vol. 46, no. 8

Primary tabs

Volume XLVI


Police Sue Gay Paper for $20M


aclu news


November-December 1981


Bay Area Reporter editor Paul Lorch (1.) and publisher Bob Ross are being sued


for $20 million libel for a story about alleged oe brutality against the gay


community.


Court Reaffires Abortion Funds


Late Friday afternoon on November 6, just as the ACLU News was going to


press, the California Court of Appeal handed down a victorious decision for the


Aclu in CDRR y. Cory. The unanimous decision, issued only nine days follow-


ing the argument, assures the continuation of Medi-Cal funding for abortion.


Reaffirming the California Supreme Court opinion in March 1981 (CDRR v.


Myers) that "once the state has decided to make such [medical] benefits available, it


cannot selectively withdraw part of that care solely because a woman exercises her


constitutional right to have an abortion," the appellate court issued a peremptory


writ directing state health and finance officials "to refrain from enforcing the


unconstitutional restrictions in the Budget Act of 1981."


This important decision means that 8000 women a month-one-third of them


teenagers-who rely on Medi-Cal funding for abortions will continue to have the


constitutionally guaranteed right to reproductive freedom. The ACLU has been


~ fighting for this victory for a long time, and the story below which outlines the latest


episode in this battle, indicates how complex this issue has become.


It was a bit like deja vu in the court


room. On October 28, ACLU-NC staff


counsel Margaret Crosby was once


again arguing CDRR vy. Cory in the


fourth floor court room of the State


Building, reminding the justices of their


responsibility under the California


Constitution to ensure that all women


-regardless of economic status-have


the right to choose an abortion.


But this year, six months following


the landmark California Supreme Court


decision securing Medi-Cal funds for


abortion, the scenario-and the players


-were a bit different.


. The ACLU filed this year's version of


CDRR vy. Cory in July after the Legis-


lature, with flagrant disregard for the


Supreme Court's decision, again cut


95% of Medi-Cal funds from the Budget -


Act. The named defendants in.the


ACLU suit, Beverlee Myers, Director of


the Health Services, Kenneth Cory,


state Controller, and Jesse Unruh, state


Treasurer, responded in varying ways to


the suit, but all advised the court that


they would abide by the Supreme


Court's March ruling mandating them


to provide funding.


This may have led to a strange scene


in the Court of Appeal hearing, with


Crosby arguing against no opponent.


But, two weeks before the scheduled


hearing, in stepped the California Sen-


ate, represented by none other than the


former lawyer for Myers, Cory and


Unruh-Attorney General George


Deukmejian.


The Senate moved to oppose the


ACLU challenge arguing that the court


is not empowered to order the Legisla-


ture to appropriate funds for abortions.


Deukmejian, it seems, was happy to


part ways with his former clients who


are now willing to comply with the court


mandate, and advocate the Senate's op-


posing position.


Alarmed at the unethical behavior of


the Attorney General, Crosby filed a


motion on October 22 to disqualify him


from proceeding further in the lawsuit.


Crosby explained that the Attorney


General's participation in the case must


be prevented for two reasons. "First,"


she said, "the Attorney General's repre-


sentation of the Senate in this case vio-


lates the principle that he may not adopt


a position antagonistic to the Governor


-and the Governor vetoed a Senate


amendment (the Schmitz Amendment)


- which would have prevented the state


Continued on p. 3


Michael Miller


"The police libel suit against the Bay


Area Reporter is an attempt to intimi-


date the people of San Francisco from


speaking out against police brutality.


The debate regarding the issue of police


abuse is too important to be manipu-


lated by the threat of a multi-million.


dollar libel suit," said Amitai Schwartz,


ACLU-NC staff counsel.


Schwartz, speaking at an October 14


press conference, announced the ACLU's


defense of the Bay Area Reporter (BA R)


in a libel suit filed against the newspaper


by the police.


The BA Ris a weekly newspaper pub-


lished in San Francisco covering issues


and events of interest to the gay com-


munity. The newspaper, its publisher


Bob Ross, editor Paul Lorch, and a


reporter, John Karr, are being sued for


$20,000,000 by two San Francisco police


officers who are being supported in the


suit by the San Francisco Police Offi-


cers Association (POA).


The multi-million dollar libel suit is


based on an article which appeared in


the May 21, 1981 issue of the BAR en-


titled "SFPD Brutality Aired, Toklas


Club Envisions Review Board to Curb


Rising Police Aggressiveness Against


Gays."


The story, written by John Karr, re-


ports a meeting of the Alice B. Toklas


Democratic Club where persons testi-


fied about alleged police brutality


against San Francisco's gay community.


Karr attended the meeting and wrote


inthe BAR, "The Political Action Com-


mittee of the Alice B. Toklas Memorial


Democratic Club convened last Thurs-


day to hear testimony from victims of


police brutality and discuss possible


courses of action. The stories indicated _


Vv


CARI OEWD


ORO


AVN


am


(Att Se


STEG6 VO OG


I


6


1) a rising tide of unwarrant


checked police brutality to


and 2) the possible recourse o


slow, bureaucratic and always painfully


after-the-fact."


Karr reported on the testimony given


by members of the gay community about


specific instances of alleged police bru-


tality and noted, "Plans are being laid to


publish accounts of brutality in the


hopes of deterring such events and help-


ing the victims."


Two officers who were mentioned in


the Karr article filed the multi-million


dollar'libel suit against the BA R on July


13 in San Francisco Superior Court. -


At the ACLU press conference, BAR


publisher Bob Ross said, "No law en-


forcement agency or official has the


right to prevent a reporter from report-


ing. Our reporter was exercising his


First Amendment rights in covering


that story."


BAR editor Paul Lorch, noting that


the reported meeting took place in the


midst of a campaign by many commu-


nity, legal and minority groups to estab- _


lish an Office of Citizens Complaint to .


investigate police abuse, said, "To use


the laws of libel to block reforms in the


midst of a political campaign-besides


being a colossal blunder-is a danger-


ous strategy."


The legal defense of the BA Ris being 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_1969 ACLUN_1969.MODS ACLUN_1970 ACLUN_1970.MODS ACLUN_1971 ACLUN_1971.MODS ACLUN_1972 ACLUN_1972.MODS ACLUN_1973 ACLUN_1973.MODS ACLUN_1974 ACLUN_1974.MODS ACLUN_1975 ACLUN_1975.MODS ACLUN_1976 ACLUN_1976.MODS ACLUN_1977 ACLUN_1977.MODS ACLUN_1978 ACLUN_1978.MODS ACLUN_1979 ACLUN_1979.MODS ACLUN_1980 ACLUN_1980.MODS ACLUN_1980.batch ACLUN_1981 ACLUN_1981.MODS ACLUN_1981.batch 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


handled by ACLU-NC cooperating at-


torneys Robert Lewis and Lynn Pas-


ahow of the San Francisco law firm of


McCutchen, Doyle, Brown and Enersen


and ACLU staff counsel Amitai


Schwartz.


Addressing the ACLU's decision to


take the case, Schwartz said, "The use of


libel suits to chill political expression


Continued on p. 2


Keynote Speaker


Bill of Rights Day


Celebration


Sunday, December 13


Sheraton Palace Hotel


San Francisco


1981 Earl Warren Civil Liberties Award will be presented to:


Benjamin Dreyfus 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_1969 ACLUN_1969.MODS ACLUN_1970 ACLUN_1970.MODS ACLUN_1971 ACLUN_1971.MODS ACLUN_1972 ACLUN_1972.MODS ACLUN_1973 ACLUN_1973.MODS ACLUN_1974 ACLUN_1974.MODS ACLUN_1975 ACLUN_1975.MODS ACLUN_1976 ACLUN_1976.MODS ACLUN_1977 ACLUN_1977.MODS ACLUN_1978 ACLUN_1978.MODS ACLUN_1979 ACLUN_1979.MODS ACLUN_1980 ACLUN_1980.MODS ACLUN_1980.batch ACLUN_1981 ACLUN_1981.MODS ACLUN_1981.batch 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 Fay Stender


Congressman Ronald V. Dellums


No-Host Bar 3-4 PM Program 4-6 PM


Music by: Men About Town


of the S.F. Gay Men's Chorus


r


(posthumously )


For Tickets see po


aciu news


nov-dec 1981


Senate Hearings


by Beth Meador


ACLU-NC Legislative Advocate


State Senator John Schmitz, chair of


the Senate Constitutional Amendments


Committee, held hearings this month in


Sacramento and San Francisco on SCA


39, a proposed state constitutional


amendment to make all affirmative ac-


tion programs unconstitutional.


Proponents of affirmative action re-


ceived no word of the hearings prior to


the notice printed in the Senate Daily


File on October 15-the hearings were


held one week later on October 22 and


27. Even Senator Diane Watson, a mem-


ber of the Senate Constitutional Amend-


ments Committee informed me that she


was not notified of the hearings until


_ two days before they began.


