature this year

declared February 19 "A Day of

Remembrance: Japanese American

Evacuation."

dhe date was chosen, in.the words of

the Act, ``to reflect upon that day of

February 19 in 1942 when Executive

Order No. 9066 was issued to place over

110,000 persons of Japanese ancestry,

most of whom were citizens of the

United States, in American con-

centration camps during World War II,

and to commemorate that day of

February 19 of 1976 when Executive

Order No. 9066 was rescinded."

At the time of issuance, however, the

ACLU-NC was one of the only

organizations to challenge Executive

Order 9066. The story of that challenge

is an interesting one, not only for the

vociferous stand taken by the ACLU-

NC against the egregious and racist

regulation, but for the strains that that

stance produced between the Northern

California affiliate and the national

ACLU.

President Roosevelt signed Executive

Order 9066 in 1942, authorizing

military commanders to prescribe areas.

from which any and all persons might

be excluded and Public Law 503 which

made it a misdemeanor for anyone to

"enter, remain in, leave or commit any

act in any military area" contrary to the

military commander's order.

Shortly thereafter, a series of civilian

exclusion orders were issued which

resulted in the round-up and forcible

seizure of some 73,000 citizens of

Japanese ancestry and 43,000 Japanese

aliens. Armed troops escorted them to

Assembly Centers, and from there to 10

guarded camps euphemistically

misnamed War Relocation Centers.

These acts were immediately

protested by the national and Northern

California offices of the ACLU.

However, when the ACLU-NC

became involved in a series of cases

challenging the constitutionality of the

restrictive laws and orders, the national

ACLU did not support the litigation.

The ACLU-NC assumed entire

responsibility in the Korematsu case

and filed amicus briefs and provided

further support in three other cases,

Yasui, Hirabayashi, and Endo.

_ The Korematsu case was the first to

challenge the constitutionality of the

internment of Japanese Americans.

Fred Korematsu was born and raised in

Oakland. In 1942, at the age of 23 he

-was arrested for failing to evacuate, and

imprisoned. The ACLU-NC posted his

bail of $1000, but instead of releasing

`Korematsu, the authorities transferred

him from jail to an Assembly Center.

Korematsu. was represented by

ACLU-NC attorney Wayne, Collins who

argued the case before the U.S.

Supreme Court in October, 1944.

The ACLU argued that the exclusion

laws deprived citizens and aliens of

liberty and property without due

process of law, in violation of the Fifth

Amendment.

In violation of the Fourth Amend-

ment, people had been subject to

unreasonable search and seizure. The

exclusion laws denied persons the right

to a speedy and public trial as

guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment.

Photo: Courtesy of JACL

Furthermore, the ACLU argued,

American citizens were treated as alien

enemies: without justification they were

labeled _ Suspects, disloyals and

criminals." They were imprisoned

"behind barbed wire and guarded by

military police.

There are no degrees of citizenship in

the U.S., nor can loyalty be determined

along ethnic lines, stated the Boot

brief,

All of these acts, the argument

continued, required more than good

motives of necessity for justification, for

"under the guise of military necessity

the technique of fascism operates best."

Despite . these strong constitutional

arguments, the Supreme Court ruled 6-

3 against the ACLU and upheld all of

the war measures on the grounds of

military necessity in a time of im-

mediate danger.

The ACLU-NC was involved in other

_work besides litigation to protest the

government's regulations. Throughout

the 1940's the pages of the ACLU News

were filled with stories protesting and

exposing the treatment of Japanese

Americans.

In the summer of 1944, ACLU-NC

Executive Director Ernest Besig went to

the Tule Lake Segregation Center to

interview evacuees. While he was there

Besig learned of 18 persons who had

been locked in the stockade for 18

months without a hearing or trial and

who were denied visits from their

families.

When he protested to the camp

director, he was ordered to leave Tule

Lake and was harassed by the

authorities. Salt was poured in the gas

tank of his car. Un a conversation 36

years later, Besig told me salt was

poured in his gas tank, not sugar as

originally reported. Ed.)

Only after an appeal was sent to the

Department of Justice, was Besig

allowed to visit the Tule Lake internees

and the 18 stockade prisoners released.

These and other ACLU-NC actions,

however, were not endorsed by the

national ACLU. In 1942, the national .

office, having retreated somewhat from

its previous opposition to the wartime

orders requested the affiliate to

drop Korematsu. The ACLU-NC

refused to withdraw.

Correspondence between the national

office and Alexander Meiklejohn, a

founder of the ACLU-NC, indicates

that at one point the tensions were so

strong that the national threatened the

ACLU-NC with disaffiliation. A series

of meetings and negotiations followed,

in which certain organizational

arrangements were agreed upon, but

the ACLU-NC never withdrew from any

of its challenges to the government

regulations. -

That. the ACLU-NC never

capitulated to pressure either from the

government, the general wartime anti-

Japanese hysteria, or the ACLU

national office is a credit both to the

organization, to the ACLU-NC Board

of Directors, and to certain strong

individuals like Ernest Besig, Wayne

Collins and Alexander Meiklejohn who

pursued this challenge vigorously.

As we can see today from both the

governmental and. private attacks on

Iranians during the current crisis, there

is a lesson to be learned from this

history.

This lesson was _ perhaps best

articulated by the late Edison Uno, an

ACLU-NC Board member and Co-

Chair of the National Committee to

i apanese American Internment

Repeal the Emergency Detention Act,

when he was awarded the Meiklejohn

Civil Liberties Award on behalf of the

Japanese American Citizens League in

1972.

-Uno said, ``For those of you who may

not recall the memories of the past 30

years when 110,000 Japanese, two-

thirds of them citizens, were subject to

the grossest injustices and deprivations

of civil rights, it was the ACLU who had

the courage to publicly oppose our

wartime treatment.

"We may have eliminated the

statutory provisions for detention

camps, but we must always remember it

takes eternal vigilance to improve

Democracy and we must struggle to

eliminate the camps of poverty... and

the psychological concentration camps

of fear, hate, racism and oprression."'

