vol. 50, no. 7

cent

aclu new

Volume L

October 1985 Ss

No. 7

1985 Bill of Rights Day Celebration

Criley To Receive Warren Award (c)

Richard Criley, a civil rights activist for

over 50 years and a veteran leader of the

ACLU-NC, will be honored with the Earl

Warren Civil Liberties Award at the

thirteenth annual Bill of Rights Day

Celebration.

The Celebration, which will be held on

December 8 at the Sheraton Palace Hotel

in San Francisco, is the culmination of

the ACLU-NC's annual fundraising

campaigns.

Each year, for the past thirteen years,

the Earl Warren Civil Liberties Award has

been presented to a person or persons who

have distinguished themselves as cham-

pions in the battle to preserve and expand

civil liberties.

The Board of Directors selected

Richard Criley as the award recipient

because he has spent his lifetime "working

for, insisting on and teaching us all about

a broader Bill of Rights."

Democratic Heritage

Though he was born in Paris, Criley

was born into the heritage of America's

most democratic traditions: his ancestors

include a signer of the Declaration of

Independence, three soldiers who fought

in the American Revolution and a

celebrated victim of the Salem witch trials.

His maternal grandfather marched with

General Sherman through Georgia, and

his father's parents settled in Kansas to

help make it a free state.

Criley's own activism began in the Bay

Area. As a graduate student at UC

Berkeley in 1934, he led the first free speech

movement there, organizing a student

strike when university officials refused to

allow the noted author and social critic

Upton Sinclair to speak on campus.

When he was denied the right to

distribute leaflets on campus, Criley turned

to the ACLU-NC for support - planting

a seed for a relationship which was to

flower over the next half century. -

After organizing the American Student

Union, a national movement focused on

peace and civil liberties issues, the scholar-

turned-activist became involved in the

labor movement. He started working as

a warehouseman on the San Francisco

waterfront and joined the International

Lonshoremen's and Warehouseman's

Union. "I saw labor as a powerful force

for change," Criley says.

Senate Subpoena

He entered the army "to fight the rise

of facism in Europe, and ironically found

himself subpoenaed for his pre-war

activities by the senate Subcommittee

Internal Security while he was still in

uniform.

Earl Warren Civil Liberties Award recipient Richard Criley displays a portion of

his voluminous FBI files at a recent Freedom of Information Day rally.

"Although America had supposedly

postponed `witch-hunting' for alleged

subversives during the war, I was the

subject of a front page article in Stars and

Stripes about radicals who became officers

during the war," said Criley who had

entered as a private and become a captain.

After the war, Criley moved to Mayor

Daley's Chicago where he became deeply

involved in local grassroots organizations

fighting social injustice and _ political

corruption.

But this was a period when such

organizing was not looked upon kindly,

and Criley soon found himself targeted by

the FBI, listed as one of several thousand

"subversives' that J. Edgar Hoover

believed to be threats to American society.

These were the days of the Cold. War

and anti-communist witch-hunts, orches-

trated by the House Un-American

Activities Committee.

Fighting HUAC

Criley was undaunted and went after

those who would go after him and his

fellow organizers. In 1960 he launched the

National Committee to abolish HUAC,

which later became the National Commit-

tee Against Repressive Legislation

(NCARL). The fledgling group was

immediately labeled a "Communist plot."

"Often times in the civil liberties

business, you get the feeling that you seem

to be the last person on earth who believes

in some one thing," Criley says. The

Continued on page 2

Photo By Paul Winternitze

Quotable Criley

Earl Warren Civil Liberties Award

honoree Richard Criley's civil liberties

activism spans more than five decades.

Here are some of his reflections on these

challenging times:

Free Speech Strike-Berkeley 1934:

"Here I was, an honor student and

captain of the fencing team-they

called me in and told me I was about

to be expelled. I did not realize it at

the time, but this experience proved to

be a turning point in my life."

The Cold War Began: "After World

War II, when I returned from three

years' overseas military services, my

hopes and expectations were quickly

chilled by the nightmare of the cold

war, foreign and domestic. Dissent was

equated with disloyalty and treason.

The Rosenberg trial and execution and

the Alger Hiss case were orchestrated

to drive home this bitter lesson." __

Being "Un-American": "No doubt I was _

- descended from a long line of trouble-

makers. But perhaps without such

troublemakers our democracy would

never have been born or survived."

Abolishing HUAC: "Even our best

friends told us we were engaged in a

foolish, hopeless crusade. Our initial

announcement was met with an FBI/

HUAC inspired red-baiting attack in

the new media designed to wipe us out

before we ever got started. But in reality,

our effort was not as foolhardy as it

seemed."

And in 1985: "I am more apprehensive

today than I have ever been. Our

government demonstrates a contempt

for the law and the Constitution at

home and abroad. It bases its foreign

policy on the drive for nuclear

supremacy, and the export of violence

and terrorism through covert means.

If we tolerate such actions by our

government abroad, some day we may

find ourselves the victims of similar

methods at home."

The Power of Protest: "The traditions

of our democracy have deep and strong

roots. Even a few determined individ-

uals can harvest them, if they persevere

long enough and the issue is one the

public can understand. What each of

us does can make a difference."

Government Surveillance: "I sometimes

say the FBI is my Boswell."

ed

aclu news

2 Oct 1985

The ACLU News welcomes letters of

opinion, inquiry, outrage, and praise.

Letters longer than 200 words will usually

be edited for length. Please tell us what

is on your mind by writing Editor, ACLU

News, 1663 Mission St., San Francisco,

CA. 94103.

Court Confirmation

Editor:

H. Lee Halterman's position of no

' endorsement of our Supreme Court

justices facing confirmation by the

electorate (ACLU News, June - July 1985)

has my support.

_ ACLU national policy #524 states that

the "Union does not endorse or oppose

candidates for elective or appointive

office."

`To do otherwise would threaten not only -

the independence of the judiciary, but

equally as important, make a mockery of

the Union's long-standing tradition of

impartiality.

Gregory L. Christainsen

Editor:

I have to disagree with Barbara Dewey

of Inverness, who expresses her disap-

pointment with ACLU for not giving

official support to Justice Rose Bird in

her upcoming electoral challenge.

While I personally support the decisions -

of Justice Bird, I believe it was a wise

decision on the part the ACLU to refrain

from endorsing any candidate or any

particular point of view. the business of

the ACLU is not to promote any one of

_ anumber of political or social philosophies,

but to insure that they all get a hearing.

With all due respect for her opinion.

J. Richard Dawe

Bruce Franklin

Editor:

In your recent article about Bruce

Franklin you say "fired by the University

over expression of political beliefs." Isn't

this what the law suits are trying to

determine? You have apparently deter-

mined the facts before the court has.

I agree to the need for an ACLU but

your approach makes me take a deep

breath each time I renew my membership.

_ John Hartmann

Marijuana CAMP

Editor:

I'm increasingly embarrassed by the

ACLU% silence in the face of the continued

assault on the Constitution by the

government's "war on marijuana" in

Northern California. The most massive

Federal para-military operation against

American citizens ever staged is in its third

year. Campaign Against Marijuana

Planting (CAMP) has thrice been hauled

into Federal Court by citizens' groups, with

resultant injunctive relief.