~ On the other hand, it was revealed


during the hearings that groups and


individuals sharing Schmitz's viewpoint


were informed of and invited to the hear-


ings at a much earlier date-among


them California Supreme Court Justice


Stanley Mosk. Mosk submitted a pro-


posal to Schmitz for a constitutional


amendment prohibiting affirmative ac-


tion by governmental entities and pub-


licly-funded institutions.


Despite apparent efforts to minimize


opposition at the hearings, many orga-


nizations managed to send representa-


tives to advocate maintaining affirma-


tive action programs. In addition to


attorneys representing the University of


California at Davis and Berkeley who


defended their admission programs, rep-


resentatives from NOW, MALDEF, Chi-


nese for Affirmative Action, NAACP,


Urban League, U.C. Students Lobby,


the California Democratic Council and


the ACLU-NC all testified in defense of


affirmative action. :


One of the more interesting and bi-


zarre arguments put forward in support


of the Schmitz amendment came from


-Christine Kasun, a Deputy District At-


~ torney from San Francisco. Kasun stated


that affirmative action programs result


in inefficiencies because they supplant


the "private marketplace" in determin-


`ing who is admitted to professional


_ schools. Thus, we do not get the "best


and the brightest" doctors and lawyers.


When asked by Senator Watson tode- "Senator, I'm looking at you and you


dies designed to correct past wrongs.


Then, noting that the conservatives had


recently announced a corner on moral-


ity, she appealed to Senator Schmitz's


sense of moral judgment. In her sincere,


but disarming manner, Paterson said,


Z `cabo a


| Z


CTION


Ve fl


rT


fine her use of Moe. Kasun re-


plied that she referred to the law of sup-


ply and demand. Whereupon Watson


asked her to explain, in light of her


supply and demand theory, why UCLA


failed to admit a black student to the


medical school until 1961, considering


there is a large black population in Los


Angeles in need of doctors.


In my own testimony, in an attempt


to deal with this red herring.of supply


and demand, | pointed out that we do


not have a free market economy-in


fact, many of the barriers to oportunity


_ still confronted by minorities are as a


result of past government action. There-


fore, government action to remedy these


wrongs is necessarily required. The idea


of the free market to determine hiring or


admissions policy in this era, I noted,


was simply utopian.


Eva Jefferson Paterson represented -


the ACLU-NC at the San Francisco


hearings. She carefully outlined the basis


for affirmative action laws, describing


Letters


As an ACLU member, I'm glad to see


you pursue the matter of police strip


searches for minor offenses such as dog


license matters (ACLU News, October


1981).


_ Alas, there is a despicable minority (1


hope it's a minority) on the public pay-


roll who think that a shiny badge or


fancy title is a license to trample all over


people. .


Those twerps only learn (if they ever


do) via the mailed fist of lawsuits. Ac-


cordingly, the lesson must be repeated


over and over again until they're finally


tamed.


Leonard W. Williams -


Sunnyvale


The article "Alameda DA Barred


from Searching Subscribers List"(ACLU


News, October 1981) reminded me of a


notice I received from the security office


of Pacific Telephone a few years ago.


The notice stated that the phone com-


pany, through a court order, obtained


my name from a list of subscribers or


potential subscribers to a magazine for


telephone lobbyists. The notice implied


that my dissemination of certain infor-


mation obtained from this source, or


even possession of the magazine, is a


crime in many states.


This raises several doubts in my mind:


whether my continued possession of the


magazine is a criminal offense; if the


phone company has targeted my line for


some special kind of surveillance; wheth-


er my First Amendment rights have


been abridged and if the court decision


reported in the ACLU News has any


effect on my situation.


Gerald C. Gordon


Ben Lomond


Mary K. McEachron, ACLU-NC co-


operating attorney in Vail replies:


The U.S. Supreme Court in Stanley


v. Georgia suggests that the mere pos-


session, in the privacy of one's home, of


written material of any nature is pro-


tected by the First Amendment and can-


not be a crime absent an intent to dis-


tribute. The decision to which you refer


(Vail) has no direct bearing on your situ-


ation since the harm prevented there-


the disclosure of the subscribers list-


has already occurred in your case. How-


ever, decisions of this nature may help


to prevent a recurrence of such disclo-


sures in the future.


As to whether the phone company


has targeted your line for special surveil-


lance, that certainly seems to be infor-


mation which you are entitled to know,


why not ask the phone company?


don't look like an evil man. So I don't


understand why you're doing this thing


that is so wrong." Schmitz had no reply.


Acceptable Racism


Assemblyman Phillip Wyman, who


as Chair of the Assembly Constitutional


Amendments Committee was invited to


`participate in the hearings, said that he


felt affirmative action programs discrim-


inate against white males. Responding


to testimony by CRLA attorney Rodolfo


Aros, Wyman reasoned that if 15% of


- 80 Chicanos applying to law school are


accepted, while only 10% of 800 white


males were accepted, this constituted


discrimination against the white males.


Senator Schmitz questioned whether


or not white and black doctors could


not adequately serve Chicanos "just as


blacks represent whites and Chicanos


on the basketball court." He also re-


minded us that Branch Rickey did not


need government interference to hire


= ~ Jackie Robinson.


their basis in courts of equity as reme-


The hearings were frightening. Sena-


tor Schmitz's pronouncements were bla-


tantly racist. That Justice Mosk has al-


lied himself with someone of Schmitz's


outlook does not bode well for people of


color and women who are still trying to


achieve equality in this country. Five


years ago, even John Schmitz watched


his rhetoric. Today, in 1981 California,


he is assuming the stance of George


Wallace in the '60s.


Though it has not yet been determined


which policy committee the proposal


will be assigned to, nor when it will be


voted on by the Constitutional Amend-


ments Committee, all supporters of


affirmative action are urged to write


now to Senator Schmitz, Chair of the


Constitutional Amendments Commit-


tee, as well as your own state Senator


New Threat to Affirmative Action


expressing your objections to the pro-


posed amendment. Letters should ne


_ addressed to:


Senator =


State Capitol Building


Sacramento, CA 95814


BAR poe Suit


Continued from p. I


is on the rise, and it is frightening."


Schwartz noted that in addition to this


case, the ACLU has several other cases


on its docket in defense of journalists


and campaigners against political libel


suits by the police and. other public


officials.


"It is difficult to imagine a political


topic that is more vital to a democracy


than debate about police conduct and


police brutality," Schwartz said. "Surely


police, who are entrusted by society


with enormous powers to use force, to


make arrests and even kill, are the


proper subject of accountability through


criticism and debate.


"It is not unreasonable to expect that


opinions about police conduct will fre-


quently appear as fact in the rough and


tumble of political debate and persua-


sion," Schwartz added.


Cooperating attorney Robert Lewis


said, "One can look to the First Amend-


ment and the constitutional rights which


apply to criticism of public officials


(and police officers are public officials


for purposes of the First Amendment)


to see quite clearly that the article under


attack is- privileged `fair comment' by a


local paper upon police conduct gener-


ally and the San Francisco Police De-


partment in particular.


"In addition, the meeting reported in


the article was lawfully convened and


open to the public for the purpose of


discussing a topic of public interest-


and to redress grievances. According to


federal court rulings, it is in this area


where the press performs its `most valu-


_able function in the interest of the people


at large by correctly reporting proceed-


ings which relate to the administration


of law,." Lewis said.


The ACLU attorneys said that they


had filed a demurrer asking the court to


dismiss the libel suit entirely and are


. pursuing a legal and legislative strategy


to halt the use of libel suits to intimidate


and harass groups which voice political


dissent.


BAR editor Paul Lorch added, "For


the Bay Area Reporter, today begins the


process of proving the use of libel to


block political expression as a forlorn


strategy and one that must and will be


repudiated."


Elaine Elinson, Editor


aclu news


issues a year, Pe OnEAI 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


Davis Riemer, Chairperson Dorothy Ehrlich, Executive Director


Marcia Gallo,


Chapter Page g


ACLU NEWS (USPS 018-040)


I 663 Mission St., 4th floor, San Francisco, California 94103. (415) 621-2488


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


and S0 cents is for the national ACLU-bi-monthly publication, Civil Liberties.


ACLU Aids PATCO Strikers


by Mason Drukman


Did the government act unconstitu-


tionally in the air traffic controllers'


strike in singling out particular PATCO


workers for prosecution? The ACLU-


NC believes it did and as we go to press


this question is being examined in U.S.


District Court in San Francisco.


The ACLU is supporting the defense of five PATCO leaders who are being


tain individuals for prosecution not


because they, along with many others,


took part in an allegedly illegal strike,


but because they were PATCO officers -


_and vocal activists known to have advo-


cated collective strike action for their


union.


In the brief, ACLU cooperating at-


}


a


n


eo


2


Tat


3


}


eo


s


bet



3


S


gee GD


Be It


criminally prosecuted for their vocal support of union policy. One of the five,


Robert R. Kenny, is pictured above (center, with strike buttons on dark sweater) on


a picket of the San Francisco International Airport.