The above article was written by

Elaine Elinson, editor of the ACLU

News, based largely upon material from

The American Civil Liberties Union in

Northern California, a Master's Thesis -

by Robert Knutson (1950); the ACLU

News (1940-45); and a conversation

with former ACLU-NC_ Executive

Director Ernest Besig.

Photo: Courtesy of JA(

lranian Densrtation Decisions

The ACLU lawsuit challenging the |

government's directive requiring all

Iranian students to report for a visa

review is now being considered for

hearing before the U.S. Supreme Court.

On February 13, the ACLU filed a

petition for a writ of certiorari in the

high court. The petition was

necessitated when the U.S. Court of

Appeals for the District of Columbia

denied the ACLU motion for a

rehearing of the case before the full

Court of Appeals on January 31.

The ACLU had challenged the

November directive as unconstitational

in that it singled out Iranians on the

basis of their nationality for the visa

review. Judge Joyce Green of the U.S.

District Court agreed with the ACLU

arguments and ruled that the directive

was invalid and deportation hearings

must be stopped.

This ruling was reversed, however, by

a three-member panel of the Court of

Appeals.

Although

previously

the government had

enforce. final orders of deportation

`pending final decision of this case,

there is now evidence that some Iranian

students have already been deported

under the challenged INS directive.

voluntarily declined to.

`Ina meparale case, Iranian ee

in the U.S. won a major victory on

January 29, when the Ninth Circuit

Court of Appeals ruled that the INS

could not summarily deport the ap-

proximately 5000 Iranians who had

previously been granted permission to

remain in the U.S. until June 1, 1980.

The case, which was filed by the

National Lawyers Guild, had previously

been dismissed in the U.S. District.

Court on the grounds that the

revocation of the permission to stay

until June, 1980 was pursuant to

Presidential directives and therefore,

. legal.

However, the Court of Appeals ruled

that immigration officials could not

revoke the permissions to stay without

examining the effect of such a move on

each individual Iranian.

Before the June 1980 date could be

rescinded, the Court stated, each

Iranian had the right to have the cir-

cumstances of her or his case reviewed

to determine the extent to which they

relied on the government's promise that

they could remain in the U.S. on an

individual basis.

The Court of Appeals overturned the

- lower court ruling and ordered the case

reinstated to "`ascertain the factual

issues relating to each named plaintiff."'

aclu news

March 1980

Abortion:

_ Funds Restored

The February 19 U.S. Supreme

Court decision to deny a stay to the fed-

eral government in the case of McRae v.

Harris (Califano), means that both the

federal and state governments must

make funds available for all medically

necessary abortions throughout the na-

tion.

As a result of this ruling, the state of

California is currently entitled to more

_than $15 million annually in federal

funds for abortions, or approximately

half of the funding necessary for

106,000 abortions performed for

medically indigent women in California

each year.

_ Although the California legislature

slashed abortion funding from the

state's Medi-Cal budget in 1978 and

1979, at present the state is under obli-

- gation to pay for all Medi-Cal abortions

because of a California Supreme Court

order in an ACLU-NC lawsuit.

The ACLU suit, Committee to De-

fend Reproductive Rights (CDRR) v.

Myers, is a challenge to the state legis-

lature's budget cuts for Med-Cal abor-

tions on the grounds that the cuts vio-

late both the federal and state constitu-

tional rights of privacy, due process,

and equal protection.

According to ACLU staff attorney

Margaret Crosby, however, the federal

decision will still have implications for

abortion funding in California.

`In January, the Federal District

Court's decision in McRae invalidated

the U.S. Congress' legislation (Hyde

Amendment) which denied government

abortion funding to medically indigent

- women,' Crosby explained.

`This set an important precedent for

- our parallel case which is now pending

in the California Supreme Court," she

added. |

The district court stated that funds

must be provided for ``abortions that

are necessary in the professional judg-

ment of the pregnant woman's

attending physician exercised in the

light of all factors, physical, emotional,

psychological, familial and .the

woman's age, relevant to the health-re-

lated well-being of the pregnant

woman." All teenage abortions, for ex-

ample, are considered medically neces-

sary under this definition.

The government's appeal of the

McRae decision will be heard by the

_ U.S. Supreme Court in late April. The

denial of the stay means that federal

funds will now be available at least until

the Court makes its final decision.

_ There has been no date set yet for the

case of CDRR y. Myers in the California

Supreme Court. In light of the McRae

decision, it is possible that the state

court will schedule arguments following

the U.S. Supreme Court decision.

Nie aan MG ae

By Brent Barnhart

- ACLU-NC Legislative Advocate

Over the past 15 years the ACLU has

served as the prime watchdog over

criminal justice legislation that impacts

on civil liberties. Over the past few

months the vital check on _ un-

constitutional legislation in the

California Legislature has essentially

dissolved. This is due to a number of

circumstances, including right-wing

demagoguery, the Assembly leadership

battle, and the dimmed perception of

-many moderates and liberals regarding

the danger that expanded government

power poses to social progress and a

democratic society.

This makes the task of the ACLU

legislative lobby even more pressing. In

~ response, the ACLU lobby is turning to

allies whom we've seldom had to call

upon over the past decade. Much of our

time is currently being spent alerting

labor organizations to two dangerous

pieces of legislation being pushed by the

California District Attorneys

Association and Attorney General

Deukmejian. The bills, SCA 17

(Presley) and SB 1304 (Presley) would

have a massive impact on trade unions.

SCA 17: Preventive Detention

SCA 17 is a preventive detention

measure which has been repeatedly

rejected over the, past several years in

California, since it was first proposed by

the gone-but-not-lamented U.S.

Attorney General John Mitchell.

SCA 17 would amend the California

- Constitution to empower judges to set

excessive bail to keep people in jail

pending trial, if the judge determines

that "`considerations of public safety'

warrant it. Except for homicides,

current law allows bail to be based

solely on assuring that the accused show

up for trial.