Through all, no word from the ACLU.

Long after marijuana is legalized or

passe as an issue, the precedents of these

last three years will persist: erosions of

protection against warrantless searches,

Letters

invasion of privacy, illegal seizures and

detentions, roadblocks, helicopter surveil-

lance and pursuit, and armed government

trespassing - all will plague us.

Who cares about the rights of a "few

dope growers"? Federal Judge Joseph

Aguilar was impressed enough by 170

sworn declarations, submitted mostly by

completely innocent bystanders, to enjoin

CAMP against any more civil liberties

violations. Further, he is appointing a

Monitor for the Court, to evaluate law

enforcement's compliance with his injunc-

tion. This is a rarely-used measure in

Federal civil rights litigation; it is

unprecedented as an admonishment to

Federal law enforcement itself.

Jared Rossman

The ACLU has not been silent on the

civil liberties violations committed by the

CAMP program. ACLU-NC attorneys -

have conferred with local attorneys in

Humboldt county on the best legal

strategies to halt the abuses of privacy

rights and Fourth Amendment guarantees. -

See related story under "Legal Briefs" in

this issue. -Ed.

Criley To Receive

Warren Award

Continued from page 1

abolition of HUAC seemed to one of those

' things - when it was first formed not

one member of congress would speak

publicly against the witch-hunts.

"At one hearing, I opened my testimony

by declaring that my `constitutional reason'

for not answering questions was because

I would not cooperate with the modern

counterpart of the Salem witch-hunts that

had done in my ancestor. Of course they

told me that reason was not constitutional

enough," Criley says.

NCARL Founded

After 15 years of fighting HUAC, the

committee was finally abolished. Criley,

however, and the NCARL he founded,

continued to fight on against other

injustices, particularly the intrusion of

government intelligence agencies - from

the FBI to the Chicago Red Squad -

into the private lives of citizens.

He served for 17 years as the Midwest

Regional Director of NCARL and

currently is their Northern California

Director. A dynamic orator, Criley has

spoken and debated before hundreds of

academic, religious, and activist audiences

throughout the U.S.

Criley's activities have been well

documented by the government. Thou-

sands of pages were delivered to him after

he made a Freedom of Information Act

request for his files from the FBI. The

documents include copies made from tapes '

_ of his speeches, clippings of his letters to:

Guest Editorial

Congressional Reactions

Bigger Threat Than Spies

by Jonhathan Marshall

Soviet spies can steal our codes, our

radar blueprints, and our naval secrets,

but they can't rob us of our common

sense. Only Congress and the admin-

istration can do that.

A flurry of highly publicized espi-

onage cases - most notoriously that

of the Walker family spies who allegedly

penetrated the U.S. Navy for the KGB ~

- has Congress and the Pentagon.

jumping blindly.

"Do something" has become the

order of the day. Officials and legislators

vie for media attention as they

maneuver to appear in command of

the situation. But we may have more

reason to fear their over-reactions than

the spying itself.

No one even knows whether Soviet

espionage is any more pervasive or

effective today than it was 5, 10 or 20

years ago. Indeed, as Defense Secretary

Caspar Weinberger pointed out, "The

fact that these things are surfacing can

be attributed perhaps to greater

enforcement efforts."

That uncertainty hasn't stopped

Congress from pushing the death

penalty for spies and sweeping lie

detector tests for Pentagon personnel.

Whether the death penalty will really

deter anyone, or whether polygraphs

will bag the innocent but clear the

practiced guilty, few seem to care. Only

the symbolism appears to matter.

Nor does anyone have a clear idea

of just how vital the compromised

secrets really were. Many doubtless had

a limited-time value. Codes and

operational measures have been or will

be changed. Any marginal advantage

the Soviets might gain must be vastly

over-Shadowed by the certain catas-

trophe that would overcome them in

the event of an all-out superpower

conflict.

The Pentagon' real secret is how few

of its classified documents deserve to

remain secret. The 20 million docu-

ments stamped secret every year

include such gems as the Navy's

justification for its 1986 budget request,

with the classified assessment that the

services' "compensation and quality of

life improvements must be competitive

in the job market."

With so many mundane matters

under wraps, neither the Defense

Department nor its contractors can

function without giving millions of

employees some kind of clearance.

The USA`a strength, technological as

well as political, lies in our openness,

not in our ability to compete with

Moscow secret-for-secret. We hold the

greatest lead over the Soviets in areas

like civilian electronics, where informa-

tion flows most freely and thus most

quickly to those who can use it.

If Washington's embarrassment at

. the latest round of spy games prompts

new bureaucratic controls in govern-

ment and industry, the Soviets will

indeed have scored a victory.

Jonathan Marshall is editorial page

editor of the Oakland Tribune. This

article originally appeared in USA

Today.

the editor, and many, many pages blacked

out from top to bottom. "I sometimes say

that the FBI is my Boswell," he smiled.

Back to California

In 1977, Criley moved from Chicago

back to his boyhood home on the

Monterey Peninsula where he immediately

became involved in the ACLU-NU. Criley

has served as the Chair of the ACLU-

NC Monterey Chapter, Vice-Chair of the

affiliate Board and Chair of the Field

Committee.

"Of the many activities I have been

involved in - from the student movement,

the labor movement, the abolition of

HUAC, the peace and anti-nuclear

campaigns, civil rights work, I keep

coming back to one basic issue: civil

liberties and freedom," Criley says.

"It's a scarier time in America now than

any timme we've been through. President

Reagan has effectively whipped up an

arms race hysteria that rivals the Cold War

hysteria of the 1950'.

"So the coming years will be our biggest

challenge," he says, "and if we lose our

right to assert our position, we lose all."

The Bill of Rights Day Celebration will

be held at the Sheraton Palace Hotel in

San Francisco on Sunday, December 8;

program at 5 pm (no-host bar reception

4 PM). Tickets for the event are $10.00

and are available from the ACLU-NC

office. Use the order form in this issue.

See back page.

aclu news.

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

August-September and November-December

Second Class Mail privileges authorized at San Francisco, California

Published by the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California

Nancy Pemberton, Chairperson Dorothy Ehrlich, Executive Director

Marcia Gallo,

Elaine Elinson, Scribe

ACLU NEWS (USPS 018-040)

1663 Mission St., 4th floor, San Francisco, California 94103. (415) 621- 2488

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

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

Michaet P. Miller, :aitor

ChapterPage ~~

aclu news

Oct 1985 3

State Sex Records Computer Bank

Stating that "sensitive privacy rights" of

_ minors are at stake in a dispute over the

state Child Abuse Reporting Law, the state

Court of Appeal issued a temporary stay

of the law halting the establishment of a

statewide computer bank on the sexual

activities of adolescents under the age of |

14.

The September 13 stay came only three

days after the ACLU-NC. and the

Adolescent Health Care Project of the

National Center for Youth Law filed a

lawsuit on behalf of Planned Parenthood

Affiliates of California, a doctor who

provides health care to sexually active

adolescents and a taxpayer challenging an

Attorney General' opinion on the law.