On October 19 District Court Judge


Stanley Weigel granted a request from


five PATCO members-Robert Butter-


worth, William Newton, Darrell Reazin,


Albert Stephens, and (in a separate


case) Robert R. Kenny-to hold an evi-


dentiary hearing to discover how and


why these men were targeted for prose-


cution and whether their First Amend-


ment rights were violated in the process.


The ACLU supported the five air con-


trollers in an amicus curiae brief charg-


ing the government with selecting cer-


Abortion Funds


Continued from p. 1


officials from Soke the Medi-Cal |


abortion payments despite a court order.


"The Attorney General is subordinate


to the Governor. Where a policy dispute


arises between them, the Governor's


view prevails," Crosby said.


"Second," she continued, "the Attor-


ney General may not adopta position in


a lawsuit which is adverse to his former


agency clients in substantially related


litigation. Not only has the court ruled


that an attorney-client relationship


`raises an irrefutable presumption that


confidences were disclosed, but the Sen-


ate's position, framed in the Schmitz


Amendment, strikes at the institutional


autonomy of the Attorney General's


former clients.


"The Attorney General has no license


to chart a collision course with the Gov-


ernor and his former clients,' Crosby


added.


Just two days prior to the hearing, the


Court of Appeal denied the Senate's mo- _-


tion to intervene, but allowed them to


enter the case as amicus curiae. The


court has not yet ruled on the motion to


disqualify the Attorney General.


-ACLU-NC Executive Director Dor-


othy Ehrlich said, "We are extremely


pleased with the court's decision, and


hope that it marks the end of this lengthy |


battle." Ehrlich explained that it is pos- -


sible that the opponents may appeal this


decision but added that a successful


appeal was unlikely.


"While the complex legal issues may


have been resolved," Ehrlich said, "the


political battle to maintain reproductive


freedom will continue to occupy a prom-


inent place in the ACLU agenda."


torney Marsha Berzon argued that the


government was seeking criminal sanc-


tions against individuals who held lea-


dership positions within PATCO, and


who exercised their constitutional right


to assert union policies as strongly and


as vehemently as they felt necessary.


A union leader, Berzon contended,


does not lose his First Amendment pro-


tections when he "advocates the right to


strike or even engages in proscribed


Photo by Dwayne


leadership positions in unions such as


PATCO would be severely hampered in


their advocacy role if they feared that


"in the event of an illegal strike some-


time in the future . . . [they] would be.


singled out for prosecution."


Government as employer


Berzon argued that since the govern-


ment was acting as both employer and


prosecutor, this case could be character-


ized simply as one involving a special


form of employee discipline. She indi-


cated that the FBI had begun investigat-


ing some of the defendants before they ~


- walked out on strike from their jobs.


(Defense attorneys Dennis Riordan and


Doron Weinberg also argued that the


statute prohibiting employees from as-


serting their right to strike is overly


`broad and unconstitutionally vague.)


Judge Weigel ruled that the defen- |


dants were entitled to an evidentiary


hearing on the question of selective


prosecution and that the government


must provide defense attorneys with all


_ relevant documents prior to the hearing.


ACLU policy asserts that the right to


strike constitutes a fundamental civil


liberty and has supported PATCO's


exercise of this right from the very begin-


ning. In a statement released on August


4, national ACLU Executive Director


Ira Glasser declared that in firing strik-


ing PATCO workers "President Reagan


aclu news


nov-dec 1981


is acting like any other union busting


employer. Instead of dealing with the


merits of his employees' demands, he is


trying to punish them for striking.


"The ACLU," Glasser said, "thinks


the employer's reprisal is an unfair labor


practice. The fact that President Reagan


isan employer who has the power of the


government behind him, and can invoke


criminal and civil-penalties, makes his


response all the more oppressive."


ACLU legal actions on behalf of con-


trollers are also underway in other parts


of the country. In a New York case the


ACLU is challenging the firing of a non-


PATCO air controller supervisor who


advised union members not to strike but


to remain united to gain their objectives.


He was fired when government officials


heard his remarks on national TV urg-


ing members to stick together-his rec-


ommendations against striking were not


broadcast. In Chicago the Federal Avia-


tion Administration dropped dismissal


proceedings against two non-striking,


non-PATCO employees who had shown


support for PATCO strikers. The FAA


reversed itself after the ACLU filed suit


charging that agency with intimidating


the workers and violating their First


Amendment rights.


Mason Drukman, a freelance writer


and editor, is a volunter with the ACLU


News.


See Next Month's ACLU News for-


How the Hoover Institution syndicated a 1980 diatribe against the ACLU in


1981...


A civil liberties perspective on the 1981 Legislative Session in Sacramento...


Funds, Support Build for Rights Day


On the night of October 22, an ad hoc


"Bill of Rights Day room" at the ACLU- .


NC office was a hive of activity: nine


volunteers were phoning scores of


ACLU members in an effort to raise


money for the 1981 Bill of Rights Day. |


This was the first of eight phone eve-


nings scheduled to take place through-


out northern California in the next two


months. According to one volunteer,


"The persistent ringing paid off-the


total amount pledged that night was


$1700."


Linda Weiner, chair of the 1981 Bill


of Rights Day Solicitation Committee,


said, "This is reflective of the high level


of grassroots participation in this year's


Bill of Rights Day fundraising effort. In


addition to the phone nights, many


people are doing face-to-face solicita-


tion to encourage their friends to donate


to the ACLU. This year, volunteers


from the fifteen chapters are working


actively to meet our $50,000 goal."


The ninth annual Bill of Rights Day


Celebration will be held on December


13 at the Sheraton Palace Hotel in San


Francisco. "It is both the culmination of


the ACLU Foundation's fundraising


_ drive and the day to honor persons who


have been outstanding in their contribu-


99


tion to the fight for civil liberties,"'-


Weiner said.


This year the Earl Warren Civil Lib-


erties Award will be presented to noted


civil rights attorney Benjamin Dreyfus


and posthumously to former ACLU-NC


Board member Fay Stender. The key-


note speaker at the event will be Con-


~gressman Ronald V. Dellums. Dellums,


who is rated by the ACLU national leg-


islative office as one of the top civil lib-


erties advocates on Capitol Hill, will


speak on lessons of the Select Commit-


tee to Investigate the Intelligence Com-


- munity and their relevance to current


administration proposals which hamper


civil liberties.


"The funds raised from Bill of Rights


Day are vital in support of the Founda- -


tion's extensive litigation program. The


1981 Legal Docket (see insert) shows


the enormous caseload the Foundation


has handled this year-with some very


ominous threats like school book cen-


sorship, required loyalty oaths, and


libel suits used against political cam-


paigners and muckraking journalists


rearing their ugly head," said Weiner.


"Without special support from each


friend of the ACLU this year in the form


of tax-deductible contributions, we will


not be able to continue this unique legal


program," she added.


This year's fundraising efforts have


been greatly enhanced by chapter par-


ticipation, particularly the Solicitation


Committee. In addition to Weiner, mem-


bership includes: Berkeley-Peter Hag-


berg; Earl Warren-Barbara Littwin


and Dennis Rothhaar; Marin-Bill Luft


and Bruce Armbruster; Mid-Peninsula


-Larry Sleizer and Harry -Anisgard;


Monterey-Samson Knoll and Dick


Criley; North Peninsula-Sidney Schie-


_ ber, Walter Smithey, Richard Keyes,


Sylvia Block and Monroe Sweetland;


Sonoma-Jake Rubin and Jacques


Levy; Yolo-Larry Garrett, Nadine


Noelting, Jules Young, Katherine


Domeny, Makepeace Tsao and Paul


Craig; and At Large-Bernice Biggs,


Gordon Brownell, Bob Bustamonte,


Nancy McDermid, and Marlene De- |


Lancie.


Please send me


I am enclosing a check for $


Name


Bill of Rights Day eclcbration


I want to honor those who protect the Bill of Rights.


tickets at $7.00 each.


Addess


City


envelope.


Zip Phone


Please make checks payable to ACLU-NC Foundation and mail to Bill of Rights


Day, 1663 Mission St., S.F., CA 94103. Please enclose a stamped, self-addressed


a aclu news


nov-dec 1981


Field Committee Update Conference Sparks Action


With the successful and spirited an-


nual conference serving as a springboard


for action, the ACLU-NC's Field Com- (c)


mittee is now full throttle into the orga-


nizing efforts begun over the summer


months. Looking toward December's


Bill of Rights Day and January's Apple


Pie Day in Sacramento, Field Commit-


tee leaders are recruiting new ACLU


members, activating current ones, and


building a strong ACLU Re in


their communities.


Bill of Rights Day


Field Committee members have as-


sumed active fundraising roles for the


1981 Bill of Rights Day Compaign.


From personal solicitations to telephone


follow-ups, chapter board members and


activists have been recruited to help


raise the funds needed to continue the


ACLU's legal program in northern Cali-


fornia. Field Committee set a goal to


raise $50,000 this year for the Bill of


Rights Day Campaign, according to


Committee chair Peter Hagberg. Hag-


berg also serves on the Bill of Rights


Day Campaign Committee chaired by


Field Committee member Linda Weiner.


(For more information on Bill of Rights


Day fundraising activities, see article on


p.3.)