From the prosecution point of view,

_ preventive detention provides a much

handier cudgel than an injunction. For

example, it dispenses with the nagging

requirements that danger to the public

safety be proven until after the arrestees

_have-spent a good stretch in jail.

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 (2)

Elaine Elinson, Editor Michael Miller, Chapter Page 2

ACLU NEWS (USPS 018-040)

_ 814 Mission St. -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 SO cents is for the national ACLU-bi-monthly publication, Civil Liberties.

Proponents of preventive detention

justify the measure on the grounds that

judges could then keep "dangerous

people"'

be imposed for all sorts of activities that

have social impact.

Strike-breaking

It takes little imagination to see how

preventive detention could be applied to

break the back of a strike. Hundreds of

strikers could be rounded-up and

penned in enclosures on any con-

ceivable charge, e.g. trespass, or ut-

tering terrorist threats. Preventive

detention could also be used against

anti-draft, anti-nuclear power, or civil

rights protesters.

6 TAT |

Bie

SB 1304: Searching Employees

SB 1304 poses much more immediate

problems for workers on the job. It

would expand the current "merchants'

privilege' to detain persons suspected

of shoplifting, to allow virtually all

private companies. throughout

California to detain and search for

theft.

in jail pending trial. Not only |

does this offend the whole notion of ~

presumption of innocence until proven

. guilty, but it also allows excessive bail to

SB 1304 also changes the present

standard for detention from "`probable

cause" to believe that someone has

committed a theft, to the far less

protective standard of `reasonable

suspicion." It also provides the

authority to search the person and the

property of anyone on the company's

premises.

The bill would therefore abolish any

claim of privacy that workers have on

the job. Employers and their agents

would be free to search the clothing,

lockers, lunch buckets and autos of any

employees on the barest of justifi-

cations.

Warning to Labor

Proponents of the bills maintain that

they have no intention of using such -

measures against workers. But ex-

perience teaches us that original in-

tentions impose no control after the

bills are enacted.

For example, in 1977 a Terrorist

Threats bill was enacted, supposedly

aimed at terrorists who took respon-

sibility for bombings. In response to

ACLU opposition, officials such as

then-District Attorney Joseph Freitas

.and then-Supervisor Dianne Feinstein

testified that they had no intention that

it be used against labor organizers or in

strike situations.

Two years later, just as the

ACLU warned, word comes from San

Diego and Imperial County that the

same felony Terrorist Threats law is

being used against United Farm

Workers' organizers.

Unless there is significant labor

opposition to SCA 17 and SB 1304 this

session, we can anticipate the same

result two or three years down the line.

Letters

We strongly believe that the ACLU

has no valid point to make, no Consti-

tutional point to defend, in pursuing its

case of the Iranian student visas.

1. ``National origin' is not the same

as ``national allegiance' or ``country of

citizenship."' Iranian-Americans have

not been the subject of U.S.. govern-

ment attention. The awful uprooting of

Japanese-Americans four decades ago

is not analogous to telling temporary

visitors to go home because they've

broken laws here.

The U.S. government has not singled

out anyone because of national origin.

Where allegiance to a particular hostile

government coincides with the infringe-

ment of our law - that's where our gov-

ernment focussed its attention. Thus,

not even all the Iranian students can be

expelled.

2. The Fifth Amendment provides

that ``no person... shall be deprived

of life, liberty or property without due

process of law.'' The government had

not proposed depriving student visa-

violators in this country of life, property

or liberty. It just wants them to go back

to their own declared home (or else-

where if they choose).

3. Ideally, our government should

apply the laws equally to all, including'

visitors from a hostile nation. But, in

practice, law enforcement occurs

sequentially. Law enforcement needs

either a) administrative leeway to catch

someone first, second, etc. or b) enough

manpower to arrest and prosecute all

alleged violators at once!

If we force a government to perform

all enforcement for all parties simultan-

eously, we'll put it in an untenable posi-

tion. Meanwhile, an administration

must "`provide for the common defense."

If the ACLU leadership decides to

continue spending our scant resources

in this litigation, please share with us

the reasoned position. What we have

read so far seems to reflect an ACLU

eagerness to avert a different American

reaction than the one now in litigation.

Dale and Doris Heckman

Sacramento

I have joined the ACLU because I

wish my mite of support to the issues

, you routinely so justly espouse.

The Jan-Feb issue of the ACLU News

gives the Iranian student situation in

the U.S.A. top billing. I could not agree

more that the Iranian students should

be treated fairly and kindly. Certainly

also, Iranian born U.S. citizens and

non-citizens should not be hated nor

harrassed in any way.

continued on page 8

aclu news

March 1980

CIVIL LI

SERTIES AND

Opinio

"This time the draft will be fair. No

more rich kids hiding out in college.

while others fight the wars. .

A common belief from the Vietnam

era is that student deferments allowed a

great number of otherwise qualified

young men to beat the draft. Today's

draft supporters assure us the new draft

will be different, it will be "`fair."'

Like the free lunch, the fair draft

exists only in stories.

The Central Committee for

Conscientious Objectors (CCCOQO), the

nation's leading draft counseling

organization pointed out in a recent

paper (on draft resistance): `There are

many ways to stay out of the military

during a draft and nearly all of them

are legal."

Most people who did beat the draft

legally during Vietnam did not do it as

students - that's the well documented

message from two former staff mem-

bers of Persident Ford's Clemency

Board, Lawrence Baskir and William

Strauss.They published their findings

in an excellent examination of the

Vietnam war draft system, Chance and

Circumstance (Knopf, 1978).

Legal Draft Avoidance

Between 1964 (Gulf of Tonkin

Resolution) and 1973 (last American

troops leave Vietnam), 26.8 million

young men were eligible for the draft.