The Attorney General' interpretation

of the state Child Abuse Reporting Law

requires that health and social work

professionals must file a report, or face

criminal prosecution, whenever an

adolescent under the age of 14 seeks

prenatal care, an abortion, or treatment

for a sexually transmitted disease. It also

requires the reporting of an adolescent

who, when seeking contraceptives, reveals

that he or she has been sexually active.

The lawsuit also alleges that mandatory

reporting of adolescents' voluntary sexual

activities violates the California constitu-

tional guarantee of privacy. ACLU-NC

staff attorney Margaret Crosby stated,

"These reports are issued first to law

ACLU-NC Board Reaffirms

No Endorsement Policy

At its August meeting the ACLU-NC

Board of Directors reaffirmed its long-

standing policy of making no endorsments

in elections for public office and, noting

that the "current campaign against certain

members of the California Supreme Court

constitutes an attack on the independence

of the judiciary," pledged the organization's

resources to a vigorous educational

program on the issue.

The policy, adopted on August 24, reads

as follows:

_ An independent judiciary consti-

tutes one of the mainstays in the

defense of civil rights and civil

_ liberties, as well as any system of

constitutional democracy. Chal-

lenges to the tenure of judges based

on partisanship or political concerns

threaten the ability of the judiciary

to defend and expand these rights,

to preserve due process guarantees

of judicial impartiality, and to

enforce legal protections established

to advance human needs.

While we reaffirm our position

of making no endorsements in the

elections for public office, the Board

of Directors of the ACLU-NC

deplores and condemns the current

campaign against certain members

of the California Supreme Court as

an attack upon the independence

of the judiciary. We find that the

efforts to defeat them are based on

wholly irrelevant considerations

that do not relate to their qualifi-

cations to hold office.

The Board of Directors of the

ACLU-NC directs that a vigorous

program of education be under-

taken to make the membership and

the public aware of the vital nature

of the independence of the judiciary

and the ways in which the current

campaign threatens that principle.

Lengthly Debate

The policy was adopted following a

lengthly debate centered on the November

1986 ballot confirmation of five Supreme

Court justices. The policy vote was the

culmination of several months of discussion

within the 20,000 member affiliate,

including majority and minority reports

issued by the Ad Hoc Committee on the

Independence of the Judiciary, and

publication of the positions in the ACLU

News.

The Board resolution reflects the

majority report. The minority report

favored the limited endorsement of all

justices sitting on the same court,

regardless of their political views and their

records in deciding cases. Arguing that

laws which require judges to face voter

approval promote the politicization of the

judiciary, the minority report argued that

the ACLU should use all legitimate legal

and political means to ensure that these

laws do not result in the removal of judges

for wholly irrelevant considerations that

do not relate to their qualifications to hold

office. The minority report urged that the

ACLU-NC formally endorse confirmation

for all five justices in the November 1986

election. |

National Policy

The: national ACLU has had a policy

since 1936 of not endorsing or opposing

candidates for elected or appointed office.

ACLU policy does, however, permit the

publication by the ACLU of civil liberties

records of any officers of government at

any level, federal or state, as well as the

utilization of various methods of advancing

political discourse during political

campaigns.

The ACLU-NC Field Committee,

which organizes grassroots activists

throughout northern California, will

conduct a vigorous educational campaign

over the next year around the importance

of the independence of the judiciary. The

San Francisco chapter launched a six-

forum public education series with a well-

attended presentation by Archibald Cox,

former Watergate special prosecutor, on

September 6. Former Attorney General

Ramsey Clark and California pollster

Mervin Field will be featured in future

forums.

For Young People Stopped -

Planned Parenthood advisor Dr. Benjamin Major (1) joins National Center for Youth

Law attorney Abigail English and ACLU-NC staff counsel Margaret Crosby (r) in

answering questions at a press conference announcing a lawsuit to protect the

confidentiality of sexually active minors seeking health care.

enforcement authorities and then lodged

in a central computer in Sacramento.

Adolescents cannot be forced to choose

between relinquishing their constitutionally

guaranteed privacy rights as to intimate

sexual matters and foregoing the assistance

of doctors, counselors and other profes-

sionals with a resulting adverse impact on

their health."

The lawsuit charges that the Attorney

General's opinion will prevent many

teenagers from receiving necessary and

desirable medical, contraceptive, pharma-

ceutical, and psychological care. It claims

that adolescents who cannot obtain this

care will suffer unwanted pregnancies and

health injuries.

David Alois, acting Executive Director

of Planned Parenthood of California,

explained that his organization operates

789 clinics where many teens under the

age of 14 come for reproductive health

care. "We feel very strongly that those teens

will put off getting health care services

if they feel they are going to be reported

to the authorities and their parents," Alois

said.

AHCP attorney Abigail English

explained, "We are not condoning that

young people engage in sex before age 14,

but the inescapable fact is that they are

doing so and in significant numbers. In

California, in 1981, there were an estimated

4100 pregnancies of girls age 14 and under.

Nationally, 12% of boys age 13 are sexually

active. These adolescents need appropriate

health services, and California law

guarantees them access to this care on a

confidential basis. The Attorney General's

opinion will only deter them from getting

timely medical care."

More than a dozen doctors, nurses,

social workers, and clinic directors

affirmed in declarations supporting the

suit that many sexually active teenagers -

will not seek necessary medical care if they

are not assured of confidential services.

One of the adolescent health care

experts, Dr. Geraldine Oliva, said "A

s

mandatory reporting requirement appli-

cable to sexually active teenagers under

age 14 who seek my services will

irreparably interfere with my professional

relationship with my patients and will

deter these children from coming to me

for help." :

Dr. Oliva cited the case of a 14-year-

old boy whose high school was visited by

the San Francisco police after he had

sought treatment for a venereal disease.

"You can bet that no one from that boy's

school is ever going to seek treatment

again," said Dr. Oliva.

"To the extent that sexually active

minors are deterred from seeking the

medical care they need, we will see an

increase in teenage pregnancies, compli-

cations of untreated sexually transmitted

diseases and health problems associated:

with late or illegal abortions," Dr. Oliva

concluded.

In issuing the temporary stay, the Court

of Appeal agreed with Dr. Oliva.

The Court gave the Attorney General

until October 15 to formally respond to

the lawsuit. The ACLU-NC and _ the

AHCP are also seeking a permanent writ

and declaration that the reporting

provisions are invalid.

Field Featured -

On Court Panel

Join Mervin Field, The California

Poll, Betty Medsger, author, Framed

and Eva Paterson, national ACLU

Vice-President in the second forum of

the ACLU-NC's San Francisco Chap-

ter's series: "Who's Judging Whom? A

Dialogue on the Media, the People and

the Judiciary." Wednesday, December

4, 1985 at 7:00 p.m., Golden Gate

University's auditorium, 536 Mission

St. Tickets available at all BASS

outlets.