As American As Apple Pie


Continuing their commitment to the


right of reproductive freedom, the Pro-


Choice Task Force is now focusing on


_ the January 21 "Apple Pie Day" in Sac-


ramento, as their next mobilizing event.


Says Task Force chairperson Anne Jen-


nings, "For the last two years, pro-


choice groups in California have cele-


brated the anniversary of Roe v. Wade,


the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision


legalizing abortion, by gathering in Sac-_


BOARD MEETINGS: Thursday,


December 10-8:00 p.m., 1520 Arch


- Street, Berkeley. Thursday, January


28-8:00 p.m. Contact: Joe Dorst,


415/654-4163 for more information.


Earl Warren


BOARD MEETINGS: (Third Wed-


nesday each month.) December 16-


January 20; 7:30 p.m. Sumitomo


Bank, 20th and Franklin, Oakland.


Contact: Barbara Littwin, a)


452-4726.


Gay Rights


- ELECTION RESULTS: Officers re-


cently elected include Steve Block,


Chair; Anne Jennings, affiliate Board -


Representative; Zona Sage and Doug


Warner.


BOARD MEETINGS: (Usually the


second Tuesday of each month.) Call


Steve Block, 415/772-6004 for con-


firmation; held at the ACLU-NC of-


fices, 1663 Mission, San Francisco.


Marin


ELECTION RESULTS: Officers re-.


cently elected include Bill Luft, Chair-


person; Marion Saunders, Vice-


Chairperson; Bill King, Treasurer;


and Dan Beittel, Secretary.


ramento to present apple pies-`Choice


is as American as apple pie'-to pro-


choice legislators and apple cores-


`Choice is-at the core of the democratic


system'-to those who consistently vote


against a woman's right to choose."


Jennings reported that a northern


California-wide petition drive has been


launched by the Task Force, in conjunc-


tion with the Bay Area Pro-Choice Coa-


lition and other reproductive rights


pple Pie Day 1980-Assem


pro-choice activists around northern


California who will take part in the


Apple Pie Day activities at the state cap-


itol. The activities will include a morning


press conference, the delivery of apple


pies and cores to legislators, accompa-


nied by "Telling Sing-a-Grams" which


proclaim the pro-choice message, a se-


ries of workshops and an Apple Pie Day


luncheon. "A very visible ACLU con-


tingent-even larger than last year's-is


yman Tom Bates being rewarded for his pro-choice


stance with a Choice-is-as-American-as-A pple Pie.


groups, with the aim of gathering at


least 2,500 signatures. Petitions being


circulated by ACLU's Task Force mem-


bers include a special check-off box so


that pro-choice supporters who wish to


become more involved in Task Force


efforts can be contacted. The deadline


for completed petitions is December 15;


the petitions will be presented to state


legislators on Apple Pie Day. "With pro-


choice coalitions and groups through-


out northern California collecting sig-


natures," Jennings added, "we'll be able


to impress upon our elected representa-


tives that the vast majority of voters in


this state are in favor of the right to


choose."


Task Force members are also setting


up carpools and buses for at least 200


what we're working toward," Jennings


said.


Federal attempts to restrict a woman's


right to reproductive freedom are also


being addressed by the Task Force. An


action alert on the Legislative Authority


Amendment (SJR 110), the latest ver-


sion of the so-called "Human Life"


Amendment, which aims to prohibit


abortion by allowing the states and Con-


gress to pass laws against it, was sent to


more than 100 Task Force members and (c)


supporters. Letters to members of the


U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, who


may be considering this measure follow-


ing Senator Orrin Hatch's Subcommit-


tee on the Constitution hearings, are


needed. (The Hatch subcommittee hear-


ings on the so-called "Human Life"


Chapter Calendar


BOARD MEETINGS: (Third Mon-


day each month.) December 21-


January 18; 8:00 p.m. Fidelity Sav-


ings, Throckmorton Street, Mill


Valley. Contact: Bill Luft, oF


453-6546.


~ Mid-Pen


BOARD MEETINGS: Thursday,


December 17-Thursday, January


28; 8:00 p.m. Contact: Harry Anis-


gard, 415/ 856-9186.


Monterey


BOARD MEETINGS: (Last Tues-


day each month.) January 26, 7:30


p.m. Monterey Public Library. Con-


tact: Richard Criley, 408/624-7562.


Mt. Diablo


ELECTION RESULTS: Officers re-


cently elected include Guyla Pon-


omareff, President; Beverly Bortin,


Vice-President; Dennis Belcourt, Sec-


retary; and David Bortin, affiliate


Board Representative.


BOARD MEETINGS: (Third Thurs-


_ day each month.) A special Holiday


Party will be held in December-


contact 939-ACLU for details. Next


Board Meeting-Thursday, Jenuary


21


North Pen


BOARD MEETINGS: (Third Mon-


day each month.) December 21-


January 18; 8:00 p.m. Allstate Sav-


ings and Loan, South Grant and


Concar Drive, San Mateo. Contact:


Richard Keyes, 415/367-8800.


Sacramento


BOARD MEETINGS: (Third Wed-


nesday each month.) December 16-


January 20; 7:30 p.m. Sacramento


County Administration Building, 700


H Street, Sacramento. Contact: Myra


_Schimke, 916/451-2835.


San Francisco


BOARD MEETINGS: (Last Tues-_


day each month.) December 29-


January 26; 6:30 p.m. ACLU-NC


offices, 1663 Mission, San Francisco. |


Santa Clara


BOARD MEETINGS: (First Tues-


day each month.) December 1 -Jan-


uary 5; 7:30 p.m. Community Bank


Building, San Jose. Contact: Vic


Ulmer, 408/379-4431.


Santa Cruz


BOARD MEETINGS: (Second


Wednesday each month.) December


Amendmentare receiving little publicity


although they began on October 5 and


will continue through January, 1982.)


ACLU activists interested in receiving


more information about the Legislative


Authority Amendment are urged to con-


tact Marcia Gallo at the ACLU-NC,


415/621-2493 as soon as possible. And


WRITE right now!


A holiday "Celebration of Choice"


will follow the next meeting of the Pro-


Choice Task Force, on Tuesday, Decem-


ber 15, at 7:30 p.m. at the ACLU offices.


All pro-choice activists are welcome.


The Need to Know


The ever-increasing assault on civil


liberties represented by such measures


as the "Names of Agents" bill and other


repressive legislation continues to be the


concern of the Field Committee's moni-


toring group, the Right to Dissent Sub-


committee. Subcommittee chair J.R.


Rubin reports that the focus of the


group Is "to inform our members about


the dangers to our civil rights being put


forward by some members of Congress


-and the Reagan administration-in


the name of `national security.' "


The subcommittee, which held a large


caucus meeting at the recent Pt. Bonita


conference following a sobering speech


by National Committee Against Repres-


sive Legislation director Esther Herst, |


meets the first week of each month at


the ACLU offices in San Francisco.


"We're working on developing a


- Speakers' Bureau of ACLU activists


who can present information to groups


around northern California," Rubin ex-


plained. "We're hoping to function as


an `alert network' so that proposals put


forward which will restrict our rights


can be challenged immediately."


Members interested in knowing more


about the work of this watchdog group


should contact Marcia Gallo at the


ACLU-NC offices: 415/621-2493.


9-January 13; 8:00 p.m. Louden


Nelson Center, Santa Cruz. Contact:


Blanche Greenberg, 408/476-8653.


Sonoma


BOARD MEETINGS: (Third Thurs-


day each month.) December 17-


January 21; 7:30 p.m. Center for


Employment Training, 3753 Santa


Rosa Avenue, Santa Rosa. Contact:


Wayne Gibb, 707/523-1155.


Stockton


CHRISTMAS PARTY/ANNUAL


FUNDRAISER: Sunday, December


6-4:00 to 7:00 p.m. 3216 Country


Club Boulevard, Stockton. Contact:


Larry Pippin, 209/477-7698.


ANNUAL MEETING: Tuesday,


January 5, 8:00 p.m. 3859 Petersburg


Circle. Contact: Larry Pippin (tele-


phone listed above).


LEGAL COMMITTEE MEETING:


Tuesday, January 19. Contact: Bar-


bara Redalia, 209/478-3873.


Yolo


BOARD MEETINGS: (Third Thurs-


day each month.) January 21-7:30


p.m. Contact: Larry Garrett, 916/


427-4990.


The Annual Report of the


ACLU Foundation of Northem Califomia


_ The writing was already on the wall


when we entered 1981.


It was woefully ironic that one of the first


cases entered on this year's docket was a.


challenge to the use of a McCarthy-era loy-


alty oath as a requirement for all teachers in


the Richmond Unified School District. The


case seemed a harbinger of the climate we


are facing-the rise of the ideology of the


New Right to new heights (including to the


highest office of the land) and the threat


that this outlook brings to civil liberties in


the eighties.


