vol. 45, no. 8

Primary tabs

Volume XLV


~ November-December 1980


~ Gay Civilian Beats Army Regs


In an unprecedented victory in a gay


rights test case against the Army, a


settlement agreement awarding money


damages and changing Army policies


with respect to gay civilian employees of


defense contractors was signed on


November 13, 1980 at the ACLU office.


The case, Preston v. Department of


Defense, was filed last March arguing


that the Army's revocation of a civilian


worker's security clearance on the


grounds that he engaged in homosexual


activity was unconstitutional. The case


received wide public attention as a


major challenge to the Army's policy of


discrimination against gay civilians


working for defense contractors.


The plaintiff, Warren Gene Preston,


is a graphic designer employed by GTE


Sylvania in Mountain View who has


done contract work for the Army over


Warren Preston signs the agreement with


the Army granting new rights for gay civilian


employees.


ACLU Seeks New Ruling


on Cal. Death Penalty


by Dorothy Ehrlich


Executive Director, ACLU-NC


After nearly a decade of tortured


legal battles, the California Supreme


Court upheld the constitutionality of


the death penalty on October 23, 1980.


. The results of the 4-3 decision,


according to the dissenting opinion


issued by Chief Justice Rose Bird,


"sends to his death an impoverished,


illiterate and possibly retarded 19-year


old black youth,"' Earl Lloyd Jackson.


In January last year a southern


California jury convicted Jackson of two


1977 murders after a trial in which no


evidence was presented in his defense,


no investigation of the incidents was


conducted, and no witness was even


called upon at the penalty phase of the


trial to argue that his life be spared.


If all appeals are denied, the court's


decision would clear the way for the


first execution by the state of California


in 13 years. The decision is a bitter dis-


appointment, not only because of the


result that was reached, but also


beeause of the way in which it was ob-


tained.


Justices Richardson, Clark and


Manuel ruled in a 69-page opinion that


both the 1977 death penalty law was


constitutional and that the defendant


was not denied effective counsel at his


trial.


Justices Mosk, Tobriner and Bird de-


termined, in 85 pages of analysis, that


the law passed by the California legis-


lature in 1977 was unconstitutional


because it failed to meet federal death


penalty procedural standards. They


further found that Jackson was denied


the right to effective counsel.


The critical 3-3 tie was broken by


Justice Frank Newman who, in a two-


and-one-half page opinion, agreed with


the Justices who upheld the law.


Although Justice Newman concurred


with the dissenting justices that the


state legislature may have drafted


defective legislation which probably did


not provide defendants with adequate


procedural safeguards, he indicated


continued on page 4


iversary


y+] Te


American Civil Liberties Union 1920-1980


Aqsosy Copy


"Sheraton Palace Hotel


ten years. In March 1979, Preston's


clearance (the Sensitive Compart-


mented Information access or SCI) was


revoked by the Army on the grounds


that he engaged i in homosexual activity.


Preston was given no opportunity to


confront the evidence or to appeal the


decision - in fact, he was not even told


the reason for the revocation.


As a result of losing the access,


Preston was transferred from his job


and suffered subsequent loss of pay,


loss of prestige and damage to his repu-


tation.


On Preston's behalf. ACLU cooper-


ating attorney Steve Mayer and ACLU


staff counsel Amitai Schwartz sued the


Army in U.S. District Court for dis-


crimination and violation of due


process.


According to Mayer, ``This agree-


ment is very significant. As the Army


admits that it acted in error, it not only


brings justice to Warren Preston, but it


affects all those who seek such


clearances and ensures that they will


not be discriminated against for being


homosexual and that they will receive


their due process rights."


The agreement, signed by Preston


and by the General Counsel of the


Army, states, ""The Army will pay to


Plaintiff the sum of $10,000 for the


economic loss and psychological hum-


iliation ... and the reasonable value of


the costs and attorney's services


rendered to Plaintiff."'


In addition to damages, the agree-


ment stipulates, "In the event Plaintiff,


his employer, or any future employer


requests the Army to grant plaintiff SCI


access, the Army agrees that it shall not


deny such access nor shall it revoke any


SCI access granted because Plaintiff


has engaged in private, publicly


acknowledged homosexual legal


conduct...


Furthermore, the agreement specifies


that the Army will promulgate regu-


lations regarding the SCI access which


will ensure that it not be denied to


persons based on homosexual activity


and that any revocation of the clearance


must be handled in accordance with


continued on page 4 -


Keynote Speaker


Jon MeNally/ Martinez New-Gazette


School Rules. . .


Leo Cid, a 13-year old Martinez


Junior High School student who was not


allowed to run for school president


because some of his teachers objected to.


the way he dressed and behaved in


class, was aided in his electoral


aspirations - and in gaining his


democratic rights - by the ACLU.


In a letter to the Superintendent


objecting to the school's policy which


states that no student can run for office


if two or more teachers give him


"negative reports,' ACLU staff counsel


Alan Schlosser wrote, ``Screening and


blackballing are antithetical to the


democratic precepts that participants


`have the right to vote for whomever they


please.


Leo Cid, a 13 year old junior high school


student in Martinez, was barred from


running for student government - until the


ACLU stepped in.


"Exclusion from student government


should not be based on vague criteria


which can be arbitrarily enforced,"


Schlosser added.


Cid's mother brought her complaint


to the ACLU after she was told by a


school administrator that her son ran


around with Mexican kids who were


"squirrelly'', who ``ran when they were _


supposed to be walking' and who


dressed in a "`uniform style" - that is


tank tops and baggy pants.


As a result of the ACLU letter, the


administration has retracted the unfair


school election procedures - and


hopefully, the discriminatory


stereotyping of junior high school


students.


1980 Earl Warren Award will be presented to:


Roger Ba Idwi Nn ACLU Salts


Ramsey Clark


Odetta


San Francisco


Sunday,


December 14


Tickets - $7 (See coupon p. 3)


No-host bar 3-4 p.m.


Program 4-6 p.m.


aclu news


| Nov-Dec 1980


"ie Tribute to an Activist


By Dorothy Ehrlich


The popular image of the ACLU


often suggests a rarefied institution


composed only of distinguished lawyers


who litigate only cases which promise to


establish new frontiers in the field of


civil liberties. However, to any active


member of the ACLU it is evident that


an equally important, albeit less visible


role is played by non-lawyers in the


ACLU.


Through a decade of service one


`person in particular demonstrated that


the effective protection of personal


freedom from government abuse can be


the province of anyone with a devotion


to civil liberties.


"Nearly ten years ago Lola Hanzel


began establishing a role for lay


_ members in providing direct services to


the disenfranchised - the individual -


ost in the morass of an insensitive


yureaucracy. The ACLU's_respon-


sibility to these victims, according to


Lola Hanzel, was not. only to find a


client for a potential Jandmark case,


but rather, within our resources, to


provide direct advocacy for each person


. with a civil liberties grievance.


When Lola Hanzel died suddenly on


September 28, 1980, she left behind this


inspired legacy. Moreover she left her


devoted ACLU friends: staff members


whom she joined for two-days a week of


volunteer work in the ACLU offices for


ten years; volunteers she trained and -


supported who continue to respond to


the calls on the `complaint line;" and


colleagues on the Marin Chapter and


affiliate Boards of Directors.


Lola Hanzel touched the lives of


thousands of individuals who called the


ACLU for assistance. In Lola they


found a dedicated volunteer who was


willing to listen patiently to their story.


She would guide callers through


complex legal problems and make


telephone calls on their behalf to


recalcitrant officials. She would bring


their complaints to ACLU's_ over-


worked legal staff for guidance, and


often persuade them to add a case toa


swelling legal docket.


When Board member Frances


Strauss called a meeting ten years ago


for the purpose of establishing a team


of volunteers to staff the `complaint


desk,'' Lola Hanzel and Margie Chiosso


were the first ACLU members to


respond. Lola and Margie immediately


became partners on the complaint desk,


a partnership which they maintained |


during the last ten years.


Margie says that throughout those


years, Lola was s always able to find a


Letters


The recent article Police Data Error


Jails Innocent Man (October), has


forced me to write this chiding letter. In


the body of the article lies an infamous


phrase, `"`All because the computer


_~made a mistake.'' While it is true that a


computer can induce errors in data, it is


very, very, very rare that the computer is


at fault. The fault almost invariably lies


at the two feet-of a human being. It is


the computer's user or operator who


makes the error, not the computer.