-

aclu news

4 Oct 1985

ACLU Attorney Sues S.F Police

Over Own Street Sweep Arrest

When ACLU-NC attorney John Crew

protested his arrest in Hallidie Plaza in

the fall of 1984, one of the arresting officers

said to him, "what are you going to do,

sue me?"

The officer got his answer on September -

5, when the ACLU-NC filed a lawsuit on

his behalf in U.S. District Court against

members of the San Francisco Police

Department, Police Chief Cornelius

Murphy and the City of San Francisco

for false arrest.

by Michael P. Mil

ACL U-N C cooperating attorney John

Crew at press conference announcing his

lawsuit against San a cuca Police Jor

false arrest.

"Crew was aarested on September 6, 1984.

as he was monitoring the police street

sweeps in Hallidie Plaza; his arrest came ~

`only a few hours after ACLU publicly ~

called on San Francisco Police Chief

Cornelius Murphy to halt the sweeps and -

asked state Attorney General John Van

de Kamp to investigate the police -

roundups. -

Noting that the ACLU-NC has a long

history of challenging police abuses in San

Francisco, Schwartz commented, "This

lawsuit just covers the tip of the iceberg.

What happened to John happens every .

day to people in San Francisco because -

the San Francisco police use sweeps as

harrassment tactics, to tell certain kinds

of people that they are not welcome in

certain parts of town."

-"Untouchable" Police

"The police often see themselves as

untouchable, especially with respect to.

street people and other persons who are

unlikely to nero their authority," he

added. ~

Speaking at a press conference at the

ACLU-NC office to announce the lawsuit, .

Crew's attorneys, Schwartz and staff

counsel Edward Chen, said they hoped _

the lawsuit would serve as a deterrent to

the arrests of other innocent people at the

_ hands of the San Francisco police.

When he was arrested, Crew was taking

_ notes about. the arrests he saw in an effort -

_ to. further document: reports. which

_ appeared in. the San Francisco Chronicle

about police "sweeps" and "rousts" of street

people at Civic Center and Hallidie Plaza

last fall.

Handcuffed

At that point, Crew was handcuffed,

pat searched and taken to the `Hall of

_ Justice for booking.

Crew had observed the police stopping

people and asking them for identification

for about 20 minutes when the police

noticed him. They asked if he was a

reporter and-he told them no. Then they

asked Crew. for identification and he

refused to give them any.

"When I told the arresting officers that

a U.S. Supreme Court decision in 1982

prohibited them from arresting people on

the street for refusing to identify them-

selves, they asked me what lawbooks I

had been reading," Crew said.

(Crew was referring to the 1983 U. S.

Supreme Court case of Kolender vy.

Lawson that struck down the California

laws that criminalized the refusal to show

identification to a police officer.)

Police booked Crew for obstruction of

justice. All charges against him were

eventually dropped.

. Attorney Amitai Schwartz, in a letter

to the Police Chief, had condemned the

Civic Center and Hallidie Plaza sweeps

as "police state tactics that have no place

in a democracy, let alone a sophisticated

city like San Francisco."

Letter to A.G.

Schwartz had also called on the state

Attorney General to investigate the police

activity "in order that the constitutional

rights of all persons may be secure." This

letter prompted an investigation of the

ACLU-NC allegations by District Attorney

Arlo Smith. Smith found no wrongdoing

in the department.

The suit is asking for $150,000 in"

compensatory and punitive damages and

that Crew's record be cleared of this arrest.

Prior to filing the lawsuit, Crew's

attorneys made several attempts to remedy

the complaint through administrative

channels. The final attempt was denied

in June.

Heisler Award

The Monterey County chapter of the

ACLU, in cooperation with the Monterey

College of Law, is launching a drive to

create a lasting memorial to the famed

civil rights lawyer, Francis Heisler, a long

time member of the chapter and repre-

sentative to the ACLU-NC Board. Heisler

died just a year ago at the age of 89.

The memorial will take the form of a

moot court competition to. be held

annually in his name by the law school.

As planned, all senior students will prepare

appellate briefs on a significant civil

liberties issue, with the finalists to argue

their cases in a public evening forum. The

winner will receive the Francis Heisler

Memorial Award.

`To make this project continuing and self-

sustaining, the chapter is seeking to raise -

a total of $25,000 as an endowment.

ACLU VS. SFPD

The ACLU-NC ee over the last ten

years, created forums in which the

public can have a say about how police

`work is carried out. These efforts have (c)

1975 to require the Police Commission

to hold public hearings on changes in -

_ police rules; helping to establish the

Office of Citizens Complaints and

promoting hearings on police violence

_ against demonstrators during political

protests in 1984. Among the cases on

the ACLU-NC docket are:

cent Two Rastafarian priests, who were

stopped by the police illegally, filed

a personal injury suit asserting that.

they were arrested and strip searched

by San Francisco narcotics officers

because of their race and religion.

cent Three demonstrators at the 1984

Democratic National Convention are

charging police with unwarranted

brutality and false arrest during

police actions to disperse protesters

around the convention site.

cent In 1984, the ACLU-NC successfully

defended a victim of police abuse who

was sued by two SFPD officers when

he filed a complaint against them

- with the Internal Affairs Bureau.

included amending the City Charter in _

cent The ACLU-NC is defending the

_NAACP against a defamation suit

`brought by the San Francisco Police

Officers Association for an. alleged

statement by an NAACP

spokesperson that the police pursue

a "systematic, sadistic and criminal

program of assaults against Black

citizens."

e The `ACLU-NC has even had tc ~

litigate to defend the Office of Citizen

Complaints. The ACLU sued to force

the Commission to consider increas- :

ing the budget of the OCC to a

sufficient level for it to do its job.

Gay Employee's

Mixed Victory

The ACLU-NC's arguments in San

Francisco Superior Court last July that

Southern Pacific' denial of funeral leave

to a gay employee is discriminatory

produced mixed results. Judge Ollie

Marie-Victoire denied the claim for

bereavement leave but noted that the law

governing employment benefits based on

marital status should be changed.

"There is no social policy existing today

which justifies the discrimination [against

homosexuals] contained in the Civil

Code," Judge Marie-Victoire wrote.

The judge stated that "the plaintiffs real

quarrel is with the California Legislature

which has declined to legitimize the status

of a homosexual partner."

Matthew Coles, an ACLU-NC cooper-

ating attorney from the firm of Coles and

Nakatani, and ACLU-NC staff attorney

Margaret Crosby represented Lawrence

Brinkin, a secretary/word processor with

SP in San Francisco who was denied

bereavement leave when his homosexual

lover of 11 years died. A ey trial was -

held in July.

nan Brinken

On August 27, Judge Marie-Victoire

stated that "the use of marital status under

the SP bereavement leave plan is a

reasonable means of administration-

. . [which] does not constitute unlawful

discrimination on the basis of marital

status."

"It is clearly the responsibility of -the

people of this state, acting through their

Legislature, to remedy this inequity. The

right to make a legal and loving

commitment with a person of the same

sex should certainly be recognized by an.

enlightened and benevolent Legislature." _

ACLU-NC attorneys Coles and Crosby,

though welcoming the comments of the

court addressing the need to change the ~

marriage law so as not to discriminate

against homosexuals, plan to appeal the

- ruling.