Ultimately 15.4 million never served

without breaking the law. The lottery

let out 6.6 million. According to Baskir

-and Strauss, this is how the rest beat

the draft:

e Failed induction or pre-induction

physical 399%

e Hardship, marriage, fatherhood

exemptions 2

e Student deferments 4%

ACLUN_1946 ACLUN_1946.MODS ACLUN_1947 ACLUN_1947.MODS ACLUN_1948 ACLUN_1948.MODS ACLUN_1949 ACLUN_1949.MODS ACLUN_1950 ACLUN_1950.MODS ACLUN_1951 ACLUN_1951.MODS ACLUN_1952 ACLUN_1952.MODS ACLUN_1953 ACLUN_1953.MODS ACLUN_1954 ACLUN_1954.MODS ACLUN_1955 ACLUN_1955.MODS ACLUN_1956 ACLUN_1956.MODS ACLUN_1957 ACLUN_1957.MODS ACLUN_1958 ACLUN_1958.MODS ACLUN_1959 ACLUN_1959.MODS ACLUN_1960 ACLUN_1960.MODS ACLUN_1961 ACLUN_1961.MODS ACLUN_1962 ACLUN_1962.MODS ACLUN_1963 ACLUN_1963.MODS ACLUN_1964 ACLUN_1964.MODS ACLUN_1965 ACLUN_1965.MODS ACLUN_1966 ACLUN_1966.MODS ACLUN_1967 ACLUN_1967.MODS ACLUN_1968 ACLUN_1968.MODS ACLUN_1968.batch ACLUN_1969 ACLUN_1969.MODS ACLUN_1969.batch ACLUN_1970 ACLUN_1970.MODS ACLUN_1970.batch ACLUN_1971 ACLUN_1971.MODS ACLUN_1971.batch ACLUN_1972 ACLUN_1972.MODS ACLUN_1972.batch ACLUN_1973 ACLUN_1973.MODS ACLUN_1973.batch ACLUN_1974 ACLUN_1974.MODS ACLUN_1974.batch ACLUN_1975 ACLUN_1975.MODS ACLUN_1975.batch ACLUN_1976 ACLUN_1976.MODS ACLUN_1976.batch ACLUN_1977 ACLUN_1977.MODS ACLUN_1977.batch ACLUN_1978 ACLUN_1978.MODS ACLUN_1978.batch ACLUN_1979 ACLUN_1979.MODS ACLUN_1979.batch ACLUN_1980 ACLUN_1980.MODS ACLUN_1980.batch ACLUN_1981 ACLUN_1981.MODS ACLUN_1982 ACLUN_1982.MODS ACLUN_1983 ACLUN_1983.MODS ACLUN_1983.batch ACLUN_1984 ACLUN_1984.MODS ACLUN_1985 ACLUN_1985.MODS ACLUN_1986 ACLUN_1986.MODS ACLUN_1987 ACLUN_1987.MODS ACLUN_1988 ACLUN_1988.MODS ACLUN_1989 ACLUN_1989.MODS ACLUN_1990 ACLUN_1990.MODS ACLUN_1991 ACLUN_1991.MODS ACLUN_1992 ACLUN_1992.MODS ACLUN_1993 ACLUN_1993.MODS ACLUN_1994 ACLUN_1994.MODS ACLUN_1995 ACLUN_1995.MODS ACLUN_1996 ACLUN_1996.MODS ACLUN_1997 ACLUN_1997.MODS ACLUN_1998 ACLUN_1998.MODS ACLUN_1999 ACLUN_1999.MODS ACLUN_ladd ACLUN_ladd.MODS ACLUN_ladd.bags ACLUN_ladd.batch add-tei.sh create-bags.sh create-manuscript-bags.sh create-manuscript-batch.sh fits.log Conscientious objectors 2%

Exemption Standards

The physical, mental (intelligence),

and psychiatric, (and moral) standards

which 59% (5.2 million) of the young

men failed are extensive, are set by the

U.S. military, and are not likely to

change significantly.

The army standards are intended to.

test the stress on an infantry man under

inion ~The Myth of the Fair Dratt

stress. Bad knees, feet, skin rashes, al-

lergies, and many other common.

ailments are enough for an exemption.

As one anti-draft lawyer told Baskir

and Strauss, `""There are thousands of

disqualifying physical and mental con-

ditions - and it's a rare case that

someone does not have one of them."

(The failure of Americans to pass mili-

tary physicals has often been cited as an

indication of our "flabby culture," es-

pecially compared to European nations.)

As for people who accused of

breaking the draft law, there were only

about 200,000 - less than the total

student exemptions. Over half had their

cases dropped as defective. A good

attorney could often find a mistake in

the Selective Service procedures. -

Even with limited deferments and a

radical change in medical standards (c)

(unlikely), there must be some criteria

for selecting draftees. As before,

individuals with access to well informed |

draft counselors, lawyers, sympathetic

doctors, in short people with financial,

educational, and social resources will

continue to exercise their legal rights to

avoid the draft. Others will not.

Letters

on the Draft

How does the peace-time draft con-

flict with any civil liberties principle? I

have read the interview with Mr.

Landau in the current issue of ACLU

News, and learn that we are lobbying

vigorously against a peace-time draft

and that we believe that the All Volun-

teer Forces are ``working'' and that

there are statistics to prove it.

Although a recent arrival in Califor-

nia, I have been an ACLU member for

a good many years and intend to remain

one indefinitely. However, I seem to be

in need of enlightenment.

I had always understood that ACLU

was primarily interested in protecting

the constitutional guarantees of civil

liberties, and that has seemed to me an

essential task, if sometimes herculean.

But what principle does the peace-time

draft violate? And how does the Minne-

sota ACLU justify its opposition to a

draft in time of war?

-I make no judgment here as to

whether President Carter's advocacy of

a "revitalization" of the draft is a wise

and prudent recommendation to make

to the Congress in the present situation.

There can be honest differences of opin-

ion as to that. But I do not see how it is

possible to maintain that this is a civil

liberties question - unless a civil liber-

ties question is any issue that the ACLU |

Board declares to be such. That is sure-

ly not a direction that we want to follow

without some restrictions.

And how does Mr. Landau know that

the All Volunteer Force is ``working''?

What are the statistics that he cites so

confidently? Is this a question that can

be resolved by statistics alone? Does the

ACLU have the expertise to argue such -

a case against the military authorities?