A few months later, the ACLU was


tagged a "criminals' lobby" by Presidential


Counselor Edwin Meese. This attack pro-


vided further insight into who was going to


be officially considered "criminal" But we


were not the only ones who were called


names. Reporters in San Francisco, en-


vironmental activists in Pacifica, and politi-


cal campaigners in Beverly Hills-are just a


few of the ACLU defendants who have


become the victims of libel suits intended


to muzzle critics by police and govemment _


Officials, development corporations and


landiords. The defense against libel suits to


silence political opposition is an item mov-


ing rapidly to the top of the ACLU agenda.


In June we experienced some major fall-


out from the rightwing backlash against


women's rights. Flaunting the landmark Cali-


fomia Supreme Court decision of just three


months before which guaranteed that


every woman in Califomia-regardless of


economic status-was entitled to the right


to choose whether or not to have an abor-


tion, the Califomia Legislature once again


slashed Medi-Cal funds for abortion from


the state budget. Immediately, the ACLU-


NC Foundation took legal action to chal-


lenge the budget cuts and at the same time


vowed to litigate any of the other pending


legislative measures designed to eliminate


or seriously burden a woman's right to


reproductive freedom.


Next came the report of the Attomey


General's Task Force on Violent Crime-


totally ignoring the causes of crime, instead


calling for measures like preventive deten-


tion, diminishing the exclusionary rule, and


expending $2 billion on prison construc-


tion. More importantly, it laid out a presi-


dential law-and-order perspective on the


administration of justice-a perspective


which will sorely. challenge the ACLU to


insure that some basic principles of the


Constitution, the presumption of inno-


cence, protection against cruel and unus-


ual punishment, to name but a few, are not


abandoned in the administration's haste to


"get tough" with criminals.


Yet the ACLU-NC Foundation was hardly


underworked even before these new


threats developed. The range of our cases-


from the strip searching of two East Bay


women accused of failure to pay dog


license fees to the police surveillance and


harassment of anti- racist marchers in Sac-


ramento with videotape and metal detec-


tors-indicates that we are already work-


ing on many fronts to protect our civil


liberties.


The goal of our litigation program is not


simply to ensure local victories, but rather


to establish legal precedents for the state


and indeed the entire county. The wide


ranging effect of our work is reflected in the


four ACLU-NC supported cases which were


brought to the US. Supreme Court and the


eight cases brought to the Califomia Su-


preme Court this year.


Three ACLU-NC staff attomeys, Margaret


C. Crosby, Alan L. Schlosser and Amitai.


Schwartz have for five years shared re-


sponsibilities for directing this remarkable


legal program, assisted by Pat Jameson,


Donna Van Diepen and Chris Thomas. The


staff counsel currently handle 150 active


cases with the help of 80 dedicated private


lawyers who donate their services as ACLU


cooperating attomeys.


Moreover, for every case which appears


on the docket, there are hundreds of civil


liberties conflicts which are resolved admin-


istratively. ACLU's Complaint Desk, staffed


by ten volunteer lay counselors, receives


more than 200 phone calls per week. As-


sisted by the staff attomeys and twelve law


student intems who clerk for the legal


department during the course of the year,


the counselors make appropriate refervals,


provide. information on civil liberties issues,


and often provide the advocacy necessary


to resolve a particular grievance.


In addition, the ACLU's public informa-


tion program, ably directed by Elaine Elin-


son, alerts the public to the action taken


and the issues championed by ACLU litiga-


tion through the media and our own


publications.


The hostile political climate of the 1980's


is bringing an enormous amount of pres-


sure on the ACLU's legal program. Itis a kind


of pressure which calls upon us to more


than double our efforts. ACLU friends who


contribute to the ACLU Foundation of


Northem Califomia have enabled us to


close 1981 with this impressive docket. We


are counting on their support to allow us


to resist the massive challenges which will


confront us in 1982. Davis Riemer


Chairperson


Board of Govemors


Dorothy M. Ehriich


Executive Director -


FIRST AMENDMENT


Though the defense of First Amendment


rights has always been a major focus of the


ACLU's work, that defense took on disturb-


ing new implications this year in several of


our cases: the challenge to a McCarthy era


loyalty oath being used in the California


public school system; four separate cases


in which we are defending journalists and


campaigners against whom defamation


suits are being used as a weapon to silence


political expression; and the challenge to


censorship of books and periodicals in


school classrooms and libraries.


Alternatives for California Women v.


Contra Costa County


(California Court of Appeal)


The ACLU-NC is representing the ACW, a


group which goes door to door to canvass and


- fundraise for battered women, which hasbeen -


prohibited from.canvassing after the hour of 7


P.M. by a county ordinance.


As the evening hours are the optimal time for


canvassers to communicate with residents, the


time restriction is an unconstitutional limitation


of the free speech rights of ACW members and


Contra Costa residents.


Bailey v. Loggins


(California Supreme Court)


An amicus brief by the ACLU argues that the


First Amendment protects a newspaper edited


by inmates inside the walls of a prison from


_ censorship by the state.


The case arose out of the censorship by


Soledad prison officials of two articles written


in 1976 by the inmates for the prisoners' |


newspaper.


The amicus arguments were presented to


the high court for the second time in August.


Carr v. Warden and Friends of Pacifica


(San Mateo Superior Court)


The ACLU Foundation is defending the Friends


of Pacifica, an environmental organization which


is currently circulating a local growth control


initiative, against a $125,000 slander suit filed in


September by members of the local Planning


Commission.


_ The Planning Commission's slander suit is


based on a statement made by the organiza-


tion's chairperson, as reported in the Pacifica


Tribune, questioning the integrity of "some-


one" on the Planning Commission. The Friends


are named in the suit as well as their chair


because allegedly he was an agent of the


group which "authorized, ratified and ap-


proved the statements . . ."


The ACLU is defending the organization -


claiming that the unjustifiable slander allega-


tionhasa chilling effect on members and those


who wish to associate with the group.


Coughian v. Synanon


(California Court of Appeal) "


The ACLU filed an amicus brief in opposition


to a.San Francisco Superior Court injunction


which prohibited members and supporters of


Synanon from engaging in informational activ-


ities near the homes of KGO TV broadcasters


who had criticized Synanon in the media. The


Case is pending in the Court of Appeal.


Diaz and Prisoners Union v. Watts


(Solano County Superior Court)


Prison Officials at the California Medical Facil-


ity in Vacaville who censored, destroyed and


closed down the prisoner run newspaper


there were ordered by the court in April to


allow the newspaper to resume publication


and to impose no reprisals on the prisoner


newspaper staff after an ACLU challenge to


their actions.


Franklin v. Stanford


(California Court of Appeal)


After ten years of debate and decision with-.


in Stanford University and at the superior court


level, the ACLU will bring to the Court of


Appeal its challenge to the 1972 dismissal of a


tenured professor, Bruce Franklin, for soeeches


made during the height of anti-war campus


protests.


In March, the Santa Clara Superior Court


ruled that the Stanford Advisory Board had not


abused its discretionary power in dismissing


Franklin for anti-war soeeches he made on cam-


pus; the appellate court, however, will con-


sider for the first time in this lengthy case, (c)


whether, as the ACLU is arguing, Franklin's con-


-Stitutional rights were violated by the Stanford


firing.


Gomes v. The Observer


(California Court of Appeal)


A small family-run newspaper is threatened


with closure because of a jury verdict that the


paper must pay $170,000 damages for libel to


a local police officer who was the subject of a


critical editorial. ;


The ACLU is appealing the judgment-


which was reduced to $35,000 after ACLU law-


yers moved for a new trial. In May 1980 the


ACLU won a stay of the money judgment, argu-


ing that until all appeals have been exhausted,


forced payment of damages in a libel suit


operates as an unconstitutional prior restraint


of the press.


Haddad v. Newman


(Monterey County Superior Court)


A former member of the Seaside City Coun-


cil who was recalled by the voters has sued the


- circulators of the recall petition for election


fraud and defamation. The ACLU filed a brief as


amicus curiae in support of a motion to dis-


miss arguing that the circulators of the initiative


were exercising their right to petition under the


federal and state constitutions and cannot be


personally liable for a successful petition effort.


Harris and Ruden v. Superior Court/


Okun v. Superior Court


(California Supreme Court)


Two libel suits claiming millions of dollars in


_ damages bya development corporation against


citizens who had campaigned against their pro-


posed development projects were dismissed


by the California Supreme Court in June. The


corporation based its arguments for defamation


on a letter to the editor, an open letter to the


Mayor and ballot arguments against a proposi-


tion which would have allowed re-zoning to


permit the building of a condominium. In June


1981 the Supreme Court held in accord with an


ACLU amicus brief that the statements were


protected political opinion which can not be


the basis for a defamation judgment.


Hinze v. Superior Court


(California Court of Appeal)


Ahigh school student's right to wear a outton


saying `Fuck the Draft'' was denied by the state


Court of Appeal in June. The student, a junior at


Redwood High School in Marin County, was


represented by the ACLU-NC after being sus- ~


pended from school for wearing the button


during student anti-registration protests.