I will bet a very large sum of money,


even a dollar or two, that Mr. Tom's


plight was caused by human error and


not by a computer. To blame it on the


computer is excusing poor execution of


duty by the courts or the police.


If the ACLU can keep officials on


their toes so that they make sure the


data in the computers is correct and the


programs that use the data function as


they are meant to, then we have ac-


complished something worthwhile | in


Mr. Tom's case.


If we can not be sure that the in-


formation in the computer is correct


then perhaps the P.I.N. computer


should be unplugged.


Philip B. Smith


Alameda .


oe 8


Just a few comments on the October


issue. (R)


The articles on page 3 were very


interesting and informative. Taking up


the cause of the man who was jailed


because of a police computer error is


my idea of real civil liberties work and


I'm glad to see it. _


Likewise the mini-analysis of the


| Criminal Code Reform Act of 1980 was


timely and informative.


As one who is usually puzzled by


what seems to be the promotion of a lot


of `"`liberal'" legislative claptrap, it is


nice to find the useful pearls among the


dross.


I earn most of my living by dealing


with one of the most infamous


bureaucracies of all time, the Internal


Revenue Service. This experience daily


enforces my view that when bigger foul-


ups are made, the government will


make them; that government can be a


`good servant, but is a congenitally poor


master;-and that common sense and


common decency are concepts beyond


the grasp of too much of our bloated


parasitic bureaucracy.


Leonard W. Williams, CPA


Sunnyvale


We were greatly heartened that the


suit brought by the ACLU has resulted


in declaring the City's archaic law


against political signs tacked to phone


poles unconstitutional. We wonder


where the liberties and freedoms we


enjoy would be were the ACLU not


there to safeguard them.


Granted that left-over political signs


are unsightly, but so are the poles. I


find ads for toilet tissue more offensive,


but it must be realized that the poles


serve as a most viable means of com-


munication for neighbors advertising


garage sales, poetry readings, jobs and


lost parakeets, therefore needed, worth-


while speech must be protected.


I have checked with PUC officials


who state that as long as the signs are of


_cardboard and fit the curvature of the


pole, they in no way impede workmen


from climbing them to service the wires.


The ACLU's vigilance is sometimes


most unpopular, their


protecting the speech and assembly


rights of American Nazis and Ku


Kluxers lost them many members, but


their fight to protect Japanese-


American citizens, anti-war protestors,


ILWU leaders in 1939, sit-ins, teaching


of evolution in the schools made me


decide to join for good reason - all our


rights.


Gregoire F. Gallipeau


San Francisco


stand on


`plained that,


Lola Hanzel


quality of value in each person she


encountered. "She was the most unique


person I have ever known. I always


looked forward to the days we spent


together because she always challenged


me, and yet was never threatening. Lola


inspired the very best from each person


she worked with."'


Lola Hanzel not only challenged and


inspired her partners on the complaint


desk, but she also trained the ACLU's


staff. Michael Callahan, former


associate director of the ACLU, ex-


ACLU's `unofficial orientation system'.


For a new staff member it was Lola who


guided you through the ACLU's 60-


years of history. She could trace the


facts behind a policy decision made by


the Board of Directors, or provide all of


the details on a current or past civil


- liberties activity. Even on the rare


occasion when Lola didn't have an


answer, she knew the person who did."


`Though Lola's role as an office


volunteer alone would be worthy of


commendation, her contribution did


not begin or end with her ACLU work-


day. Lola served for five years on the


affiliate Board of Directors, and was the


backbone of the Marin Chapter for 18


years.


"Lola's life was an index of the major


social and political events of our time,"'


Board member Irv Cohen said, "not


because it was fashionable to par-


ticipate in those events, but because of


her passion.


`""She was never pious. Her passion


was tempered by a marvelous sense of


humor."' Irv characterized Lola as


having the special quality of ``com-


passionate toughness."


"Her strength grew out of a very deep


sense of history. Lola understood that


the problems which confronted civil


libertarians were not created yesterday,


"pened our understanding and


- liberties.


"Lola possessed the


and would not be solved tomorrow. She


maintained faith in the possibility of


change. Even in the face of a set-back,


Lola would fiercely stand by her


principles. She believed in democracy,


and was not prepared to change the


rules, because she might disagree with


the outcome."


An activist to the core, Lola probably


_ never ~ missed a_ significant demon-


stration in the Bay Area. Her four


children were often by her side, even


when they were still in strollers. She


taught them about social justice at


rallies for the farmworkers in Delano, |


and at anti-war Gomori aions | in San


Francisco.


"She was the perfect role model. She


brought us up to be politically aware,


but never coerced us,'' said her son, -


Milton. ``She taught Ceil, Lynn, David


-and me to have firm convictions along


with careful analyses."


Those of us who worked with Lola


Hanzel can appreciate her son's words.


For us Lola was a teacher who shar-


in-


tensified our commitment. to civil


Although never shy about


sharing her opinions on any subject,


Lola was not didactic. No one had a


more infectious laugh than Lola, and no


one could tell a better story. To hear


Lola's ACLU . anecdotes - told with a


barely suppressed laugh that


threatened to halt the telling - was to


be constantly reminded of the im-


portance and the joy of our work. In the


_ frenzied work place of the ACLU, it was


Lola who could calm the waves created


by constant demands. .Her very


presence, her friendship, warmth and


reassurance can never be replaced.


In organizational life, some in-


dividuals are honored for their con-


tributions with formal tributes and


official awards. .Lola's unswerving


dedication and activism were not


honored in this manner during her


lifetime. I believe that Lola would have


rejected such ceremony.


A more fitting tribute to Lola is that


her spirit and devotion are a legacy to


us all. The memory of Lola's love and


work will sustain our continuing efforts


by reminding us to adhere honestly to


our principles, and to never become


complacent.


The Board of Directors of the ACLU


of Northern California has established


a fund in memory of Lola Hanzel. The


fund: is for the purpose of continuing


the significant contributions which Lola


gave to the ACLU.


Secrets Hearms


The California Supreme Court


announced that it will hear arguments


that criminal intelligence files of the


Law Enforcement Intelligence Unit -


(LEIU) maintained by the state's


Organized Crime and _ Intelligence -


Braney should | be available to the


public.


The suit, ACLU v. Deukmejian (for-


merly ACLU y. Younger) was origin-


ally filed in 1976, arguing that the re-


cords, with personal identifying in-


formation deleted, should be disclosed


under the Public Records Act. -


Elaine Elinson, Editor


aclu news


8 issues a year, monthty 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


_ Michael Miller, Chapter Page


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


pound


aclu news


Nov-Dec 1980


4 see a a e : : :


: Hospital Fights for Patients Privacy


A state law which requires fetal death


certificates to be placed on public.


record following termination of


pregnancies over twenty weeks inhibits


women wishing to exercise their right to


have an abortion and is a severe and


unconstitutional intrusion of patients'.


privacy claims the ACLU.


The constitutionality of the law is


being tested by the ACLU on behalf of


_ Avalon Memorial Hospital in Los


Angeles.


Currently, the State Health and


Safety Code requires the name of the


~ mother, the father, the fetus, the


mother's reproductive history, the


disposition of the fetal remains and the


name of the funeral director to be


registered in a permanent central file


with the Department of Health Services


as part of a public record.


ACLU cooperating attorney Trudy-Ernst


According to ACLU-NC cooperating


attorney, Trudy Ernst, "This statute


operates as a clear and serious invasion


of the patient's right to keep her


medical history and reproductive life to


herself.""


Ernst explained, "`This case, People


v. Avalon Memorial Hospital, is signifi-


cant both for protecting the right of -


reproductive choice and protecting the


right of privacy.


"Tt is evident that the prosecution of .


Avalon Memorial Hospital for not


complying with the Health and Safety


Code is part of a sustained pattern of


harassment against abortion providers


and patients in southern California.


"Moreover, by requiring the filing of


a public record of a private medicai


Newman on Board


At the September meeting, the


ACLU-NC Board of Directors selected


San Francisco anti-draft activist Judy


Newman to fill the vacancy on the


ACLU-NU Board left by Warren


Saltzman's June retirement.


Newman, a long-time member of the


ACLU, organized San Francisco


Parents and Friends Against the Draft


and worked closely with the ACLU


Draft Desk. Newman was featured in


the Special Draft Edition of the ACLU


News as having developed and


implemented the nation-wide postcard


ad campaign `How to Register Against


the Draft.'