What does the effectiveness of the AVF

have to do with the essential argument

_ that Mr. Landau wants to make, i.e.,

that the draft violates civil liberties?

My perception of the usefulness of

the ACLU is that it will exhaust might

and main in the defense of the civil lib-

erties of American citizens and our

guests and visitors.

Weare not an organization dedicated

to the furtherance of every liberal

cause, and I say this as a persistent and

unreconstructible liberal. Civil liberties

are far too important a matter to leave

_ to liberals alone; we need every conser-

vative we can enlist. Please ask Mr.

Landau to mind the ACLU store and

leave unrelated issues, no matter how

. praiseworthy, to other coalitions.

John P. Conrad

Davis

I have been a member of ACLU on

and off for about 15 years. Every so of-

`ten you take a stand that I oppose.

Usually I ignore it. However, on occa-

sion I have to speak out and say that

you do not represent my viewpoint in a

particular instance. |

In regard to the draft registration,

this is one of those cases. The volunteer

army doesn't work and very few expect

it to work. To say it does is nonsense

and even those trying to defend it know

it.

- You cannot wait for a war and then

say it's okay to start drafting. The war

would be lost before they even started to

from ever starting is to be strong

enough that no one will start it. Weak-

ness encourages it. I'm sure you've

heard the arguments on both sides of

this debate many times, but I wanted to

let you know where I stand. :

Every young person should put some

service of one or two years either in the |

military or some type of civilian service. _

Not only does the country need it, but it

also is a tremendous help to the indivi-

dual in learning to care for himself,

learning to get along with others, dis-

cipline, etc.

Abe S. Miller

San Mateo

DRAFT REGISTRATION

"ACLU Opposes Registration

continued from page 1

"Carter still needs Congressional ap-

propriations approved for his

registration plans,' Landau explained.

"The proposals are in committee right

now and it will take at least until the

first week in April to secure appropri-

ations te implement the plan.

`""`We must work really hard in this

short period to ensure that registration

is not approved in Congress. As all

members of Congress are under

pressure to `unite behind the Presi-

dent', letters, telegrams, and visits to

Congressional. Representatives are par- _

ticularly crucial at this time," Landau

said.

ACLU-NC Field Representative

Michael Miller noted that twelve out of

seventeen northern California Congress

members voted against registration last

summer. Most still do not favor

Carter's new proposals. The breakdown

is as follows:

Oppose Registration: Burton (John),

Burton, (Phil), Clausen, Coelho,

Dellums, Edwards, Miller, Mineta,

Stark. :

Favor Registration: Fazio, McClos-

key, Shumway, Royer.

Undecided: Matsui,

~ Pashayan.

"In the Senate,"' Miller said, `"Cran-

ston seems to be wavering. As a key

Senate leader he needs to hear from

ACLU members opposed to the regis-

tration plan. Senator Hayakawa sup-

ports registration.

_ "We have a real chance at beating

Panetta,

this, again. The protests are much |

larger than Carter expected. As the

primary elections draw near, many

Congressional Representatives are

going to ask themselves, `Do I really

want to defend a new draft?' "

Brochures Available

In response to the many phone calls

and letters which the ACLU receives

each day from people concerned about

the draft, the organization has

produced ``Feeling a Draft?. . . ''a bro-

chure outlining arguments against.

registration and suggestions for con-

crete activities to keep the pressure

focused on Congress.

The brochure is being distributed

widely in schools, churches, trade un-

ions, and other organizations (to order

copies of the brochure, see Coupon).

The Civil Liberties Lobby has

developed a "`Stop the Draft Speaker's

Kit."" The kit includes ACLU position

papers, important newsclippings, ques-

tions and answers about draft

registration, and suggestions for

making a speech (see Coupon).

In addition, the ACLU Board has set

up an Ad Hoc Committee on ACLU-

NC Draft Policy. The Committee will

make recommendations to the Board's

March meeting on several matters

related to the current campaign. In par-

ticular, the Committee will be

discussing women and the draft, and

draft resistance, questions which are

not addressed by existing oo NC

policy. :

If members are interested in these

issues, they can contact ACLU Field

Representative Michael Miller at the

ACLU office, who will forward opinions

to the Ad Hoc Committee.

Press Chaference

At the January press conference, the

ACLU-NC joined with other Bay Area

organizations to voice opposition to"

Carter's draft registration proposal.

At the press conference, Ehrlich said,

`Registration is the cornerstone of

conscription. Among our members are

thousands - like millions of others

throughout the nation - who have

suffered the consequences of the earlier

_ draft registration as draftees, members

of the armed forces, resisters and as

parents and relatives of young men who

were sent into the military involun-

tarily.

"Their memories are painful, and

they are fresh. Their energies and their

abilities are ready to fight against

forced conscription for another

generation of young Americans,"'

Ehrlich continued.

Other participants in the press .

conference were John Vaisey, attorney

and council member of the Central

Committee for Conscientious Objectors

(CCCO); Lee Halterman, administra-

tive aide to Rep. Ron Dellums; Chris

Lee, aide to Rep. John Burton; Harry

Britt, San Francisco District 5

supervisor; John Deckenback, Acting

Conference Executive for the Northern

California Conference of the United

Church of Christ; and Dell Dawson, of

the Pride Foundation.

What's Wrong with

Draft Registration

e Registration is the first step to

conscription. Existing Selective Ser-

vice law requires that "each regis-

trant shall be immediately liable for

classification and examination''

physical fitness testing.

e Every young person of the age

targeted for registration, will be a

to fill out a government form. And,

each one who does not fill out the

form may be investigated by the FBI.

e Draft registration poses a very

great threat to each person's indivi-

dual privacy - a threat which is in-

creased with today's modern

computer information systems. -

e Draft registration has always

discriminated against the poor and

with resources to hire expert help,

such as lawyers and doctors, will al-

ways have the advantage of exemp-

tions, legal technicalities, defer-

ments, and alternatives to serving in

the military.

(especially as the election season nears).

personal one page letter to your Rep-

resentative will be very effective.