"The policy challenged in this case :

- violates existing discrimination laws,"

Coles said. "The Legislature has estab-

lished that employers may not encourage

employees to marry by paying fewer

benefits to unmarried workers."

Legal Briefs

aclu news

Oct 1985 5

Bilingual Ballot Probe

Held Constitutional

A 1982 probe of voters seeking bilingual

election materials initiated by the U.S.

Attorney in nine northern California

counties was upheld as constitutional by

the federal Court of Appeals on September

3 despite a challenge by the ACLU-NC,

the Mexican American Legal Defense and

Education Fund (MALDEF) and Califor-

nia Rural Legal Assistance (CRLA).

The civil rights organizations, represent-

ing Spanish and Chinese speaking voters

and groups that register voters, imme-

_ diately asked the court to reconsider the

decision.

The appellate court ruling was the latest

in a series in the case of Olagues vy.

Russoniello, originally filed in May 1982,

`when the bilingual ballot probe became

public.

The suit charges that the investigation

unconstitutionally focused on particular

racial and ethnic groups and cast a chill

and a stigma over those seeking to exercise

their right to vote.

The bilingual ballot probe became

public shortly after it began when an

Oakland Tribune reporter revealed that

U.S. Attorney Joseph Russoniello had

instructed district attorneys in nine

counties which provide bilingual ballot

materials- San Francisco, Contra Costa,

- Alameda, Santa Cruz, Monterey, San

Mateo, Napa, Sonoma and Santa Clara-

to provide the names of persons requesting

bilingual voting information.

Twenty-five names selected at random

from the lists of each county were -

submitted to the U.S. Attorney who then

- checked them against records of the .

Immigration and Naturalization Service

(INS) to determine whether or not those

"persons were citizens eligible to vote.

Affirmative Action, the Hispanic Coalition

of Contra Costa County and numerous. .

other civil liberties and minorites rights .

groups issued a statement of protest.

"We believe first and foremost that the

U.S. Attorney's investigation is racially

and ethnically discriminatory and therefore

violates both the Voting Rights Act and

the U.S. Constitution. That the investi-

gation focused solely on Hispanic and

Chinese voters, without evidence to justify

such a racially selective probe, is a blatant

act of discrimination," the groups said.

When U.S. District Court Judge

Spencer Williams first denied ACLU and

MALDEF a Temporary Restraining

Order to `halt the probe and later an

injunction, they took the case to the Court

of Appeals.

In a lengthly opinion, the appellate

court reversed Judge William' ruling that

a federal court has no power to enjoin

a preliminary investigation of the U.S.

Attorney's office, but then went on to hold

that such an injunction could only be

issued in "extraordinary circumstances,"

and that this test was not met in this case.

"We are compelled to refrain from

injecting ourselves into the midst of what

essentially was only an embryo of an

investigation," the Court of Appeals

stated.

The Court also rejected the ACLU

arguments that the investigation must be

reviewed by the courts with "heightened

scrutiny" because the investigation

interferred with the bilingual voters'

"fundamental right to vote."

ACLU-NC attorney Alan Schlosser

filed a petition for rehearing with the Court

on September 17. "The Court's decision

reflects an insensitivity to the chilling effect

that this investigation had on the persons

who wanted to request bilingual ballots -

and on the minority rights organizations

_- . that sought to assist them," he said.

The ACLU-NC, MALDEF Chinese for .

"Congress enacted the bilingual ballot

~. provisions in 1975 in recognition of the -

problems of pervasive discrimination and

unequal educational opportunities that

limited the participation of language

Union Leaflets

Union members involved in a labor

dispute are allowed to leaflet shoppers at -

the Solano Mall as a result of an injunction

issued by Solano County Superior Court

Judge Dwight C. Ely on August 8. The

_.trade unionists were represented by

ACLU-NC staff attorney Alan Schlosser.

The court order puts a permanent halt

to the mall management's attempt to halt

-leafletting by members of the Northern

California Newspaper Organizing Com-

mittee (NOCNOC) about their labor

dispute with the Daily Republic news--

paper. Six weeks earlier, the court had

granted a. temporary order allowing the

_ union members to engage in expressive

activity at the Mall.

Agreeing with ACLU arguments that :

information about labor disputes is

entitled to the same degree of free speech

_ protection as any other issue, Judge Ely

noted that the basic issue had already been

resolved in the 1979 landmark case of

Robins v. Pruneyard allowing free speech

in shopping centers even when they are

privately owned.

O.K. For Ma' is

"This is not an employer-employee

matter. The Solano Mall has nothing to

do with this labor dispute," noted Judge

Ely. "Defendants [Solano Mall] stretch the

case beyond the point of snapping when

they try to bring a state free speech issue

into the exclusive jurisdiction of [labor

law].

In issuing the preliminary injunction,

the court also expanded on the temporary

order by relaxing Solano Mall's harsh -

"time, place and manner" restrictions for .

expressive activity. The new court ordered

rules allow expressive activity during all

business hours, permit the solicitation of

funds, and enable leafleteers to approach |

shoppers within a 20' radius of a table.

~The lawsuit, NOCNOC v. Solano Mall,

~ was filed in June by Schlosser when the -

management of the shopping center'

refused to allow the leafleteers on mall

property, arguing that labor issues and

labor negotiations were not "political -

expression" and thus labor activists ou

be excluded from the mall.

minorities in the political process.

"It is a cruel irony that the U.S.

Attorney, who is charged with enforcing

the Voting Rights Act, has chosen to use

the powers of his office to target for an

investigation without any cause the very

groups for whom Congress provided

special protections," Schlosser added.

Drug Ireatment

Records Secret

A warning from the state Attorney

General to all District Attorneys and City

Prosecutors about the necessity of

following strict confidentiality regulations

for searches of records of patients at drug

treatment programs was issued following

an ACLU-NC lawsuit challenging a police

search of a clinic.

Former ACLU-NC staff attorney

Amitai Schwartz represented a San

Francisco methadone program in its

attempt to protect the confidentiality of

clients' records against a 1983 search by

Berkeley police officers.

Attorney General John Ven de Kamp's

letter said in part: "Recently this office

was appraised of a search, pursuant to

a warrant,

California methadone maintenance pro-

of patient records at a

gram. These and other drug and alcohol

~ treatment programs are subject to specific

federal statutes and regulations regarding.

the confidentiality of their records."

"The procedure for seeking a warrant,

the cause necessary to obtain one, and

the manner of execution are affected.

- Neither the police nor the magistrate were

aware of these requirements. The search

was ruled unlawful [by the Alameda

Superior Court in 1984] and resulted in

-a settlement of a claim for money -

damages."

State Pot Rad

Abuses Claimed

On October 4, the ACLU-NC filed an

amicus brief in the United States Supreme

Court in California v. Ciralo, a case which

will determine key constitutional questions

posed by Californias Campaign Against

Marijuana Planting (CAMP).

_ Based on an.anonymous tip, police went

to investigate whether marijuana was

growing in the defendant's backyard. They

could not see because the yard, which

contained a swimming pool, was enclosed

by two fences, six and ten feet high.