Newman told the ACLU News, "I .


believe the draft i is a gross violation of


liberties provided by the Constitution. I


will continue to fight against the


reinstatement of the draft, as well as the -


deprivation of rights of women,


minorities, gays, the sick, the young,


. the elderly and other segments of our


society.


"I look forward to.this new and closer


association with the ACLU, " Newman


added.


a dup


procedure, it potentially infringes the -


privacy rights of all hospital patients,"'


Ernst added.


Ernst cited several precedents which


support the ACLU position. In Planned


Parenthood v. Danforth, the U.S. |


Supreme Court decided that abortion


record keeping is only permissable


when that record keeping "properly


respects the patient's confidentiality."


California law currently allows for


public scrutiny of these records.


A New York court refused to enforce


a law requiring the names of the mother


and father of an aborted fetus on a fetal


death certificate unless and until the


legislature took steps to ensure the


confidentiality of the information.


In a separate New York case, the


court upheld the filing of pregnancy ter-


mination certificates, but specified that


= the certificates "`shall not be subject to


subpoena or to inspection by persons


other than the Commissioner or author-


ized personnel of the Department."


A dissenting opinion, which argued


that the court had not gone far enough


in protecting privacy rights, states,


"One would have to blind oneself to


reality to deny that the potential for


stigmatization, intended or inadver-


tent, is multiplied by the unnecessary


collection and centralization of


information."


In November, the ACLU will file a


petition for an extraordinary writ,


which, if granted by the superior court,


would mean that the municipal court


must dismiss the case because the


statute which authorizes the prose-


cution is unconstitutional.


ACLU Sues S.F.


Cops for Harassment


For the second time in two years the


ACLU is suing the San Francisco Police


Department for using an obstruction of


sidewalks law as a-means of jailing


people who could not otherwise be


punished by legal means.


In a taxpayers suit filed on November


6 in San Francisco Superior Court, the


ACLU is challenging a_ persistent


pattern of bad faith enforcement by the


_ San Francisco police, whose acts are


condoned and encoutaged by higher


city officials and amount to preventive


detention prohibited by law.


The statute in quesiton, Section 647c


of the California Penal Code, prohibits


the malicious obstruction of the free


movement of any person on any street,


sidewalk or other public place.


However, according to ACLU-NC


staff attorney Amitai Schwartz, `"The


San Francisco police have made this |


statute a principal weapon in sweeping


the streets of persons deemed by them


to be undesirable, destitute, inclined to


criminal activity - or merely un-


popular.


Between Kage 1 1 and November 1 of


this year, over three hundred people


were arrested by San Francisco police


for this alleged violation of the Penal


Code. Though 90% of those arrested


were jailed,


tually charged with any crime.


"This is cheap shot law en-


forcement," said Schwartz, "`but it


comes at the expense of the Con-


stitution.


"It amounts to jailing hundreds of


innocent people for the purpose of


less than 5% were even- 0x00B0


preventive detention, summary punish-


ment or some other purpose forbidden


by law,'' Schwartz explained.


In May, 1979 the ACLU brought a


similar suit against the San Francisco.


police (Ramey v. Gain). Charging that


the police were using a city ordinance,


Police Code Sections 20a and 20b, as a


pretext to sweep the streets of so-called


undesirables.


As a result of that lawsuit, in Sep-


tember, 1979 the San Francisco Board ~


of Supervisors repealed the offending


ordinance and replaced it with one


which gave the police less discretion in


picking up persons who were allegedly


obstructing the sidewalk. Arrests for


obstruction dropped dramatically at


- first.


However, last summer the ACLU


again began receiving complaints that


the police were picking up large


numbers of people for "obstruction'"'


and keeping them in custody. This


time, they were acting under the aegis


of the state penal code.


Schwartz said, `""The police depar-


tment must be made to realize that no


matter what statute they are using as a


cover for this harassment, their per- -


sistent pattern of enforcement is un-


constitutional and illegal.


"We will continue to file suit against


the police until this practice of -


harassment finally comes to an end,"'


Schwartz concluded.


The suit, Ramey v. Murphy, is


seeking a declaratory judgment that the


enforcement is unconstitutional and


illegal. The suit also asks the court to


issue an injunction restraining the


police from enforcing the Penal Code


Section 647c in the absence of probable


cause to believe that a violation of the.


code has been committed.


Program, Funds Build for Bill of Rights Day


"The 1980 Bill of Rights Day is a


major event this year - marking


ACLU's 60th Anniversary - and we


are fortunate in having major figures


from the ACLU to make it a really


special celebration,'' said Nancy


Pemberton, Co-Chair of the ACLU-NC


Development Committee.


The annual Earl Warren Award will


be presented to 96-year-old ACLU


founder Roger Baldwin, and accepted


on Baldwin's behalf by former Attorney


General Ramsey Clark.


Clark, who is the Chair of the


ACLU's National Advisory Counsel,


will also be delivering the keynote


address. As an internationally known


attorney, speaker and advocate on civil


liberties issues, Clark's insight on the


history of the ACLU and the tasks that


face the organization in the future is


unparalleled.


_.The award will be presented by


former ACLU Legal Committee mem-


ber Jack Pemberton. Pemberton, who as -


the former National Executive Director


of the ACLU, has a unique vantage


point from which to share experiences


about Roger Baldwin. -


In addition, Odetta, a folksinger


equally reknowned for her powerful


voice and her rare commitment to


justice, will perform. According to the


New York Times, Odetta is ``the most


- glorious voice in American folk music."


Aside from being a birthday cele-


bration for the Bill of Rights, the cele-


bration is the culmination of the annual (c)


fundraising drive for the ACLU-NC


CUT CUE TTR GRO A GE ME EE ee


Foundation and supports all of the


Foundation's litigation.


- Odetta


"The 1980 Legal Docket (see insert)


shows the enormous caseload the Foun-


dation has handled this year - with


significant gains for the rights of leaf-_


letters in shopping centers, gay rights,


opening up of government records,


affirmative action, to name but a few,'


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 the


said Nancy Pemberton.


"However, this increased litigation


- made possible by the generosity of a


growing number of cooperating attor- (c)


neys - as well as rising costs, have


meant that the Foundation is in serious


financial trouble.


"Without special support from each


friend of the ACLU this year, in the


form of tax-deductible contributions,


we will have to seriously face the conse-


quences of decreasing our unique legal


program,' Pemberton explained. _


This year's fundraising has been


significantly enhanced by the efforts of |


Tribute Committee. The


Committee, co-chaired by James J.


Brosnahan, Benjamin Dreyfus, Aileen


Hernandez and Sally Lillienthal, has


over 150 members who have committed


themselves to expanding the list of


donors to the Foundation and raising


the necessary funds.


{ Please send me


| Enclosed is my check for $


Name


orien fickets at $7 each. 1] am enclosing an additional 7


_| tax-deductible contribution to the ACLU-NC Foundation of $


Address


City


Tel.


envelope.


Please make checks payable to the ACLU-NC Foundation and mail to 814 i


Mission St., Rm. 301, S.F. CA 94103. Please enclose a self-addressed, stamped


Zip


oe ee ee


aclu news


Nov-Dec 1980


Death Penalty from page I


that such defects were understandable.


Justice Newman commented, ``How


much should we demand of the


- individuals who draft death penalty


statutes?


Whether there be four or forty


[defects], we should not insist, even in


death penalty cases, that each require-


ment be first written out and then


enacted by the legislature."


In response to the Supreme Court


decision the ACLU immediately filed


an extraordinary friend of the court


brief asking that the court reconsider its


decision. |


The ACLU's application to the court


contends that there is a need for ad-


ditional argument in connection with


due process safeguards that are


essential to assure that no person is


arbitrarily, capriciously, or freakishly


put to death in this state.


Staff counsel Amitai Schwartz argues


that the provisions of the 1977 law


governing jury discretion are deficient


and violate the due process provision of


the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Con-


stitution and several provisions of the


California Constitution.


Furiner requests that the court


reconsider its decision were filed by the


California State Public Defender, Cal-


ifornia Attorneys for Criminal Justice,


and the National Legal Aid and Defen-


ders Association with the California


Public Defenders Association.


The failure of the courts and the leg-


islature to recognize the inherent


unfairness and brutality of the death


penalty has led us through nearly a


decade of complicated judicial wrest-


ling with the impossible goal of estab-


lishing fair rules for legalized murder.


The ACLU's brief urged the court to


reconsider the constitutionality of the


death penalty, stating that, ``The


ACLU opposes state sanctioned


programs that deny the value of human


life by intentionally choosing to put


some people to death. The ACLU


believes that capital punishment epito-


mizes all that is brutal, unthinking,


vicious, and degrading i in the adminis-


tration of justice."