Congressional leader, needs special

attention. These are the addresses:

The Honorable......

House of Representatives

Washington, D.C. 20515

The Honorable Alan Cranston

or S.I. Hayakawa

United States Senate

Washington, D.C. 20510

President Jimmy Carter

The White House

ey asuingicn: D.C. 20500

Send me

My check is enclosed. _

Name

which means mental aptitude and

potential criminal merely for failing (c)

-minorities in this society. People -

Also, Senator Alan Cranston, as a :

~ aclu news

March 1980

Why We Fight

What's Wrong with

Conscription

e Without any choice, draftees

may be seriously injured and even

killed. Also, without choice, draftees

must learn to kill. .

e The draft infringes on rights nor- :

mally guaranteed by the Constitu-

tion, and is nothing less than a form _

of involuntary servitude. If you are-

drafted, this is what you will lose:

- The right to live and work

where you wish.

- The right to travel or not, as

you choose.

- The right to marry and raise a

family or live with other individuals

of your choice. |

- The right to many forms of po-

litical protest and free speech.

- The right to trial by jury.

president the power to take wide uni-

lateral military action without an act

of war or without consulting Con-

gress or the es people for

support.

e The draft seriously disrupts

every young person's life. During the

Vietnam era, large numbers of

young men took certain jobs,

married, had children or temporarily

abused their health all in reaction to

the draft. Others, more desperate,

permanently injured themselves or

_ fled to Canada and Europe.

How to Fight

0x00B0 What Else To Do. Writing a

couple personal letters is. plenty.

But, if you are really ambitious,

here's more: _

gressional Representative.

lic forum where politicians are pres-

ent.

cent Organize your union, parents

group, church group, or political

organization to go on record against

the draft and registration. Then tell

your Representatives and the media. -

(R) Distribute anti-draft leaflets,

especially to draft-age people and

parents. See coupon below.

I'm Feeling a Draft and Want to Stop It

) Send me the ACLU's anti-draft brochure.

extra copies to distribute.

) Send me the ACLU "`Stop The Draft Speakers' Kit'' at $2 each.

- You can help convince Congress members, who will be voting on Carter's

registration proposals, that protests against the draft will continue to gro

Cate

z tolesbone home ( )

Zip

) Sign me up for the Civil Liberties Lobby. I want to get more inyolved

in ACLU's grassroots lobbying campaigns.

work ( )

aclu news

March 1980

By Jerome B. Falk, Jr.

Some aspire to being judged by their

| friends; Justice William O. Douglas

_ basked in the light of his enemies. So I

learned when, while serving as his law-

clerk, we lunched at Washington's

University Club, which conferred upon

every Justice of the Supreme Court an

honorary membership. Glancing around

the room, he would identify a fellow

member and say: "`That's Jones, a

stone-age type if ever there was one. My |

very presence here probably gives him

indigestion." There was no real malice

in these words, but pride in his

maverick status.

But the University Club's pariah was

and shall remain a symbol of faithful

devotion to the Bill of Rights. When in

1976 the Northern California ACLU

honored him with the Earl Warren Civil

Liberties Award, I had the pleasure of

presenting the medal. I read a passage

from his opinion in a case known as

Terminiello v. Chicago, which I think

well illustrates his deep understanding

of our free speech tradition. In that

case, an inflammatory speech by an

ugly little fascist had resulted in a near

riot by the audience; as a result, the

speaker was arrested. More than 30

years ago, Justice Douglas wrote:

The vitality of civil and pol-

itical institutions in our society

depends on free discussion. As

Chief Justice Hughes wrote in

Jonge v. Regon, 299 U.S. 353, -

365, it is only through free debate

and free exchange of ideas that

government remains responsive to

the will of the people and peaceful

change is effective. The right to

speak freely and to promote

diversity of ideas and programs is

therefore one of the chief distinc-

tions that sets us apart. from

totalitarian regimes.

Accordingly a function oF free

speech under our system of

government is to invite dispute. It .

may indeed best serve its high

purpose when it induces a con-

dition of unrest, creates

dissatisfaction with conditions as

they are, or even stirs people to

anger. Speech is often provocative

and challenging. It may strike at

prejudices and preconceptions

and have profound unsettling

effects as it presses for.acceptance

of an idea.

There have been many tales abou

the life and of burdens upon Justice

"Douglas' law clerks, some I suspect

having been circulated by the Justice

himself, who rather enjoyed the slave-

driver reputation which these legends

perpetuated. Although they are often.

greatly exaggerated, it is fair to say that

Justice Douglas saw his clerkship as a

kind of lawyer's basic training. .

My favorite story, which I had always

assumed was apocryphal until I heard

him tell it a few years ago, was of a law

clerk who received an assignment one

afternoon with the reassuring words:

"There is no rush about this; I don't

need it until tomorrow morning."' Well,

as everyone knows, there are some

fifteen hours between 6:00 P.M. and

9:00 A.M. the next day - plenty of

time for legal work. Somehow my

predecessor found in himself resources -

he never dreamed he had, and by 9:00

A.M. he had produced a massive piece

of work meeting all the specifications.

When Justice Douglas arrived, the

clerk took it in and proudly handed it

over. Then, his work completed, he

promptly passed out cold at the

Justice's feet. Justice Douglas told that

story with such obvious pride that I felt

a sense of reproach that my _ per-

formance had not risen to such selfless

heights.

Justice William O. Douglas

Justice Douglas asked no less of

himself. In the year I was there, he

wrote three books, gave forty-seven

speeches (all over the country) and

managed to keep up with his regular

work at Court. His work habits were

extraordinary. 3

Once, when on a Friday afternoon an

especially heavy snow storm shut

Washington down to a standstill and

the Chief Justice annouced at about

1:00 in the afternoon that everyone

could and should -go home. Justice

Douglas worked until about 4:00 as the

snow piled high in the streets: And,

early on the following Monday morning

when the snow had indeed brought all

traffic to a halt, I hiked through the'

snow-clogged streets with the ex-

pectation of a quiet day in my office,

free from interruptions and new

assignments, for the Justice's home was

across town from the Coart. As I recall,

only one Justice was able to get to the

court that day, and I could hear the

squeak of his chair in the office next to

mine as I took off my coat.