The police then rented a plane and flew

over the premises at 1000 feet. They

observed some large marijuana plants and

photographed them. The issue. before the

Supreme court is whether the warrantless

S aerial surveillance violated reasonable

- expectations of privacy protected by the.

Fourth Amendment.

The ACLU-NC' amicus bic was

submitted by cooperating attorneys C.

Douglas Floyd and. Philip D. Witte with

the firm of Pillsbury, Madison and Sutro.

A decision upholding Fourth Amend-

ment rights in this case will provide

powerful support for curbing law enforce-

ment abuses arising out of programs such

as CAMP.

Court Upholds

Stanford Sack

On September 20 the Sixth District

Court of Appeal affirmed a lower court

judgment that Stanford's 1971 firing of H.

Bruce Franklin for making anti-war

speeches did not violate the English

professor's constitutional rights.

Judge Nat A. Agliano's 45-page opinion

rojected the ACLU's arguments that

Professor Franklin's speeches at campus

rallies were entitled to the same consti-

tutional protection as that of any citizen

speaking out against the war. Rather, the

court stressed Franklin' status as a

University employee and held that, in view

of the "disruptive impact" of his speeches,

that "the employer's interests outweigh the

employee'."

At the height of the Vietnam War, -

Stanford President Richard C. Lyman,

relying on a Faculty Advisory Board's

recommendation, fired Franklin because

of speeches he made at rallies protesting

Stanford's involvement in the U.S. war

effort.

After Stanford students took over the

University's computer center, which

housed a Defense Department plan for

an air and sea invasion of North Vietnam,

Stanford officials accused Franklin of

-inciting students to disruptive and violent

conduct. None of the students were

disciplined. The speech-making professor

was sacked.

Arguing that Franklin, a tenured

professor with excellent academic creden-

tials, was actually fired for making

statements protected by First Amendment

guarantees of free speech, the ACLU-NC

filed suit seeking his reinstatement.

The July 25 hearing before the State

Court of Appeal was the first opportunity

for the appellate court to review the free

speech claims in the 13-year old case.

ACLU-NC attorneys Margaret Crosby

and Alan Schlosser said that they would

seek review of the decision in the California

Supreme Court, noting that the impor-

_ tance of this case for academic freedom

comes into increasingly sharp focus as

campus protests against U.S.. foreign

policy in South Africa and Central

America are on the rise.

El Cerrito

El Cerrito citizens will not be silenced

if they wish to bring their views on South

Africa, Central America or Star Wars

before the City Council-thanks to

intervention by ACLU-NC attorney Alan

Schlosser.

Schlosser wrote a letter which was read

to the El Cerrito Council when. he learned

that it was considering a proposed

. ordinance that would preclude bringing

before the City Council any. resolutions

intended. to influence the conduct of the -

defense or foreign policy of the U.S.

. The resolution "is patently an uncon-

stitutionally content-based discrimination.

against speech," Schlosser wrote, adding

. that it "directly interfered with the people's

right to petition the EOC for redress

of their grievances."

Following the ACLU letter, the city

attorney advised the City. Council that the

proposed ordinance might invite a lawsuit.

And the Council withdrew the ordinance

before it became part of El Cerrito'

Municipal Code.

(c)

aclu news

6 Oct 1985

Anti-Pornography Bills Gaining Support, |

Legislator Proposes New "Civil Right"

~ by Marjorie Swartz

ACLU Legislative Advocate

Although numerous proposals relating

to pornography and obscenity were

introduced in the state Legislature, the first

half of the 1985-86 two-year session saw

no significant change in the law.

However, as the question of anti-

pornography ordinances has gained

momentum around the country and

around the state, it would be unwise to

assume our battle is over. Pro-ordinance

spokesperson Andrea Dworkin will be

addressing a NOW-sponsored forum on the .

issue of pornography in Sacramento on

October 19. Other notables, most recently

Jane Fonda, have jumped on the band-

wagon endorsing

pornography.

The ACLU's constant concern is that

any regulation in this area leads to

censorship of unpopular and novel ideas

and is most often used by social

conservatives opposed to sexually explicit

materials.

The most serious proposal pending in

Sacramento is SB 136 (Deddeh) which

proposes a new right of private action and

declares that "freedom from sexual

exploitation" is a civil right. Under current

law, the only remedies are governmental

action either for criminal obscenity or

abatement of nuisance.

Potential Abuse

Although on the surface this may

appear a noble goal, a close look at the

bill's provisions reveals the potential for

ACLU Bill Stops

Judge Shopping |

A measure proposed by the ACLU to

prevent law enforcement officials from

"judge shopping" in order to obtain search

warrants was signed into law by Governor

Deukmeyjian on September 20.

The bill, AB 1917 by Assemblyman

Larry Stirling (R-San Diego), gives

defense attorneys the right to discover any

applications police have made for a search

warrant which were refused by a

magistrate for probable cause.

The fact that the same or similar

application for a search warrant had been

previously refused by one magistrate

before being granted by another must then

be considered in determining whether the

police were acting in "good faith' when

conducting a search on an invalid warrant.

According to ACLU lobbyist Marjorie

Swartz, "This measure came in response

to the `good faith exception' to the search

warrant rule as applied in the recent U.S.

Supreme Court decision U.S. v. Leon

allowing for police searches on an invalid

search warrant if the officer was acting

in `good faith"

"This new provision will prevent police

and prosecutors from avoiding the legal

requirements of the Fourth Amendment,"

Schwartz said.

The measure passed the state Legislature

in early September. It will go into effect

on January 1, 1986.

censorship of |

abuse. For example, the bill permits civil

suits by private parties who seek damages

for "psychological injury"-a term which

is left undefined. A lawsuit could be

brought against anyone who produces or

distributes obscene material. Even a

person who has been a voluntary

participant in the creation of the materials

may sue.

Attempts to allow private suits to be

brought to censor material which is

"offensive" or "psychology injurious" are

very likely to backfire. Predictions are that

such proposals will be used to prevent

publication and distribution of what many

people consider gay or feminist erotica.

eM i

AN 3

The measure was to be heard in the

Senate Judiciary Committee, but the

author declined to present it. It is not

known whether he will proceed with the

bill in the next session.

- Definitions of Obscenity

Most of the other bills relate to changing

the current legal definition of obscenity.

The current California standard defines

"obscene material" as that which taken as

a whole and applying contemporary

standards goes substantially beyond

customary limits of candor and is utterly

without redeeming social importance.

This test is based on the 1966 U.S.

Supreme Court decision in Memoirs vy.

Massachusetts. :

However a 1973 U.S. Supreme Court

ruling in Miller v. California approved a

broader standard. The Miller standard

defines obscenity as that which the average

person applying contemporary community

standards would find, taken as a whole,

appealed to prurient interest, was patently

offensive, and lacked serious literary,

artistic, political or scientific value.