The case is now moot because Hinze, hav-


ing graduated in June, is no longer a student at


Redwood High School.


international Committee Against Racism


Vv. City of Sacramento


(Sacramento County Superior Court)


In July, the ACLU filed suit against the City of


Sacramento charging that the Sacramento police


used an arsenal of chilling and abusive tactics. .


last year to harass, intimidate, and deter a


totally lawful protest march.


_ Without any justification, participants in a


November 1980 "March Against Racism' were


subject to police detentions, metal detector


searches, body frisks, individual mug shots,


intensive videotape surveillance and a police


escort intended to prevent spectators from


joining the march.


The suit is seeking an injunction prohibiting


police from a repeat performance, destruction


of police photographs and records of the


event, and damages for the violation of the


marchers' freedom of speech and association.


McCoy et. al. v. The Hearst


Corporation et. al. (California Court of Appeal)


The appeal of a 1.6 million dollar libel judg-


ment against two former San Francisco Exam-


iner reporters, Raul Ramirez and Lowell Berg-


man, was filed in April in the Court of Aopeal.


The seven figure libel judgment, awarded by


a San Francisco jury in 1979, was the result of a


suit brought by two city policemen and a


former Assistant District Attorney against the


reporters and the Examiner because of a series


of articles published in 1976 about a contro-


versial murder trial in which a 19-year-old Ching:


town youth was convicted. :


The case strikingly documents the potential


of libel suits for limiting journalistic inquiry into


the activities of public officials. If unchallenged,


the Court decision could result in dangerous


self-censorship by the media for fear of incur-


ring enormous financial liabilities.


. McKamey v. Mt. Diablo Unified


School District


(Contra Costa County Superior Court)


An ACLU suit on behalf of students, teachers,


parents, a taxpayer and the Ms. Foundation, -


`challenges the school board's decision to re-


strict access to MS. magazine to students who


could obtain written permission from a parent


argues is tantamount to censorship.


The suit, filed in September 1980, is pending


in Superior Court.


Pera v. Bay Area Reporter


(San Francisco Superior Court)


In July, two San Francisco police officers,


supported by the Police Officers Association,


filed a $20 million libel suit against the Bay Area


Reporter, a local newspaper covering events


of interest to the gay community. The libel


complaint is based on BAR's coverage of an


open meeting in which several persons spoke


about alleged police brutality against the gay


community.


The ACLU is defending the newspaper and


its publisher, editor and a reporter against the


libel action. An ACLU demurrer asking the court


to dismiss the case was filed in October.


Pina v. Carmel. Unified School District


(U.S. District Court)


In June, the Federal district court agreed


with the ACLU that a school bus driver who


refused to drive after certain hours on religious


grounds and was therefore fired by the schoo!


district, was being discriminated against on


religious grounds in violation of Title VIl of the


Civil Rights Act. He won his job back and has


been paid seven years' back pay.


Schmid v. Lovette


(California Court of Appeal)


The use of a McCarthy era loyalty oath by the


Richmond School District was struck down by


an April Superior Court ruling in an ACLU chal-


lenge. The ACLU represented a teacher who


objected to signing the oath, disavowing mem-


bership in the Communist Party, when applying


for a job with the Richmond School District.


The judge ruled that the oath may no longer


be required of school district employees and


that the state superintendant of public instruc-


tion must write to all school and community


college districts informing them that the oath is


unconstitutional.


The School District has appealed.


Saylor v. City of San Francisco |


(San Francisco Superior Court)


On the eve of the November 1980 elections,


the ACLU filed a taxpayer suit challenging a San


Francisco ordinance which prohibits posting


political signs on public property while permit-


ting the posting of commercial advertising.


City officials agreed that the ordinance was


unconstitutional but the ordinance is still in


effect and the lawsuit is still pending.


Sussli v. City of San Mateo


(U.S. Supreme Court)


A ban on sign posting on public property


imposed by the City of San Mateo was upheld


by the California Court of Appeal in May. The


ACLU, representing a city council candidate


whose election campaign posters were taken


down by the City, appealed the decision limit-


ing political expression, to the U.S. Supreme


Court in October.


U.S. v. Butterworth


(U.S. District Court)


The ACLU is supporting the defense of five


air traffic controllers who have been criminally


charged for participating in the PATCO air con-


trollers strike. This is the first time ever that the


federal government has sought criminal penal-


ties under the federal employees' strike ban.


Only five of the 300 local striking air traffic


controllers are being prosecuted, and all of the


five are union organizers or officers. Therefore, .


the ACLU is arguing that the defendants were


selected for prosecution based on their advo-


cacy of union policies (including the right to


strike), in violation of the First Amendment.


The. arguments raised in the ACLU amicus


brief in support of pre-trial defense motions to


dismiss due to discriminatory prosecution and


for an evidentiary hearing were accepted by


the judge, and the evidentiary hearing was set


for November.


y dads


Pay ong lo)


University of California Nuclear


Weapons Labs Conversion Project


v. Lawrence Livermore Laboratory


(California Court of Appeal)


Schuster v. Imperial County Municipal Court


(U.S. Supreme Court)


In April, the U.S. Supreme Court let stand a


California appeal court decision that people


who distribute anonymous campaign material


can no longer be prosecuted under the state


Election Code.


The ACLU-NC represented the campaigners


charged under the statute, arguing that the


_ Election Code section which prohibited the


distrioution of unsigned election literature is an


unconstitutionally overbroad restraint on free-


dom of expression.


Last year, in an unprecedented First Amend-


ment case, the ACLU convinced the Alameda


Superior Court that Lawrence Livermore Labora-


tory must allow anti-nuclear groups to place


their information 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 California, which


administers the Lab for the U.S. Department of


Energy, appealed the decision to the state


Court of Appeal, where it is now under


consideration.


West Contra Costa Coalition Against


U.S. Intervention in El Salvador


v. Hilltop Shopping Center


(Contra Costa Superior Court)


In May, political activists opposing U.S.inter-


vention in El Salvador won the right to distrib-


ute their leaflets, collect petition signatures,


and solicit funds from shoppers at the Hilltop


Shopping Center in Richmond, despite the


mall owners' objections.


The court not only lifted the ban on leafletting


at the shopping center, but, for the first time


since the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark deci-


sion in Robins v. Pruneyard Shopping Center


in March 1980, defined a shopping center's


"time, place and manner regulations" as un-


necessarily burdensome and invalidated them.


' Wexner v. Anderson Union


High School District


(California Court of Appeal)


The ACLU's 1978 challenge to a Shasta


County School Board's ban on the books of


prize winning poet-novelist Richard Brautigan


resulted ina summary judgment from the supe-


rior court in November 1980 that the ban was


unconstitutional and the books must be re-


turned to the school library. The court refused,


however, to order return of the books for class-


room use. Both sides have appealed the case,


which presents the Court of Apeal with the first


opportunity to clarify standards governing


school censorship, an increasing Practice in


California.


EQUAL RIGHTS


Once again, the right of all California


women-regardiess of economic status-


to reproductive freedom dominated our


equal protection litigation. For no sooner


was the ink dry on the landmark Califomia


Supreme Court decision guaranteeing Medi-


Cal funding for abortion than the state


Legislature, in defiance of the court deci-


sion, cut 95% of state abortion funding


from the Medi-Cal budget, necessitating


yet another ACLU challenge.


In our continuing fight against race dis-


crimination, we participated in a success-


ful defense of the affirmative action admis-


sions policy at UC Davis and, following the


dismantling of the court-ordered school


desegregation pian in Los Angeles, are


pursuing a school desegration case in Palo


Alto.


CDRR v. Myers; CDRR v. Cory;


CDRR v. Unruh; CDRR v. Cory Il


_ (California Supreme Court)


"Once the state furnishes medical care to


poor women in general, it cannot withdraw part


of that care solely because a woman exercises


her constitutional right to have an abortion."


These words-part of a 57-page opinion


written by Justice Mathew Tobriner and handed


down by the California Supreme Court in March,


marked the victorious end of a three-year legal


battle by the ACLU-and the beginning of a


new one-to secure Medi-Cal funding for


abortion.


The case challenged provisions in the state


Legislature's Budget Acts of 1978, 1979 and


1980 which had severely restricted Medi-Cal


funds for abortion. Funding had been main-


tained for the three-year period solely because


of stays issued by the court in the ACLU law-


suits. The challenges meant that since 1978,


100,000 women, including 27,000 teenagers,


each year in California have obtained Medi-Cal


funds for abortions.


In June, the California Legislature, in total


disregard of the Supreme Court ruling, the Cali-


fornia Constitution and the principle of the


separation of powers, again cut Medi-Cal abor-


tion funds from the state budget. The ACLU


filed a lawsuit on July 16 against this year's


budget cuts on behalf of the same coalition of


women's groups, welfare rights organizations,


medical practitioners, and abortion providers.


On July 29 the Supreme Court stayed the bud-


get cuts and remitted the case to the Court of


Appeal where the case was heard in October.


De Ronde v. Regents of the University of


California


(California Supreme Court)


The California Supreme Court upheld in Feb-


ruary the constitutionality of the admissions |


policy of the University of California at Davis


Law School, inwhich "ethnic minority status" is


a consideration in selecting appicants.