Cc


e April 12, 1967: Aaron Mitchell is


the last person executed in the oe


chamber in California.


| @ February 13, 1972: California


| Supreme Court decides, 6-1, that the


death penalty violates the State Con-


stitution's ban on cruel or unusual


punishment.


e June 28, 1972: U.S. Supreme


Court rules that the death penalty is


arbitrarily and unfairly imposed,


and strikes down most existing state


statutes, while indicating that it is


possible for states to institute man-


datory death penalty statutes.


(R) November 7, 1972: California vot-


ers approve Proposition 17, a consti-


tutional amendment which attempts


`to reinstitute the death penalty by


declaring that the death penalty can-


punishment" under the state consti-


tution.


- September 25, 1973: Governor


Reagan signs legislation to institute


a mandatory death penalty.


(c) July 3, 1976: U.S. Supreme Court


rejects mandatory death penalty laws


_ and suggests that by providing juries


History of the Death Penalty in California


Gay: Civilian from page I


due process rights.


Warren Preston, plaintiff in the case,


said, ``I am really pleased with the


terms of the agreement, and glad to


have the case ended so soon. We were


prepared for a long battle in the courts,


but happily that wasn't necessary."'


Dorothy ~ Ehrlich, Executive


Director of the ACLU-NC, emphasized,


"It is significant that the Army has said


it acted in error by discriminating


against a homosexual. However, it must


be remembered that the plaintiff in this


case is a civilian - there is still a great


deal of discrimination against homo-


sexuals who are actually in the military,


and this has not yet been resolved."'


The settlement was reached through


negotiations outside of court


proceedings and acts as an enforceable


contract. The new regulations will be


promulgated within six months' time.


Earl Warren


BOARD MEETING. Wednesday,


November 19, 7:30 p.m., Sumitomo


Bank, 19th and Franklin, Oakland.


Open to all members.


Marin


PUBLIC MEETING. Monday


November 17, 8 p.m., Fidelity Sav-


ings, Mill Valley. Richard Criley,


NCARL, to speak on federal Crimi-


nal Code Reform Bill (S. 1722) and


Intelligence Agents Protection Act.


Santa Clara


LEGAL LUNCH. Wednesday,


November 19, noon, Manny's Cellar,


175 W. St. John St., San Jose. For


member attorneys. Speaker: ACLU-


NC staff attorney Alan Schlosser on


_ ifornia


the "Right to privacy under the Cal-


Constitution."' More


7--- CALENDAR


iaponiniene Janet Miller, 408-732-


5578 or 327-5400.


Stockton


COCKTAIL PARTY. Sunday,


December 14, 4 to 8 p.m., 3216


Country Club Blvd. All members


invited. More information: Tom


Allison, 209-944-0961 ;


North Pen.


FUNDRAISING CAMPAIGN. The


Chapter is embarking on a personal


contact campaign among all its


members to encourage maximum


contributions to the Foundation's


Bill of Rights Day fundraising cam-


paign. All members are encouraged


to make a tax-deductible contri-


bution to the ACLU Foundation.


Interested in carpooling to the Bill


of Rights Day Celebration? oe


Ann Feliz at 345-9706.


Experts Debate at Chapter Confab


Rudolfo Alvarez


Membership Drive


The Santa Cruz chapter led the 60th


Anniversary Membership Drive,


Chapter recruitment totals will be


printed in the next issue of the ACLU


News.


with guided discretion, states may be ~


able to institute constitutional death


penalty laws.


(R) December 7,1976: State Supreme


Court unanimously rules that due to


the U.S. Supreme Court's decision,


California's mandatory death penal-


ty statute is unconstitutional.


e May 16, 1977: Legislature votes to


restore death penalty by passing S.B.


155.


(R) May 27, 1977: Governor Brown


vetoes S.B. 155. :


e August 11, 1977: A two-thirds


majority of the state legislature over-


rides Governor Brown's veto of S.B.


155.


(c) November.7, 1978: Proposition 7


is approved by `the California voters,


which repeals S.B. 155, and replaces


it with a broader death penalty law


proposed by Senator John Briggs.


(c) October 23, 1980: By a 4-3 vote,


the California Supreme Court up-


holds the constitutionality of the


S.B. 155 - the death penalty statute


under which 20 men are condemned


to die - and affirms the conviction


of Earl Lloyd Jackson.


=)


4aiftW 12249


Over 100 ACLU NC chapter


activists, board members, and


staff attended this year's Chap-


ter/Board Conference held in


October at Point Bonita, Marin


County.


The conference featured lively


panels on the rights of aliens,


medical patients, immigrants,


and juvenile offenders. Erwin


Knoll, editor of the `"Progres-


sive,' gave the keynote speech


_ on the first amendment and the


press.


Rudolfo Alvarez, chairperson


of the ACLU of Southern Cali


fornia, joined the conference


participants for the weekend


and spoke on.U.S. immigration


policy.


Stevens Workers


Win Contract


Pressured by a successful nationwide


boycott, JP Stevens signed a contract


with the Amalgamated Clothing and


Textile Workers Union on October 19.


The contract ends a 17-year battle for


trade union rights. Throughout that


period, J.P. Stevens ignored orders from


the National Labor Relations Board


and numerous local and federal courts


to end their harassment. of union


organizers and violations of workers'


rights. _


wr Be)


) P30) ona teears pos


ee ags | and AD


er


In September 1979, at the request of


the ACLU's Southern Women's Rights


Project, the


Directors endorsed the Stevens boycott


and urged members to support it also.


Betsy Brinson, Director of the


Southern Women's Rights Project, told


the ACLU News, "Beyond being a


victory for the Stevens workers, the


contract also represents a victory for


ACLU members and others who


supported the boycott which helped the


workers' win their legal rights."'


Kim Fry


ACLU-NC Board of (c)


Erwin Knoll


U.S. Postal Service, Statement of Ownership, Management


and Circulation


(Required by 39 U.S.C. 3685)


1. Title of Publication: ACLU News. A. Publication


Number 018040.


2. Date of Filing: 9/17/80. 3. Frequency of issue: 8 times a


year (1980 special extra edition). A. No. of issues pub-


lished annually: 8 (9). B. Annual Subscription Price: 3.50.


4. Location of known office of publication: 814 Mission St.


Suite 301, San Francisco, CA 94103. $. Location of the


headquarters or general business offices of the publishers:


Same as above. 6. Names and complete addresses of


publisher, editor and managing editor: Publisher: ~


American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California, Inc.,


same as above. Editor: Elaine Elinson, same as above. Man-


aging editor: None. 7. Owner: American Civil Liberties


Union of Northern California, Inc., Address: 814 Mission St.,


Suite 301, S.F. CA 94103. 8. Known bondholders, mort-


gagees, and other security holders owning or holding 1


percent or more of total amount of bonds, mortgages or other


securities: None. 9. For completion by nonprofit organiza-


tions authorized to mail at special rates (section 132, 122,


PSM): The purpose, function and nonprofit status of this


organization and the exempt status for Federal Income tax


purposes have not changed during the preceding 12 months.


"10 Extent and Nature of Circulation: (Average no. copies


each issue during preceding 12 months/Actual no. copies of


single issue published nearest to filing date


`A. Total no. copies printed (net press run) 18, 200 30,000


B. Paid Circulation


1. Sales through dealers and carriers, street vendors


and counter sales: None None


2. Mail subscriptions 14,437 . 13,378


C. Total Paid Circulation (Sum of


10B1 and 10B2) 14,437


D. Free distribution by mail, carrier or


other means, Samples, complimentary and other free copies:


13,378


381 334


E. Total Distribution (SumofCandD): 14,818 14,072


F. Copies not distributed :


1. Office use, left over, unaccounted


spoiled after printing: 3,382 15,928


2. Returns from news agents: None None |


G. Total (Sum of E, Fl and 2 - should


equal net press run shown in A): 18,200 30,000


11. I certify that the statements made by me above are


correct and complete. Signature and title of Editor, Pub-


lisher, Business Manager or Owner: Elaine Elinson,


Editor /s/. 12. For completion by Publishers mailing at the


regular rates (Section 132.121, Postal Service Manual): 39


U.S. C. 3626 provides in pertinent part: `No person who


would have been entitled to mail matter under former


section 4359 of this title shall mail such matter at the rates


provided under this subsection unless he files annually with


the Postal Service a written request for permission to mail


matter at such rates. In accordance with the provisions of


this statute, I hereby request permission to mail the


publication named in Item 1 at the phased postage rates


presently authorized by 39 U.S.C. 3626. Signature and title


of Editor, Publisher, Business Manager or Owner: Elaine


Elinson /s/.