Three pending bills, SB 139 (Deddeh),

SB 349 (Davis) and AB 365 (La Follette)

propose to adopt one or more of the

premises of the Miller standard. -

A majority of other states with obscenity

statutes have adopted some form of the

Miller standard. However, even under this

standard, state courts have found movies

such as "Carnal Knowledge" obscene; cases

have gone all the way to the U.S. Supreme

Court before being reversed.

Thus the potential for chilling esthetic

and creative expression is obvious. This

nh

TT

HE cK

DAVID KLEIN

is especially true in cases of publishers or |

artists wi` hout sufficient funds to defend

against obscenity prosecutions-those

most needing protection.

Committee Hearings

One of the bills heard in the Senate

Judiciary Committee last session was SB

139. In its original form it proposeed

adoption of the Miller standard. The

Senate Judiciary Committee, however,

was not inclined to change the California

standard so drastically and instead made

a minor change in the present standard.

The first two premises were retained and

the third was changed from `utterly

without redeeming social importance' to

`without significant social importance."

SB 139 passed the full Senate in April;

it failed its first hearing in the Assembly

Public Safety Committee and is now being

reconsidered by that body.

A second bill, AB 365, which proposes

to adopt the entire Miller standard, was

also defeated in the Assembly Public

Safety Committee the first time around.

Opposition to Censorship

The ACLU continues to vigorously

oppose all efforts at censorship.

ACLU lobbyists have constantly had to

remind Sacramento legislators that our

history is replete with efforts to suppress

speech because it was though to be the

cause of social evil-from the prosecution

of Margaret Sanger for advocating birth

control to the anti-Communist hysteria of

the McCarthy era.

ACLU members are encouraged to

write to Assembly Speaker Willie Brown

as well as to their own legislators opposing

SB 139, AB 365 and all other measures

which would, in the name of opposing

obscenity, sharpen the censorship shears

of the state.

Rights Books

Available

The national ACLU has just released

two new legal handbooks in its useful

"Rights of..." series, The Rights of Crime

Victims and Your Right to Government

Information. .

The Rights of Victims, by attorneys

James Stark and Howard W. Goldstein,

is a clear, careful review of the statutes -

and court cases that have given victims

a new position in the criminal justice

system.

_ Addressing such questions as: Do police

have the right to keep a victim's recovered

property for evidence?, Can a victim be

forced to testify at trial?, and Do victims

have a right to the profits. from books,

movies or television shows based on the

criminal's "story of the crime?," this

`comprehensive handbook informs crime

victims of thei' rights under current law.

"Victims should not be forced to suffer

the consequences of our society's crime

problem by themselves," says ACLU

President Norman Dorsen, general editor

of the handbook series.

Your Right to Government Informa-

tion describes how Americans can uncover

vital information, whether it relates to an

individual's own political, business or

private life, or whether it relates to broader

issues, such as toxic waste, postal rate

hikes, government contracts or even -

national defense.

Authored by Christine M. Marwick, the

former publications director of the Center

for National Security Studies, this hand-

book covers four major federal statutes

that were passed in recent years to provide

public access to government information:

the Freedom of Information Act, the

Privacy Act, the Government in Sunshine

Act and the Federal Advisory Committee

Act.

Both handbooks cost $4.95 and are

available from the Literature Department,

ACLU, 132 W. 43rd St., New York, NY

10036; add $1 for postage and handling.

aclu news

Oct 1985 7

For more than 50 years the ACLU of

Northern California has fought to defend

the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Through the pages of history - red-

baiting, vigilantes, WWII internment camps,

HUAC, the Free Speech Movement,

Vietnam, civil rights, the women's move-

ment, gay rights and more - the ACLU

has pioneered the fight for individual

liberties.

You can do something now to insure

that the ACLU will continue to fight - and

win - ten, twenty, and fifty years from

now, through a simple addition to your

will.

Every year thoughtful civil libertarians

have, through their bequests, provided

A Will to give to the ACLU

important support for the ACLU. In 1984,

interest income alone earned by these

bequests, contributed over $50,000.

Making a bequest is simple: you need

only specify a dollar gift' or a portion of

your estate for the American Civil Liberties

Union Foundation of Northern California,

Inc.

lf you need information about writing

a will or want additional information,

consult your attorney or write:

Bequests,

ACLU Foundation of Northern Califor-

nia, 1663 Mission Street, San Fran-

cisco 94103.

Abortion Stay Made Final

On October 2, the California Court of

Appeal once again upheld the right of

California women to have abortions paid

for by Medi-Cal. In response to an ACLU-

NC lawsuit, the Court ruled that

provisions in the 1985 Budget Act limiting

the use of Medi-Cal funds for abortion

_ services are unconstitutional and ordered

that Medi-Cal claims be processed without

restrictions.

For the eighth straight year, the

California Legislature had attempted to

severely restrict Medi-Cal funds for

abortions. In July, ACLU-NC attorney

Margaret Crosby, representing a coalition

of women' organizations, welfare rights

groups, health care providers and taxpay- :

Volunteers Lead

Fundraising

Fall is fundraising season for the ACLU

Foundation of Northern California, and

over 150 volunteers led by ACLU-NC

Board members are involved in seeking

gifts totaling $375,000.

The Foundation sponsors both the

Major Gifts and the Bill of Rights

Campaigns through which ACLU support-

ers are asked to give special annual

donations for the ACLU' legal program

in Northern California.

ACLU-NC_ Development Committee

Chair Barbara Brenner heads up the

Major Gifts Campaign with a $270,000

goal. Campaign volunteers, primarily

teams of Board members, ask to meet with

ACLU supporters who might consider

gifts of $1,000 or more.

The Bill of Rights Campaign involves (c)

over 100 volunteers in telephone solicita-

tions. These volunteers are organized

through the ACLU-NC's Field Program

and chapters. Board member Richard

Grosboll chairs the Bill of Rights

Campaign with a goal of $105,000. :

Individual tax-deductible gifts through

the two Campaigns are the largest single

source of support for the ACLU-NC

totaling 40 percent of the annual budget.

Membership dues are the second largest

source totaling 28 percent.

ers, filed a lawsuit challenging the cuts.

Two days after the lawsuit was filed,

the Court of Appeal issued a temporary

stay releasing Medi-Cal funds for abortions

and prohibiting any action by the

Department of Health Services to

discourage Medi-Cal recipients from

seeking reimbursement (see ACLU-News,

August-September 1985).

In its final ruling, the Court ordered

state officials to "perform all duties

necessary to ensure that health care

providers receive reimbursements for

abortion services performed for all eligible

Medi-Cal beneficiaries."

The decision preserves access to

approximately $27 million in Medi-Cal

funds for an estimated 95% of the 90,000

impoverished California women who need

abortions each year.

Directors Elect

Their Officers

Nancy Pemberton has been re-elected

to a second one-year term as Chairperson

of the ACLU-NC Board of Directors.

In addition, at its October meeting the

Board re-elected the following vice-

chairpersons: Development Committee

Chair Barbara Brenner, Legislative

Committee Chair Stanley Friedman, and

Legal Committee Chair Steven Mayer.

The new Field Committee Chair Anne

Jennings also became a Board vice-

chairperson.