AnACLU amicus brief argued that a rejected


white applicant's claim that the admissions pol-


icy was unconstitutional was groundless under


both state and federal constitutional equal pro-


tection clauses and that adoption of his conten-


tion would cripple efforts towards racial equal-


jty, dampen the vigor of the legal profession


and severely undermine the sound develop-


ment of California constitutional law.


In October, the U.S. Supreme Court dis-


missed a final appeal by De Ronde and left the


state high court decision standing.


Hatheway v. Secretary of the Army


(U.S. Court of Appeals)


An appeal by the ACLU on behalf of a former


U.S. Army lieutenant seeking a declaration that


his court martial conviction for sodomy and


subsequent discharge from the military was


unconstitutional was rejected by the U.S. Court


of Appeals in April.


The ACLU argued that the ea was discrimi-


natorily applied to homosexuals and that it was


violative of the lieutenant's right to privacy.


Isbister v. Santa Cruz Boys Club


(California Court of Appeal)


A landmark decision oy the Santa Cruz


Superior Court in an ACLU sex discrimination


case which determined that the Boys Club pol-


icy of excluding girls is illegal and that member-


ship in the cluo must be open to children of


both sexes, was appealed by the Boys Club


management and is pending in the state Court


of Appeal.


Michael M. v. Superior Court


(U.S. Supreme Court)


California's statutory rape law, characterized


asa `relic of Victorian attitudes towards female


chastity" because it punishes men who have


sexual intercourse with girls under 18 but per-


mits women to have intercourse with boys


under 18, was upheld by the U.S. Supreme


Court in March, despite ACLU amicus argu-


ments that it violates the equal protection


clause of the constitution.


Preston v. Brown et. al.


(U.S. District Court)


In an unprecedented victory in a gay rights


test case against the Army, a settlement agree-


ment awarding money damages and changing


Army policies with regard to gay civilian


employees of defense contractors was con-


cluded by the ACLU and the Army in Novem-


ber, 1980.


The ACLU agreed 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 civ-


ilians working for defense contractors.


Tinsley v. Palo Alto Unified School District


(California Court of Appeal)


The ACLU has filed an amicus brief in sup-


- port of alegal challenge to California's Proposi-


tion |-the state constititional amendment ap-


proved by voters in 1979 which puts severe


limitations on busing as a remedy for school.


desegregation. The amicus brief argues that


Proposition | is itself state action to promote


segregation, and consequently violates the


federal constitution.


In a separate case in Los Angeles concerning


school desegregation in that city, the ACLU's


position was rejected by the Court of Appeal


inApril. However, inOctober, the U.S. Supreme


Court agreed to hear the Los Angeles case.


In re Dement and Razo


(California Court of Appeal)


In a case which seemingly places a male


inmate's constitutional right to privacy against


the right to equal employment opportunities of


female correction officers, the ACLU is arguing


that neither right need be compromised. The


ACLU filed an amicus brief in May urging re-


versal of a November 1980 superior court order


which removed all female staff from observa-


tional posts located in the boys' living units of a


Stockton juvenile detention center. The ACLU


claims that the. order should be reversed as


there exist alternatives less drastic than restrict-


ing women's employment opportunities-


such as minor structural changes in the living


units-that would both protect the inmates'


right to privacy and retain the normalizing influ-


ence of a coeducational correctional staff.


PRIVACY


Two of the most significant privacy cases


this year involved the successful defense


of the rights of women who seek abortions


or information about reproductive rights


to do so in private.


We also successfully challenged the inva-


sion of privacy of an employee who was


unjustly fired from a company because she


was living with a man to whom she was not


married, and of 5000 subscribers to a polit-


ical newspaper whose names and addresses


were requested bya local district attorney.


Still pending are cases conceming the


privacy of a psychiatric patient and pretrial


detainees. We are also continuing our pur-


suit under the Public Records Act of intel-


ligence files maintained by the state De-


partment of Justice.


ACLU. v. Deukmejian


(California Supreme Court)


AnACLU suit, originally filed in 1976, is seek-


ing the disclosure of criminal intelligence files


of the Law Enforcement Intelligence Unit (LEIU)


maintained by the Organized Crime and Intel-


ligence Branch of the California Department of


Justice.


The ACLU is arguing, on behalf of its mem-


bers, that the records with personal informa-


tion deleted, should be disclosed under the


state 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.


The court heard arguments for disclosure in


1980, but the case was reheard in August


because of the departure of two Supreme


Court justices.


In an amicus brief in support of the hotel


clerk's appeal, the ACLU is arguing that this


vintage legislation is irreconcilable with a mod-


ern concept of privacy which. prevents the


state from delving so deeply into the intimate


affairs of individuals. The ACLU is contending


that the law is overoroad in that it criminalizes


_ constitutionally protected intimate association,


and that the state may not compel a desk clerk


to invade the privacy of hotel guests by condi-


tioning lodging onan assessment of the patrons'


- possible intentions to engage in sexual activity.


Cathy R. v. Deukmejian


(California Supreme Court)


On behalf of a teenage girl, adoctor, a family


planning counselor, a teacher, a social worker, |


a psychotherapist, a foster parent and Planned (c)


Parenthood, the ACLU challenged a new state


law which required all "child care custodians,


medical and non-medical practitioners" to re-


port to the police all instances of consensual


sexual activity by unmarried teenage girls.


_ A stay on the reporting requirement was


obtained in March; however, in May the Legis- _


lature finally repealed the measure, rendering


the case moot.


De Lancie v. McDonald


(California Supreme Court)


The ACLU again argued before the California


Supreme Court that the San Mateo County Sher-


iff's practice of covert electronic monitoring


and recording of conversations between pris-


oners awaiting trial and their visitors as well as .


between prisoners, violates the California Con-


stitution's guarantee of privacy.


In October 1979, the Court of Appeal agreed


with ACLU arguments that constitutional rights


of privacy cannot be denied prisoners. The


case was argued before the supreme court in


1980, but because of the departure of two


justices from the court, it was reheard in August.


Kilgore v. Younger


(California Supreme Court)


The abosolute privilege accorded to state-


ments by high government officials does not


mean that the Attorney General can publicly


- accuse an individual of "organized crime con-


nections" with total immunity, claimed the |


ACLU ina friend of the court brief.


The ACLU is supporting the efforts of the


plaintiff in his suit against former state Attorney


General Evelle Younger for publicly naming him.


in a press conference as an individual asso-


ciated with organized crime.


Manning v. Municipal Court


(California Court of Appeal)


A hotel desk clerk in Oakland has been


charged with an 1872 law which makes it illegal


for a hotel employee to provide lodgings to


adults who subsequently, in the privacy of their


rented rooms, engage in sexual contact un-


sanctioned by law. _


People v. Avalon Memorial Hospital


(Los Angeles Superior Court)


.A section of the state Health and Safety


Code which required fetal death certificates,


including extensive personal and medical data


about the mother, to be placed on public


record following the termination of pregnan-


cies over 20 weeks, was ruled unconstitutional


by the Los Angeles Superior Court, in February.


The ACLU had challenged the statute, which


was being used to prosecute a major abortion


provider, aS an unconstitutional intrusion of


patients' privacy and a measure which inhib-


ited those wishing to exercise their constitu-


tional right to have an abortion.


Ramo v. Secretary of the Navy


(U.S. Court of Appeals)


AUS. 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 denied access of their records and


were not required to produce them is currently


pending on an appeal by the ACLU under the


federal Freedom of Information Act.


Schults v. Superior Court


(Galifornia Court of Appeal)


In an amicus brief, the ACLU defended the


privacy rights of a 94-year-old Oroville welfare


recipient and her two-year-old daughter who


were ordered to submit to blood tests, pre-


sumably to establish that an unreported male


allegedly living in their home is the father of the


child.


The ACLU argued that the blood tests are


involuntary bodily intrusions which constitute


an unlawful search and seizure and a violation


of the state right to privacy of both the mother


and the child. The Court of Appeals rejected


the ACLU arguments in February and the Cali-


fornia Supreme Court denied hearing.


Shields v. Household Finance Corporation


(Alameda County Superior Court)


In 1975, an assistant manager at Household


Finance was fired from her job simply because


she was living with her boyfriend. In December


1980 as a result of an ACLU lawsuit, she was


compensated for her dismissal and the com-


pany has agreed that personal living arrange-


ments of an employee may no longer be used


as a criterion to discriminate against that person


in any employment related matter.


Vail v. Superior Court


(California Court of Appeal)


The Court of Appeal ruled in July that dis-


closure to the Alameda County District Attorney


of the names and addresses of 5,000 subdscrib-


ers to the Republican newspaper would be an


intrusion of the constitutional rights of privacy


and freedom of association of innocent by-


standers who have been accused of no wrong-


doing, inagreement with an ACLU amicus brief.


In pursuit of a consumer fraud case against


the publication, formerly the official organ of


the local Republican Party organization, the


Alameda District Attorney asked for and ob-


tained an order requiring the disclosure of all


suoscribers. The ACLU argued that the First


Amendment precludes the government from


discovering whether an individual subscribes


to political publications.