3() i


The Annual Report of


the ACLU Foundation of


Northern California


"When the visitors' center at the


University of California's Livermore


Laboratory opened, it was dedicated


to `the communication of ideas,' but


more ideas are now being communi-


cated there than the university had in


mind.


In addition to aeormation on the


laboratory's contribution to the devel-


opment of nuclear weapons,


antinuclear and antiwar literature is


available at the center. As usual, this


is a result of a court decision, and, as


usual, the court decision is the result


of prodding by the sleepless American


Cwil Liberties Union."


Los Angeles Times editorial:


July 28, 1980


While the ACLU Foundation of Nor-


thern. California is not an organization


_ which ordinarily takes its cue from edi-


torial boards, when the second editorial


in a month appeared in the Los Angeles


Times acknowledging the distinguished


accomplishments of the organization, it


was a clear indication that. the far-reach-


ing goals of the Foundation were being


achieved. _


The Foundation of the ACLU of


Northern California was established


separately in 1971 to support an aggres-


sive litigation program to respond to the


growing threat to civil liberties. -


- The goal of the program was not


simply to litigate local cases but rather,


its aim was to establish legal precedents


for the entire country.


These high aspirations were based on


the 80's


a number of unique circumstances which


existed in northern California:


e The fact that the Foundation could


bring cases before the distinguished


members of the California Supreme


- Court at a time when the rest of the na-


tion most often relied on the U.S. Su-


preme Court, which was less receptive


to the protection of civil liberties;


e The potential for mobilizing the


generous resources of the Bay Area's


legal community to develop a cadre of


volunteer attorneys;


cent The ACLU's reputation for peel


ing a talented and dedicated legal staff;


cent The ACLU's membership history,


which indicated that more civil libertar-


ians resided in northern California than


anywhere else in the nation, thus the


special support necessary to make this


challenging goal a reality might be


provided.


The docket which follows reveals


that the Foundation's program is signifi-


cantly advancing in the direction for


- which it was established.


For instance, in June, the U.S. Su-


preme Court let stand the California


Supreme Court decision in Robins v.


Pruneyard, advanced by the ACLU,


that free speech was not reserved only


`for the village square of the past, but


was also protected in the town square of


- the shopping center.


The Foundation continues to seek in-


dependent interpretation of the state


constitution by the California Supreme


Court in undertaking critical cases,


including extensive abortion rights liti-


gation.


After more than two years, the


ACLU argued in September before the


state Supreme Court that despite the


_ U.S. Supreme Court's contrary decision,


the state legislature's cut-off of Medi-


Cal funds for poor women to exercise


their right to choose an abortion vio-


lated California's independent state


guarantees of privacy and equal protec-


tion.


Since the lieigation was initiated in


1978, reproductive freedom rights. of


more than 200,000 poor women have


been maintained.


During 1980, a total of five ACLU- .


NC. supported cases were brought to


the U.S. Supreme Court and nine cases


were brought to the California Supreme.


Court for consideration - an unprece-


dented number. (c)


This exceptional record is in part due


to the growth of the ACLU Founda-


tion's Cooperating Attorney program


which provides voluntary counsel in


more than 60 % of the cases reported on


below.


Moreover, for every case which


appears on the docket, there are hun-


dreds of civil liberties conflicts which


are resolved administratively. ACLU's


"complaint desk," staffed by volunteer


lay counselors, receives more than 2000x00B0


phone calls each week. The counselors,


assisted by staff attorneys, make appro-


priate referrals, provide information on


civil liberties issues, and often provide


the advocacy necessary to resolve a par-


ticular grievance. Ten ACLU Chapters,


from Stockton to Monterey, provide


similar services to their communities.


_ Aletter from the ACLU to a principal


who is violating the free press rights of


the school newspaper editor, or the


. presence of an ACLU representative at


a meeting with a local police chief to


negotiate a permit for a group planning a


demonstration, enforces civil liberties


principles, without the necessity of filing


a lawsuit.


=


Fortunately, the additional research


and expertise required in these instances


is supported by twelve law students


_who clerk for the legal department


`throughout


the year, providing


approximately 80 hours of back-up legal


work each week.


The ACLU, however, reminded by


ominous polls which indicate that if the


Bill of Rights were placed on the ballot,


the majority would vote "No," reeog-


nizes that a victory in an administrative


battle or in the courts, is not enough.


Thus, ACLU's public information pro-


gram, ably directed by Elaine Elinson,


has either generated or responded to


more than 400 press inquiries regarding


ACLU litigation during 1980.


Given the controversial nature of the


eases brought by the ACLU Founda-


tion, our ability to inform the public


through the media is a critical strategy


which must be employed to meet our


far-reaching goals.


Margaret C. Crosby, Alan L. Schloss-


er and Amitai Schwartz, have for four


years shared responsibilities for direct-


ing this remarkable legal program,


assisted by Donna Van Diepen and Pat


Jameson.


Legal Committee Chitepercon San-


ford Jay Rosen, and Vice-Chairperson


Eva Jefferson Paterson have engaged 45


lawyers in the lively debates which take


place at the monthly legal committee


mectings where legal strategies, and


recommendations for potential cases are


decided upon.


The annual Iegal docket which


follows would more accurately be called


an interim report. For the ACLU's obli-


gation to strive for justice is not a task


which can be completed, but a commit-


ment which increases each time an indi-


vidual's rights are abridged. We are


proud to present it to you.


Drucilla S. Ramey


Chairperson


Board of Governors


Dorothy M. Ehrlich


Executive Direetor


FIRST AMENDMENT


~ Obstructions to the exercise of First


Amendment rights are alarmingly


widespread in both the public and the


private sector. The ACLU has chal--


lenged these obstructions - in shop-


ping centers, in access to government


property, in city ordinances, in the


school system - with a great deal of


success this year.


Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins


In a major victory for free speech, the


U.S. Supreme Court in June upheld the


California Supreme Court's decision


granting access to shopping centers for


free speech activity. This case originated


in a Santa Clara shopping center in 1975


when two high school students and their


teacher were stopped by private securi-


ty guards from soliciting signatures on a


petition.


The ACLU-NC Foundation partici-


pated in the Robins litigation before the


state and federal high courts and re-


mains committed to implementation and


enforcement of the rights won in the


case.


Sun Valley Shopping Center v. Citizens


for Smoking and No Smoking Sections;


Sun Valley v. California Tax Reform


Association


To enforee the California Supreme


Court's decision of March 1979 in Rob-


ins, the ACLU-NC Foundation has al-


ready litigated several lawsuits against


the shopping center industry. In many


instances shopping malls have continued


to refuse any access to their premises or


have imposed burdensome regulations


on individuals secking access.


In these two cases, a shopping center


was denied an injunetion which would


have sharply restricted petition circula-


tors. The shopping center's "time, place


and manner" regulations (such as exees-


sive money bonds, long waiting periods


for permits, ete.) were ruled unconstitu-


tional.


ein of California Nuclear


Weapons Labs Conversion Project


v. Lawrence Livermore Laboratory


In an unprecedented First Amend-


ment ecasc, ACLU arguments convineed


the Alameda Superior Court that Law-


rence Livermore Laboratory must allow


- anti-nuclear groups to place their infor-


mation-in the Lab's Visitors Center and


to use the Lab's auditorium for the


showing of a film about the dangers of


nuclear weapons.


Lawyers for the University of Cal.


ornia, which administers the Lab for the


U.S. Department of Energy, have


appealed the decision to the state Court


of Appeal.


UNCONSTITUTIONAL


ORDINANCES


_everal local city ordinances and


sections of the state Election Code


which have been used to limit freedom


of expression have been ruled invalid as


a result of ACLU lawsuits challenging


their constitutionality.


' People v. Hugel


A Santa Cruz ordinance which was


used to prohibit the sale of printed


material, in this case a drug information


magazine, from being sold on the city's


main street was ruled unconstitutional


by the Superior Court in response to an


ACLU lawsuit initiated by the Santa


Cruz Chapter.


People v. Barton and Josselyn


A second Santa Cruz ordinanee ban- |


ning distribution of leaflets on the city


streets without a permit was also struck


down. The ordinanee had been used to


prohibit leafletters from passing out


anti-draft literature during the draft


registration period this summer.