Affirmative Action Advanced

"We have found that affirmative

steps are at times necessary to overcome

the legacy of the past degradation of

minorities and to bring minorities into

full membership in American-society.

One such instance of that essential

affirmative action is the correction of an

employer's past discriminatory em-

ployment practice by a race-conscious

hiring program such as that of the

instant case.'

With this statement, Justice Tobfiner

announced on January 25 the California

Supreme Court's decision to reverse

lower court rulings in the case of Price

v. Civil Service Commission of

Sacramento County and to establish the

legitimacy of a race-conscious af-

firmative action hiring" program

adopted by a governmental agency to

remedy past discriminatory em-

ployment practices.

The case had pit two governmental

_ agencies against each other. In 1974,

the Sacramento County Civil Serivce

Commission, concerned with the

relative paucity of minority individuals

in the county's employ, conducted a

series of hearings into the county's past

_ hiring practices.

The Commission found that in the

Sacramento District Attorney's office

there was only one black attorney out of

65. The Commission additionally found

that the under-representation of ethnic

minorities resulted from a number of

unintentional discriminatory hiring

practices, including the use of un-

validated oral examinations and the

absence of adequate recruitment of-

ficers.

To remedy this imbalance, the Civil

Service Commission imposed a minority

hiring ratio on the DA's office. The

plan required one minority ap-

pointment out of every three ap-

pointments.

However, District Attorney John

Price resisted the Commission's hiring

order and initiated legal proceedings to

challenge it. Price claimed that a race-

conscious hiring plan violated the

Fourteenth Amendment to the con-

stitution and various provisions of Title

VII of the federal Civil Rights Act, the

California Fair Employment Practice

Act (FEPA), and the Sacramento

County Charter. :

After Price won his case in the lower

courts, the ACLU entered as amicus in

the California Supreme Court in

support of the Civil Service Com-

mission. The ACLU brief was prepared

by cooperating attorney Paul Hoffman.

_court-ordered

A 44 "i

Ul e

.in light of the history and continuing realities of racial discrimination, the negation of

eis is frequently not enough." California Supreme Court, January 25, 1980

In its opinion, the court relied heavily

on decisions issued by the U.S.

Supreme Court in Bakke and Weber.

According to staff counsel Margaret

Crosby, who also worked on the case,

"The importance of the decision is that

it upholds the legality of voluntary or

affirmative action

programs - even quota based ones -

if an employer has engaged in proven

past discrimination, whether - in-

tentional or unintentional, as in this

particular case.'

As a result of the high court's

decision, the DA's office will now have

to implement the minority hiring

`program it has resisted for five years.

The ruling will also have implications

for other current affirmative action

cases, such as Hiatt v. City of Berkeley

which are now before the state supreme

court.

As Crosby explained, "The principles

Bill of Rights was safeguarded. Justice

Many of the articles aout Justice

Douglas stress his role as a frequent,

often angry, dissenter. That somewhat

oversimplifies the record. He served on

the Court for more than thirty-six

years, and during much of that time,

in the years of the so-called Warren |

Court, his voice was more often that of

the majority. The last years on the

Court were, of course, frequently spent

in dissent.

History has a way of repeating itself.

In the late 1940's, the Court then

known as the Vinson Court, had been

closely divided between strong civil

libertarians and those who purported to

practice something Justice Frank-

furter liked to call ``judicial restraint.'

Justice Douglas told me that he then be-

lieved that a dependable civil liber-

tarian majority was within grasp when,

within months, death took Justices

Rutledge and Murphy. President

Truman replaced them with Minton

and Clark, and for nearly a decade,

Justices Douglas and Black were vir-

tually alone in protest. The McCarthy

years must have been especially bitter

and lonely.

But there are advantages to having

good health and an early appointment.

In time, there. was Warren, and then

Brennan, and then Goldberg (later

replaced by Fortas), and then Marshall;

and for a significant time, civil liber-

tarians looked to the Supreme Court:in |

Washington, D.C. to ensure that the

Douglas is gone now, and Justices .

Brennan and Marshall are all that

remains of the former Warren Court

majority. Does the story of the Vinson

Court's fate give present cause for

hope?

Jerome B. Falk, Jr. is Vice-Chair of the

ACLU-NC and _ served as Justice

we-8 law clerk in 1965-66.

CY vy

A Kee

Ce le EZ

REY CES Sy

Vis, oe 4 Lu ea 7

articulated in the decision seem

transferrable to other affirmative action

cases in both employement and

education."

Tobriner's opinion addresses itself to

the principle of affirmative action

_ programs as a necessary corollary of the

constitutional right of equal protection

beyond this particular case.

The opinion states, `"The affirmative

action plan at issue in this case is but

another small but significant step in

bringing about the full participation of

minority individuals in our society.

_ "Although the essence ofademocratic

society lies in its emphasis upon the

rights of the individual, the im-

plementation of those rights has been a

long and arduous process ... in the

light of the history and continuing

realities of racial discrimination, the

negation of discrimination is frequently

not enough."

: aclu news

March 1980

Final Round:

~ Leafletters v. Shopping Centers

The long-standing access battle

between shopping centers and

_ Jeafletters will enter the federal arena

on March 18 when the case of Robins v.

Pruneyard Shopping Center will be

argued before the U.S. Supreme Court.

The case, which will have nationwide

implications for all kinds of protesters

and petitioners who use shopping

centers to gain access to the public,

originated from an incident in

November, 1975 at the Pruneyard

Shopping Center in Santa Clara

County. f

Two high school students and their

religion teacher were stopped by private

security guards from soliciting

signatures on a petition. The leafletters

left without a fight but took their case

to the Santa Clara Superior Court

_ which ruled against them.