DUE PROCESS


From the due process cases outlined


below, it is clear that the preservation of


basic constitutional rights-against unrea-


sonable searches, presumption of inno-


cence, etc.-against increasingly aggres-


sive police forces made bold by official


governmental pronouncements against


crime, is an important task for the ACLU.


Perhaps no case illustrates this better


than the ACLU's challenge on behalf of two


East Bay women who were strip searched


after being arrested for dog license infrac-


tions. Other cases challenge the San Fran-


cisco police practice of sweeping the


streets of "undesirables," the defense of


an innocent man who had to spend the


night in jail because of a police computer


-error, and the defense of a young man


cited for the vaguely defined offense of


"cruising."


Bazile v. Alioto


(U.S. Supreme Court)


In March 1981, the U.S. Supreme Court de-


clined to review a lower court ruling that the


_city of San Francisco must pay attorneys' fees to


_ the Northern California Police Practices Project


in the 1974 suit which halted the city police


department's unconstitutional stop-and-search


practices in their investigation of the "Zebra"


murders.


The Project, jointly sponsored by the ACLU,


NAACP `Legal Defense Fund and MALDEF,


brought a civil rights suit in federal court along


with other groups on behalf of all black males


who claimed their civil rights had been violatd


or would be violated by the police search


tactics. The federal district judge had ordered


the unconstitutional searches stopped and -


$25,000 in attorneys' fees to be paid to the


project.


receive financial assistance for the costly resi-


dential education their children require.


The goal of the lawsuit is to force San Fran-


cisco education officials to abide by the provi-


sions of the Education for All Handicapped


Children Act, and to stop the practice of break-


ing up families of seriously handicapped chil-


dren who want to obtain the publicly-funded


special education which the law guarantees.


Jamison v. Farabee


(USS. District Court)


In a settlement constituting a breakthrough


for the rights of mental patients, voluntary


patients in all public and private licensed men-


tal health facilities in California for the first time


have the right to refuse psychotropic drugs, as


a result of new regulations from the California


Department of Mental Health generated by an


ACLU lawsuit.


The ACLU lawsuit is still seeking to extend


this right to refuse to involuntary mental patients.


People v. Aguilar


(California Court of Appeal)


The ACLU is representing a young man cited


for "cruising" in violation of a Los Gatos city


ordinance. The ordinance which defines cruis-


ing as "driving for the sake of driving without


immediate destination .. .at random but on the


lookout for possible developments," is being


challenged as overbroad and unconstitutional.


The Superior Court upheld the ordinance and


the case is now before the Court of Appeal.


a wo and fet


colo 25218


People v. Gregory Joseph S.


(California Court of Appeal)


Saimeron v. Glover


(US. District Court, District of Columbia)


The right to silence in a pre-custody situation


was the primary issue in the ACLU appeal on


behalf of a boy convicted of obstructing a


police officer because he refused to answer


the officer's questions about an incident in


which the boy was suspected of harassing a


neighbor.


In February, the Court of Appeal upheld the


`right to silence but affirmed the conviction on


the ground that the conduct constituted ob- -


struction.


People v. Mayberry


(California Supreme Court)


The ACLU has filed an amicus brief in sup-


port of an appeal by an airlines passenger who


was convicted of transporting marijuana after


his bags, along with the luggage of all other


passengers coming from Florida to San Diego,


were sniffed by a police dog. The ACLU is


arguing that such exploratory surveillance by


narcotics sniffing dogs is unconstitutional.


The friend of the court brief contends that


sniffing all luggage is arbitrary and unreason-


able, that such a practice violates reasonable


expectations of privacy, and that the court


should not condone police practices which


subject every person's effects to surveillance


by the police without a warrant or probable


Cause.


Christopher T. v. San Francisco Unified


_ School District, et. al.


(U.S. District Court)


In December 1980, the ACLU-NC joined the -


national ACLU's Children's Rights Project and


Legal Services for Children in a class action suit


on behalf of handicapped children who are


being denied educational benefits accorded


to them by law.


Parents of handicapped children, in San


Francisco and elsewhere, have been forced to


relinquish custody of their children in order to


People v. Blacklock


(Santa Clara Municipal Court)


People v. Spain


(U.S. District Court)


The ACLU is representing a woman charged -


under a Santa Clara city ordinance which pro-


hibits loitering near business establishments


without the express or implied permission of


the business.


The defense is based on a challenge to the


city ordinance as overbroad and unconstitu-


tional because it confers discretion on business


owners to arbitrarily exclude persons from


public places.


Design by Glama Graphics


1663 Mission St., San Francisco, CA 94103.


oa SS) eee Ee ee ee Ee ee ee es es ae


i I wish to support the legal work of the ACLU Foundation.


| am enclosing a tax-deductible contribution of $


to the ACLU Foundation.


a Name


. Address


A Telephone


: City State `Zip


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


The conviction of a Black Panther Party mem-


ber for offenses rising out of a 1971 uprising at


San Quentin Prison was upheld by the State (c)


Court of Appeal despite the ACLU amicus con-


tention that the shackling of a defendant to his


chair during the trial and the improper contact


between the judge and the jurors were in bla-


tant disregard of the due process rights of the


defendant. These same arguments on behalf of


Spain are being made in support of a habeus


corpus petition currently pending in federal


district court.


Ramey v. Murphy


(San Francisco Superior Court)


For the second time in recent years the ACLU


is suing the San Francisco Police Department


for using an obstruction of sidewalks law as a


means of jailing people who would not other-


wise be punished by legal means.


The suit, filed in November 1980, is seeking


an injunction and a declaration that the discrim-


inatory enforcement by the police of Section


647c of the Penal Code to sweep the streets of


"undesirables" is unconstitutional and illegal.


The case should come to trial in early 1982.


A 1979 suit, Ramey v. Gain, achieved the


discontinuance of a city ordinance, Police


Code Sections 20a and 206, which had also


been used by police to harass and arrest per-


sons on the street.


Two children, who were kidnapped and


hidden from their father despite his having


custody rights, by the U.S. Marshal Federal Wit-


ness Protection Program, were returned to him


in May after an ACLU-NC lawsuit.


The successful suit claimed that the children,


who were being hidden by the program with


their mother and her boyfriend, a federal wit-


ness against the Hell's Angels, had been


denied their inherent right to maintain a natural


child-parent relationship, and their First Amend-


ment right to liberty and family life; the same


rights were denied the father.


Tom v. City of San Francisco |


(San Francisco Superior Court)


An innocent man was arrested and impris-


oned on his way to a friend's house because


the police computer system (PIN) erroneously


transmitted information to the arresting officer


that he was a "wanted man."


The ACLU filed suit last October representing


the innocent victim, claiming that his improper


arrest and detention violated the Fourth Amend-


ment-the right to be free from unreasonable


searches and from warrants issued without


proper cause-and Is seeking a declaration of


his innocence, damages, and the destruction


of his arrest record.


Torrey v. Houchins


(Alameda Superior Court)


On behalf of a former inmate of Santa Rita


who was forcibly raped by another inmate


while in the presence of two deputy sheriffs,


the ACLU is suing Alameda County and the


Sheriff's Department claiming that the system-


atic indifference to prisoners' rights and safety


at the jail and the subsequent endangerment of


prisoners is a violation of the constitutional


guarantee of freedom from cruel and unusual


punishment. The case will likely go to trial inthe


spring. The California Court of Appeal is pres-


ently considering a related matter concerning


the degree to which Mr. Torrey must disclose


his private sex life in pretrial hearings.


The ACLU-NC Foundation 1981 Annual


Report was prepared by ACLU News editor


Elaine Elinson.


Page: of 8
Clip Image

In collections

Details
Title

vol. 46, no. 8 (December, 1981)

Creator

American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California

Date

1981 November-December

Identifier

ACLUN_0507

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. 46, no. 8, 1981 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)

Labor rights
Searches and seizures
Freedom of information
Privacy, Right of
Criminal justice
Freedom of expression
Educational equity
Air Trafiic Controller's Strike, U.S., 1981
Reproductive rights
Affirmative action
Cruising (driving)
LGBTQ rights
Police practices

Named subject(s)

Berzon, Marsha
Biggs, Bernice
Crosby, Margaret
George Deukmejian
Dreyfus, Benjamin
Ehrlich, Dorothy
Franklin, Bruce
Gallo, Marcia
Glasser, Ira
Mosk, Stanley
Paterson, Eva
Ramirez, Raul
Riemer, Davis
Schwartz, Amitai
Warner, Douglas
Warren, Earl
Chinese for Affirmative Action (Organization)
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People
United States. Federal Bureau of Investigation
Soledad Correctional Training Facility
Hearst Corporation

Geographical subject(s)

Sacramento (Calif.)
Monterey (Calif.)
San Quentin (Calif.)
Santa Rosa (Calif.)
Monterey County (Calif.)
Vacaville (Calif.)
Oakland (Calif.)
Berkeley (Calif.)

Collection identifier

PER ACLUN