. People v. Saylor


On the eve of the November elec-


tions, the ACLU filed a taxpayer suit


challenging a San Francisco ordinance


banners on public property while per-


mitting the posting of commercial


advertising.


_ Alternatives for California Women v.


Contra Costa County


The ACW, which goes door-to-door


to canvass and fundraise on the issue of


battered women, is being represented by


the ACLU in their challenge to a county


ordinance which prohibits such canvas-


sing after 7 PM. As the evening hours are


the optimal time for canvassers to com-


municate with residents, the time re-


striction is an unconstitutional limitation


of the free speech rights of ACW mem-.


bers and Contra Costa residents.


Schuster v. Municipal Court


A section of the state Election Code


which prohibited distribution of anony-


mous campaign literature was struck


down by the California Court of Appeal


on the grounds that the section was


overbroad in restricting the constitu-


tional right of freedeom of speech.


The issue of unsigned political leaflets


was also raised in an earlier successful


ACLU case, People v. Drake, but the


Court of Appeal decision will mean that


throughout the state, people will not be


prosecuted for disseminating anony-


mous political material.


CENSORSHIP


oting the growing threat and


practice of censorship of. books and


periodicals in schools, the ACLU-NC


has filed two suits against California -


school districts for denying their stu-


dents the right to read and obstructing


freedom of the press.


McKamey v. Mt. Diablo ues


School District


The most recent suit, filed in Septem-


ber, on behalf of students, teachers, a


parent, a taxpayer and the Ms. Founda-


tion challenges the school board's deci- ~


sion to restrict access to Ms. magazine


to students who could obtain written


permission from a parent and a teacher


- a restriction which the ACLU argues


is tantamount to censorship. -


Wexner v. Anderson Union High


School District


In an earlier suit, a 1978 challenge to a


Shasta County School Board's ban of


the books of prize-winning author Rich-


ard Brautigan, the Foundation has moved:


for summary judgment.


The legitimacy of schools limiting the


First Amendment rights of students and


faculty has been challenged by the ACLU


in other areas as well.


Hinze v. Superior Court


The ACLU is representing a Marin


high school student who was suspended


from school by the principal for wearing


a button saying "Fuck The Draft."


The case is now in the Court of Ap-


peal, after the Superior Court denied a


preliminary injunction.


Claiming that the emotional value of


the words on the student's button are


protected speech, the ACLU is arguing


that students who are vehemently op-


posed to the draft have every right to


express their opinions without interfer-


ence from the school administration.


Franklin v. Stanford


In an academic freedom case which


has spanned the decade, the Stanford


University Board of Trustees this year -


: : cS ; _ reaffirmed a 1971 decision to dismiss


which prohibits posting political signs or -


tenured faculty member Bruce Franklin


for speeches he made during the height


of campus protests against the Vietnam


War despite ACLU objections and a


court ruling that some of the speeches


were protected by the First Amend-


ment.


- The ACLU is continuing to fight the


dismissal in court, and the final decision


of the penalty will be made by the Santa


Clara Superior Court, subject to review


by the appellate courts.


People v. Giese


The U.S. Supreme Court let stand the


anti-war bombing conspiracy conviction -


of Oregon professor Frank Giese who


argues that the verdict was based sub- .


stantially on his reading of a book of rev-


olutionary writings.


The ACLU-NC had entered the case


as amicus curiae contending that the


state cannot constitutionally punish an


individual for his reading material: to do


so is tantamount to seeking to control


his thoughts.


FREE EXPRESSION


`electing who can exercise their


First Amendment rights and who can-


not is not only a question that school


officials think they can decide. ACLU


cases on the docket this year reveal that


the military, the police, and landlords


have all had a go at limiting those rights


. to people under their authority.


Allen v. Monger -


Free speech rights of GI's were se-


verely restricted as a result of two U.S.


Supreme Court decisions related to a


case brought by the Foundation in 1973.


The Foundation had successfully chal-


lenged in the lower courts military regu-


lations which require members of the


service to obtain prior approval from


`their commanders before circulating


petitions on base.


The U.S. Supreme Court overturned


that decision in January, claiming that


"national security interests" outweigh


the right of free expression.


Laub v. McKloskey


Two Berkeley tenants, being sued by


their landlord for libel and slander as a


result of their efforts to inform and or-


ganize their fellow tenants concerning il-


legal rent increases, evictions and poor


maintainence of their buildings, were


supported in their defense by the ACLU-


NC.


Fair Political Practices Commission |


v. Superior Court


A State Supreme 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 in


January.


The ACLU had entered as amicus


curiae in support of the Institute of Gov-


ernmental Advocates, a lobbyists' or-


ganization, because the original ban vio-


lated the constitutional guarantees of


freedom of speech and association.


FREEDOM OF


THE PRESS


ress freedom is under attack with


a particularly insidious weapon - libel


suits against newspapers and reporters


by police officers and other government


officials who are criticized in the press,


and who have been awarded enormous


damages.


Such libel suits, like the two ACLU


cases below, have a dangerous potential


for chilling inquiry into or editorial com-


ment on public affairs. All speech per-


taining to public affairs is protected by


the First Amendment, and that freedom


of expression is inhibited if a reporter or


an editor, before writing critically on


public issues, is forced to consider the


possibility of being sued for libel.


McCoy et. al. v.


The Hearst Corporation et. al.


The ACLU is representing two re-


porters, Lowell Bergman and Raul Ra-


mirez, in the California Court of Appeal


in their appeal of a multi-million dollar


libel judgment awarded to three city offi-


cials who claimed they were libeled by


the reporters in a story they wrote for.


the San Francisco Examiner about a


controversial murder case.


_ The suit claimed that two San Fran-


cisco police officers and a former district


attorney had been libeled when it was


reported that they had coerced a witness


to give false testimony.


The ACLU represents Bergman


and Ramirez, each of whom have been


ordered to pay $780,000 in the judg-


ment, because the case strikingly docu-


ments the potential of libel suits for


limiting journalistic inquiry into the ac-


tivities of public officials.


If unchallenged, the court decision


could result in dangerous self-censorship


by the press for fear of enormous finan-


cial liabilities.


Gomes yv. The Observer


When a small family-run newspaper


was threatened with closure because of


a court ruling that the paper had to pay


$170,000 damages for libel to local


police officers who were the subject of a


critical editorial, the ACLU took the


case to the Court of Appeal successfully


arsuing that. until all appeals have been


exhausted, forced payment of damages


in a libel suit operates as an unconstitu-


tional prior restraint on the press.


EQUAL PROTECTION


Though the Constitution guarantees


that the state government cannot deny


its citizens their rights nor equal pro-


tection of the laws, much of the ACLU


litigation this year has been fighting


exactly that: the denial of equal pro-


tection on the grounds of sex and sex-


ual preference, race, age, religion and


financial status.


SEX DISCRIMINATION


espite major legal gains, anti-


quated attitudes about women unfortu-


nately still prevail in many private and


governmental bodies, including the legis-


lature and the courts. These attitudes


and the discrimination which results,


have been the subject of several major


ACLU challenges this year.


Committee to Defend Reproductive


Rights v. Unruh


`In the wake of the devastating U.S.


Supreme Court decision in June uphold-


ing the withdrawal of federal funding for


abortions, the Foundation is continuing


its 24-year challenge to the state Legis-


lature's cut-off of state Medi-Cal abor-


tion funding.


The most recent case, Committee to


Defend Reproductive Rights v. Unruh,


which opposes the 1980 budget cuts,


was argued before the California Su-


preme Court in September along with


the 1978 and 1979 challenges (CDRR v.


Myers and CDRR v. Cory). The state


court has, at the request of the ACLU,


enjoined the state Department of Health


Services, from implementing the budget


- cuts until the court makes its final ruling


in the cases.


Significantly, solely because of court


orders issued in these lengthy court cases


litigated by the Foundation, California is


one of the few states which is continuing


to provide state funds for abortions de-


spite the federal and state legislature's


cuts. =


These ACLU challenges to legislation


choking off abortion funding have meant


that since 1978, 200,000 women - in-


cluding 27,000 teenagers a year - in


California have obtained Medi-Cal funds


for abortions.


The Foundation's case is grounded in


provisions of the California Constitution


which are more protective of the right of


privacy and the rights of the poor than


the U.S. Constitution. The Foundation


has asked the Court to rule that the Bud-


get Act restrictions are unconstitutional


and to reaffirm that constitutional rights


cannot be denied to women just because


they depend on Medi-Cal for safe and


effective medical care.