_ The ruling was reversed on appeal,

however, when the California Supreme

Court ruled in March, 1979 that

privately owned malls are not immune

from the free speech and petition

provisions of the California Con-

~ stitution.

The Supreme Court decision

recognized the special and increasingly

important role that shopping centers

play in the public lives of Californians.

"Central business districts ap-

` parently have continued to yield their

functions more and more to suburban

centers ... The largest segment of the

country's population is likely to spend

the most significant amount of its time -

in suburban areas where its needs and

wants are satisfied; and shopping

centers provide the location, goods and

services to satisfy those needs and

wants,"' said the court opinion.

The court went on to quote from its

1970: decision, ``The shopping center

may no more exclude individuals who

wear long hair... who are black .. . or

who belong to the American Civil

Liberties Union merely because of those

characteristics or associations 2S

than may a city.

Pruneyard Shopping Center ap-

pealed to the U.S. Supreme Court on

the grounds that the California court

ruling infringes on their `federal

property rights'' as protected by the

Fifth Amendment. 2

The ACLU amicus brief, prepared by

cooperating attorneys Susan Paulus

and Susan Popik, argues that there are

no federal constitutional - property

rights, rather, the rights which ac-

company private ownership of real

estate are defined by the state. The

California Supreme Court, under this

state's property laws, cannot exclude

expressive activities. As staff counsel

Margaret Crosby explained, ""Zoning

for civil rights purposes has long been

accomplished by the state."'

- Despite the

earlier favorable

decisions however, the shopping centers

are still trying to prohibit and harass

leafletters on their property. |

Pruneyard Shopping Center

requested a stay from the Supreme

Court to keep leafletters out, but the

stay was denied -by Chief Justice

Rhenquist. This means that until the

Supreme Court makes its decision

(sometime before July) people continue

to have the right to leaflet and petition

at shopping centers.

Those who do, however, are being (c)

center

local

harassed by

managements

shopping

through

- regulations. The California Supreme

Court had noted that shopping centers

have the right to establish certain

"time, place' and manner' rules

governing speech and petitioning to

protect normal business operations.

Several California shopping centers

have established outlandish regulations

for petitioners - such as posting a

$3,000,000 bond - and essentially

erected barriers to freedom of speech

and association on their property.

~ FPPC

A state appeals court decision that

California's Proposition 9 prohibition

on contributions by lobbyists to

political candidates is unconstitutional

was left standing by the U.S. Supreme

Court on January 21.

The ACLU had entered an amicu

brief in support of the Institute of

Governmental Advocates, a lobbyists'

organization, because the original ban

violated the constitutional guarantees

_ of freedom of speech and association.

Curfew Ruling

Evidence obtained in an illegal stop

of a car cannot be used against a person

who later becomes a robbery suspect,

even if the arresting officer is not aware

at the time of the stop that it is illegal.

That is the opinion of the California Su-

preme Court issued on February 11 in

the case of People v. Teresinski.

The city of Dixon has a curfew ordin-

ance that makes it a crime to "loiter,

idle, wander, stroll or play" on the pub-

lic streets between the hours of 10PM

- and SAM if you are under 18.

The defendant, Robert John Teresin-

ski, was lawfully driving a car in a Dix-

on city street-in the middle of the night.

A Dixon police officer thought the driv-

er and passengers were minors and

stopped the car for violating curfew. Af-

ter seeing a beer can in plain view, the

officer searched the car further.

During the course of the search, the

police officer found evidence which im-

plicated Teresinski in a robbery. That

evidence was suppressed in the trial

court on the grounds that it had been

unlawfully obtained.

However, the Court of Appeal ruled

that the police officer had made a

"reasonable mistake of law' and order-

ed that the evidence be admitted.

When the case was brought to the

California Supreme Court, the ACLU

entered as amicus curiae. The brief was

prepared by ACLU staff counsel,

Police Papers Public

"It's like seeing the Emperor's New

Clothes,'' said ACLU staff attorney

Amitai Schwartz, commenting on the

previously undisclosed California High-

way Patrol documents which must now

be made available to the public as a

result of a decision by the California

Court of Appeal in an ACLU lawsuit.

The litigation seeking disclosure

began in 1974 when the Northern

California Police Practices Project, an

organization against police abuse.

In collections

ACLU-NC News: 1980

Details

Title: vol. 45, no. 2 (March, 1980)
Creator: American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California
Date: 1980 March
Identifier: ACLUN_0493
Genre: newspapers
Physical description: 40.5 x 28 cm
Publisher: San Francisco (Calif.): American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California
Preferred citation: ACLU of Northern California News vol. 45, no. 2, 1980 March; PER ACLUN; California Historical Society.
Rights statement: In Copyright
Publication rights: Copyright (or related rights to publicity and privacy) for materials in this collection, created by the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California, was not transferred to the California Historical Society (CHS). Permission for reproduction or publication of materials in this collection beyond that allowed by fair use must be secured from the copyright holder.
Topical subject(s): Vietnam War, 1961-1975
Veterans
Terrorism
Searches and seizures
Freedom of information
Freedom of expression
Fascism
Educational equity
Draft resisters
Deportation
Criminal justice
Conscientious objectors
Reproductive rights
Affirmative action
Police practices
Immigrant rights
Japanese Americans--Incarceration, 1942-1945
Named subject(s): Barnhart, Brent
Besig, Ernest
Britt, Harry
Jerry Brown
Burton, John
Collins, Wayne
Crosby, Margaret
Dellums, Ronald V., 1935-2018
Ehrlich, Dorothy
Feinstein, Dianne, 1933-
Franklin, Bruce
Korematsu, Fred
Krause, Marshall
Meiklejohn, Alexander
Miller, Michael
Ramey, Drucilla
Schlosser, Alan
Schwartz, Amitai
Warren, Earl
California Highway Patrol
Japanese American Citizens' League
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People
United Farm Workers
United States. Federal Bureau of Investigation
Geographical subject(s): Sacramento (Calif.)
Oakland (Calif.)
Berkeley (Calif.)
Tule Lake (Calif.)
Collection identifier: PER ACLUN