Isbister v. Santa Cruz Boys Club


A landmark decision by the Santa


Cruz Superior Court in an ACLU sex


discrimination lawsuit determined that


the Santa Cruz Boys Club policy of ex-


cluding girls is illegal and that member-


ship to the club must be open to all chil-


dren regardless of sex.


This is the first case in California to


clarify the intention of the state's prohi-


bition on discrimination in business es-


tablishments (Unruh Civil Rights Act)


with regard to community facilities.


An appeal by the Boys Club will be


heard by the state Court of Appeal later


this year.


Wellman v. Wellman


A provision in a child custody order


that stipulated that the mother could


not have any overnight male visitors


was struck down on sex discrimination


_and privacy grounds after the Founda-


tion joined an appeal of that order.


Michael M. v. Superior Court


California's statutory rape law, char-


acterized as "a relic of Victorian atti-


tudes towards female chastity" because


it punishes men who have sexual inter-


course with girls under 18 and permits


women to have intercourse with boys


under 18, is being challenged on equal


protection grounds before the U.S. Su-


preme Court.


RACIAL


DISCRIMINATION


hough many advances in the fight


against racial discrimination have been


made this year, backlash attacks on af-


firmative action programs continue.


In the two cases below, the ACLU


acted as friend of the court in support of


protecting affirmative action programs.


Price v. Civil Service Commission


of Sacramento County


Affirmative action in public employ-


ment was advanced when the race-con-


scious preferential hiring program im-


posed on the Sacramento District At-


torney's office by the Civil Service Com-


mission to rectify past discrimination


(the DA's office had only one black at-


`torney out of 65 on staff) was declared


valid by the California Supreme Court,


and permitted to stand by the U. S.


Supreme Court i in October. .


DeRonde v. Regents of the


University of California


The Foundation has filed an amicus


brief in support of the Law School at


the University of California at Davis


whose affirmative action admissions


program is being challenged in the Cali-


fornia Supreme Court by a rejected white


applicant.


GAY RIGHTS


`iserimination' against homo-


sexuals, particularly by the military, has


been the subject of several ACLU cases


this year.


Who's behind America?


Preston v. Brown et. al.


The Army's revocation of a civilian


worker's sensitive information access on


the grounds that he engaged in homo-


sexual activity, and moreover because


he admitted it, is being challenged as un-


constitutional by the Foundation in the


U.S. District Court.


As the worker lost his position as a


result of the revocation of the access, the


suit is seeking reinstatement and dam-


ages. The Foundation is claiming that


the Army violated the plaintiff's right to


due process by denying him a hearing'


and his right to equal protection by re-


voking his security clearance solely be-


cause of his sexual preference.


Hatheway v. Secretary of the Navy


The Foundation is appealing the de-


cision of a civilian court which has re-


fused to overturn a court martial con-


viction of a lieutenant who was dishon-~


orably discharged from the Army for


engaging in homosexual acts.


Yoder v. Leigh High School


In one of the first gay prom cases in


the nation, the Foundation won an in-


junction to prevent a San Jose high


school principal from interfering with a


gay student's right to bring his male date


to the Senior Prom.


Pina v. Carmel Unified School District


The Federal District Court will hear


ACLU arguments that a school bus


driver who refused to drive after cer-


tain hours on religious grounds and was.


therefore fired by the school district is


being discriminated against on religious


grounds in violation of Title Vil of the


Civil Rights Act.


EQUAL OPPORTUNITY


UNDER THELAW. - |


ontrary to President Carter's


characterization that "There are many


things in life that are not fair...govern-


ment should not act to make opportuni-


ties for rich and poor exactly equal.", the


state Constitution does guarantee equal


protection under the law to all regard-


less of financial standing.


The enforcement of this guarantee,


however, often takes long and arduous


litigation, as in a case which spanned


several years in a successful attempt sup-


ported by the ACLU to make the bail


system apply equally to accused persons


regardless of their degree of wealth or


indigence.


Van Atta v. Scott


In a major decision which will effec-


tively revamp the bail system in San


Francisco and throughout the state, the


California Supreme Court ruled in July


that the current San Francisco system


was discriminatory to the poor and out-


lined new procedures to make the bail


system more equitable.


_The new bail system will put the bur-


den on the prosecution to prove that a


- defendant should not be eligible for Own


Recognizance release, thus allowing


many more indigent detainees to be freed


on OR despite the fact that they do not


have funds to pay a bail bond.


DUE PROCESS


Infringements of due process rights


appear frequently in cases of


persons already confined in state


institutions such as prisons and hos-


pitals. These infringements are par-


ticularly dangerous because a confined


-person often has nowhere to turn to


redress these due process denials. This


year, the ACLU has taken on major


challenges to protect the rights of pris-


oners and psychiatric patients.


Inthe case of two suits against Santa.


Rita Rehabilitation Center where


`there has been a systematic abuse of


prisoners' rights, the ACLU is com-


mitted to renewing these challenges


until the County substantially im-


proves the conditions there.


Torrey v. Houchins


On behalf of a former inmate of Santa.


Rita, who was forcibly raped by another


prisoner in the presence of two deputy


sheriffs, the ACLU is suing the Sheriff's


Photograph Lionel Delevingne.


Department, claiming that the systematic


indifference to prisoners' safety and pris-


oners' rights by officials at the jail and


the subsequent endangerment of prison-


ers is a violation of the constitutional


guarantee of freedom from cruel and un-


usual punishment.


Holt y. Alameda County


The ACLU obtained damages from


Alameda County for a second Santa Rita


inmate in an out of court settlement for


cruel and unusual punishment and racial


discrimination.


Jamison v. Farabee


In a settlement described as a break-


through for mental patients, voluntary


patients in all public and private licensed


mental health facilities in the state of


California for the first time have the right


to refuse mind altering drugs as a result


of new regulations from the California


Department of Mental Health.


On behalf of a voluntary psychiatric


patient, the ACLU had argued that the


forced medication of patients without


their informed consent and without pro-


viding them with information about the


side effects of the drugs and available


treatment alternatives violated the pa-


tient's rights to privacy, free spgeet and


due process of law.


In re Kenneth Pilipinos


_ This case is an attempt to extend the


new provisions resulting from Jamison


to involuntary mental patients as well.


On behalf of an involuntarily committed


patient at San Francisco General Hos-


`pital who wants the hospital to stop


forcibly medicating him' with anti-psy-


chotic drugs, the ACLU is arguing in an


amicus brief that forced medication


without a judicial determination violates


the patient's constitutional rights.


POLICE PRACTICES


ut denial of due process does


not only affect those already confined.


Abuses within the justice system - at


the time of arrest, at trial, even within


the police information system - often


turn the "presumption of innocence" into


a "presumption of guilt" in violation of


constitutional guarantees.


Tom v. City and County of


San Francisco


The Foundation is representing an in-


nocent man who was falsely imprisoned


because the Police Information Network |


(P.I.N.) computer erroneously supplied


information to the arresting officer that


a bench warrant for the man, which had


in fact been cancelled for over a year,


was still outstanding.


People v. Gregory Joseph S.


_ The right to silence in a pre-custody


situation, long debated but still unde-


cided by the courts, is the primary issue


in the appeal of a young boy convicted


of obstructing a police officer simply be-


~ cause he refused to answer the officer's -


questions about an incident in which the


boy was suspected of harassing a neigh-


bor.


People v. Spain


The conviction of a Black Panther


Party member for offenses rising out of


the 1971 uprising at San Quentin Prison


was upheld by the state Court of Appeal


despite the ACLU contention that the


shackling of the defendant to his chair


during the trial and the improper contact


between the judge and a juror were a


blatant disregard of the due process rights


of the defendant.


] SEARCH


AND SEIZURE


/ inreasonable: searches: are pro-


hibited by the Fourth Amendment, but


several ACLU cases this year have been


contesting such searches by the police,


in some cases without a warrant.


People v. Kraft


The conviction of obstruction of jus-


tice of an attorney who demanded to see


a search warrant when 17 plainclothes


police officers invaded her client's home


was reversed when the ACLU appealed


on her behalf.


The appeal court dbreed: with the


ACLU argument that a verbal demand


to see a warrant could not be construed


-as an obstruction of the officers, particu-


larly if the demand was in furtherance of


the Fourth Amendment guarantee that


there should be no unreasonable searches.


People v. Teresinski


An ACLU challenge to Dixon city


Name


oe to support the legal work of the ACLU Foundation.


Iam enclosing a tax-deductible contribution of


0x00A7 tothe ACLU Foundation.


ordinance resulted in a court ruling that


evidence obtained in an illegal search of


a car cannot be used against a person


who later became a robbery suspect,


even if the arresting officer is not aware


at the time of the stop that it is illegal.


People v. Redriguez


The ACLU is arguing as a friend of


the court before the California Supreme


Court that under the Fourth Amend-


ment, in non-emergency situations, the


police must have a warrant to search the


trunk or glove compartment of an auto-


mobile.


Franchise Tax Board v. Barnhart


The California Court of Appeal ruled


`that the Franchise Tax Board does have


- the power to issue a subpeona to examine


the records of ACLU lobbyists during a


routine audit of the ACLU under the


Political Reform Act of 1974.


The ACLU is continuing to contest the


subpeona on the ground that it violates


the Fourth Amendment by allowing the


FTB to conduct an unreasonably wide


search of the ACLU records and that in-


spections by subpeona related to the


First Amendment - in this case civil


liberties advocacy - cannot be issued


without some cause to suspect wrong-


doing.


VAGUE AND


OVERBROAD LAWS


@ aws which are vague and over-


broad can give the police and prosecutors


free reign to punish innocent activity.


The ACLU has challenged several city


ordinances which have been used in this


way.


People v. Amman


The Alameda Superide Court agreed


with an ACLU amicus brief and a muni-


cipal court ruling that an Oakland city


ordinance which prohibited loitering for.


the purpose of prostitution was illegal


and should be struck down.


The ACLU argued that the ordinance.


was both vague and overbroad in its


scope so that in the guise of punishing


prostitution the police could arrest any


person that they did not want on the


streets.


People v. Aguilar


The Foundation is representing a per-


son cited for "cruising" in violation of a


Los Gatos cruising prohibition. The ordi-


nance is being challenged as overbroad


and unconstitutional in that it defines


"cruising" as "driving...for the sake of


_Address


-Telephone


City


State


Zip


Design: Kerry Tremain Design


Please make all checks payable to the ACLU-NC


mail to 814 Mission St., Suite 30T, San Francisco, CA 941 O.


`oundation and


wall


driving without immediate destination..


at random but on the lookout for possible.


developments."


PRIVACY / -


PUBLIC IN FORMATION


The right to privacy has been ex-


plicitly guaranteed by the California


Constitution since 1972, yet the trans-


lation of that principle into practice


continues to challenge the ACLU.


Abuses of this right by state and pri-


vate agencies are still the norm.


ACLU cases this year reflect the


Foundation's attempt to validate the


extension of this right, particularly to


those who have the least ability to ex-


ercise it - hospital patients, welfare


recipients, inmates and accused per-


sons.


Doe v. Coppock, Gain


The confidentiality of the hospital


records of patients in drug treatment


programs was ensured by an ACLU chal-


lenge to a police raid of the Methadone


Clinic at San Francisco General Hos-


pital.


The raid was determined to be an


illegal invasion of the patients' privacy


and led to the issuance of new regulations


by the San Francisco and San Mateo


Police Departments to ensure the future


confidentiality of patients' records.


The out of court settlement, approved


by the San Francisco Superior Court in


May, also stipulated that the police must


return to the Clinic all of the materials


and information obtained during the raid


and that "all of the fruits of the search"


must be destroyed.


People v. Avalon Memorial Hospital


In another case regarding the privacy


of hospital patients, the ACLU is chal-


lenging the requirement that fetal death


certificates be filed after 20-week abor-


tions. The certificate now demands the


name of mother, name of father, name of


fetus, funeral parlor, cause of death, race


of parents, mother's menstrual history,


etc. - all on public display.


The requirement constitutes not only


a severe intrusion of the patients' privacy


but also inhibits those wishing to exer-


cise their constitutional right to have an


abortion.


DeLancie v. McDonald


The ACLU argued before the Califor-


nia Supreme Court in September that


the San Mateo County Sheriff's practice


of covert electronic monitoring and tape


recording of conversations between


prisoners awaiting trial and their visitors,


as well as conversations between pris-


oners, violates the California Constitu-


tion's guarantee of privacy.


In October of last year, the Court of


Appeal agreed with the ACLU argu-


ment that constitutional rights of privacy


cannot be denied prisoners.


Schults v. Superior Court


The privacy rights of welfare recipi-


ents are at issue in the case of a 24-year-


old Oroville woman accused of welfare


fraud. The woman and her 2-year-old


child have been ordered by the Butte


County Superior Court to submit to


blood tests, presumably to establish that


an unreported male allegedly living in


`the home of the defendant was the father


of the child.


The ACLU contends that the blood


tests are involuntary bodily intrusions


which constitute an unlawful search and


seizure and a violation of the right to


privacy of both the mother and the child.


People v. Blair


The extension of privacy rights to per-


sonal credit card records was affirmed


by the California Supreme Court when


it ruled that police officers may not


obtain credit card account information


on an individual from a credit card com-


pany without judicial authorization, in


agreement with an ACLU amicus brief.


Kilgore v. Younger


An ACLU amicus brief to the Cali- -


fornia Supreme Court in support of a


plaintiff who was named by the Attorney


General as an "organized crime figure" :


argues that government officials are not


absolutely privileged from liability if


their actions constitute wilful violations


of a person's privacy and that the At-


torney General violated his statutory


duties to protect the confidentiality of


_ eriminal history information.


THE RIGHT


TO KNOW


he other side of the privacy coin is


Ahe public's "right to know." The ACLU


has been successful in using the federal


Freedom of Information Act and the


`state Public Records Act to broaden the


scope of this right, particularly in regard


to previously undisclosed information .


on police practices.


Northern California Police


Practices Project v. Craig


Arrest procedures, weapons policies


and other previously undisclosed Cali-


fornia Highway Patrol Documents are


now open to the public as a result of an


ACLU case against the CHP under the


California Public Records Act. Prior to


this settlement, the state's largest police


agency, with no recognizable constitu-


ency to keep it accountable, was oper-


ating in almost total secrecy.


ACLU v. Deukmejian


The California Supreme Court will -


hear arguments that the criminal intel-


ligence files of the Law Enforcement In-


telligence Unit (LEIU) maintained by


the state's Organized Crime and Intel-


ligence Branch should be available to the


public. :


The ACLU is arguing, on behalf of its


members, that the records, with personal


identifying information deleted, should


be disclosed under the Public Records


Act and that the public has a right to


`know what type of information the state


Department of Justice is maintaining for


the LEIU.


Disclosures in other states have shown


that the LEIU keeps files on political


dissidents and is a national clearing house


for political snooping.


Knox v. Police Review Commmission


A decision to make public the police


internal investigation report in a police


shooting case agreed with an ACLU


amicus brief that it was in the public in- -


terest for the Police Review Commission


to reveal information about police prac-


tices contained 1 in the report.


Ramo v. Secretary of the Navy


A US. District Court ruling that in


the case of the surveillance of a worker


in an overseas military law project, the


Navy and the FBI have legitimately de-


nied access to their records and were not


required to produce them, is being ap-


pealed by the ACLU under the federal


Freedom of Information Act.


The ACLU-NC Foundation


1980 Annual Report was prepared


by ACLU News editor Elaine


Elinson.


ey


o


86


Page: of 8
Clip Image

In collections

Details
Title

vol. 45, no. 8 (December, 1980)

Creator

American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California

Date

1980 November-December

Identifier

ACLUN_0499

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. 8, 1980 November-December; 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)

Public welfare
Sex workers
Privacy, Right of
Nazis
Voting rights
Freedom of information
Freedom of expression
Custody of children
Criminal justice
Capital punishment
Reproductive rights
Affirmative action
Cruising (driving)
LGBTQ rights
Police practices
Immigrant rights

Named subject(s)

Baldwin, Roger
Bergman, Lowell
Bird, Rose
Briggs, John
Brosnahan, James
Clark, Ramsey
Dreyfus, Benjamin
Ehrlich, Dorothy
Miller, Michael
Pemberton, Nancy
Ramey, Drucilla
Schlosser, Alan
Schwartz, Amitai
Warren, Earl
California Highway Patrol
International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union
National Labor Relations Board
San Francisco (Calif.). Board of Supervisors
United States. Federal Bureau of Investigation
United States. National Labor Relations Board

Geographical subject(s)

Sacramento (Calif.)
Monterey (Calif.)
Oakland (Calif.)
Berkeley (Calif.)

Collection identifier

PER ACLUN