Les Schmidt was elected as the new

Treasurer. Returning to the Executive

Committee are Frances Strauss, Sylvan

Heumann, Jim Morales, Patsy Fulcher,

Andrea Learned, and Davis Riemer. Lee

Halterman is the only new Executive

Committee member.

The Executive Committee also serves

as the Board of Governors of the ACLU

Foundation of Northern California.

Pemberton graduated last June from

Boalt School of Law and is working with

the law firm of Topel and Goodman.

The elections were held at the October

Board meeting.

New Staff Attorney Chen

_ Is No Stranger Io ACLU

Though attorney Edward M. Chen is

new to the legal staff of the ACLU-NC,

he already has a great deal of civil liberties

litigation under his belt.

Chen, who joined the ACLU-NC Legal

Department in September, participated in

the Korematsu legal team, fought for and

won a Stay of execution in an Arizona

death penalty case, and served as an

ACLU-NC cooperating attorney repre-

senting California's Death Row inmates in

their challenge to the Inmate Welfare Fund

at San Quentin.

"The ACLU represents the kind of work

I've wanted to do all my legal life," Chen

told the ACLU News. "Ever since I

graduated from law school, I have been

interested in public interest law and social 0x00B0

change."

But the 1979 Boalt Hall Law School

graduate found that such jobs were not

so easy to come by in the Bay Area. So,

after a year of clerking in the U.S. District

Court, he spent a year volunteering at the

Asian Law Caucus where he participated

in a suit against the Bank of Canton whose

new headquarters in San Francisco'

Chinatown was displacing many elderly

tenants in residential hotels.

In 1982, after another year of clerking,

this time in the Court of Appeals, Chen

became a litigation associate at the San.

Francisco law firm of Coblentz, Cahan,

McCabe and Breyer, choosing that firm

because "I knew I would be able to spend

a substantial amount of my time doing

pro bono work."

One of his pro bono cases reunited Chen

with his colleagues at the Asian Law

Caucus and introduced him to a profes-

sional relationship with the ACLU-NC-

the historic, and successful, attempt to

overturn the 40-year old conviction of Fred

Korematsu for violating the wartime

exclusion order interning Japanese-

Americans. The ACLU-NC represented

Korematsu in his original case before the

U.S. Supreme Court in 1943 and joined

in helping overturn the conviction last

year.

Chen is now providing legal assistance

to the two other Japanese-American

internment challenges, Minoru Yasui's

case in Portland and Gordon Hirabayashi's

case in Seattle. ,

He also spent over 500 hours represent-

ing a Death Row inmate in Arizona and

succeeded in staying a scheduled execution

just three weeks before it was to take place.

While at Coblentz, Chen joined ACLU-

NC staff attorney Amitai Schwartz (whom

he is succeeding) and Mike Millman of

the California Appellate Project in

challening the operation of the Inmate

Welfare Fund at San Quentin.

Chen, who will be focusing on the areas

of police practices, criminal justice, and

freedom of information as well as

organizing projects around high school

drug busts and bilingual ballots, finds that

work at the ACLU has "met all my

expectations." .

"Not only is this work socially worth-

while, but there is tremendous room for

flexibility and creativity. It is very

challenging-and very unlike work in a

law firm-to have to identify issues and

to search for innovative ways to solve

problems," he said.

fichael P. Miller

New ACLU-NC staff counsel Ed Chen.

.Chen will be formally welcomed into,

the ACLU-NC legal community at a:

`reception in his honor on November 6.

National ACLU chairperson Norman

Dorsen, who will be visiting the Bay Area,

will join in the welcome.

Volunteers Needed

Volunteer are needed now during our

busiest Fall Recruitment season. We

need office/clerical help. The work

involves batching and handling contri-

butions, researching donor files,

updating records and responding to

membership inquiries. We're looking for

flexible individuals who possess atten-

tion to detail, accuracy, problem solving

ability, and who may enjoy the active

pace of the ACLU office. Bookkeeping

or accounting experience is especially

helpful.

If you are interested and can commit

one day a week from 10 am - 4 pm,

please contact Mila deGuzman (415)

621-2493.

COMPUTER

NEEDED

The ACLU of Northern California.

| needs the following equipment for use

' by the legal, field, public information,

and development departments:

| eNorthStar "Advantage" microcom-

puters, a hard disk, printers, and

modems; :

e Heavy duty paper cutter (up to 100

sheets);

.(c) Legal-sized metal file drawers;

e Paper folding machine.

Tax deductions available-call

Michael Miller, 415-621-2493.

aclu news

8 Oct 1985

JOIN THE CAMPAIGN!

WE HAVE SOME oe GOALS FOR 1985 - HELP

US MEET THEM!

The 1985 Bill of Rights Fundraising Campaign starts Saturday,

October 19 and ends on Bill of Rights Day (Sunday, December

8). Our goal this year is to raise $105,000 for ACLU's legal program

in northern California. BUT WE CAN'T DO IT WITHOUT YOU...

We need your time and energy for a few hours over the next

six weeks: "Telephone Nights' are the heart of the Bill of Rights

Campaign. Starting with a special CAMPAIGN TRAINING SESSION

on Saturday, October 19, the Campaign kicks into gear with

"Telephone Nights" every Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday

evenings from October 22 until November 26... teams of eight to

ten ACLU members get dinner, training in telephone solicitation

and updates on ACLU work, and a chance to talk to other ACLU

members about supporting civil liberties.

Telephone nights are now being scheduled for easy-to-reach

locations in San Francisco, Oakland, Marin, San Mateo,

Sacramento, and Santa Clara County. MAKE THE MOST OF YOUR

ACLU MEMBERSHIP: CALL 621-2493 (ask for Marcia or Tracy)

AND SIGN UP FOR THE CAMPAIGN TODAY!

cent CAMPAIGN TRAINING SESSION:

Saturday, October 19 - 10:00 a.m. - 12:00 noon

ACLU office, 1663 Mission, #460, San Francisco

e TELEPHONE NIGHTS

Beginning Tuesday, October 22,

through Tuesday, November 26

-Name

The ACLU Foundation of Northern California presents

13th Annual

Bill of Rights Day

Celebration

Presentation of

Earl Warren Civil Liberties Award to

Richard Criley

Keynote Speaker -

(To be announced)

Sunday, December 8, 1985

4p.m.-Reception 5 p.m.-Program

Sheraton Palace Hotel, San Francisco

Tickets - $10 each

Bill of Rights Day Celebration Ticket Order Form

Enclosed is my payment for $

Address

City Zip

Please make checks payable to the ACLU Foundation of Northern California. Mail to

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

addressed envelope.

Po A CN A EE SO ED ES ES Ge eed

BERKELEY BOARD MEETING: (Usu-

ally fourth Thurs.) Volunteers are needed

to staff hotline. Due to numerous complaints

of abuse by University of California police,

Chapter is scheduling a meeting with U.C.

Police Chief, Derry Bowles, to investigate

the claims. If you have a complaint or

require additional information, please

contact Florence Piliavin, 415-655-7786.

EARL WARREN BOARD MEETING:

(Third Wed.) Contact Larry Polansky

415-530-4553.

FRESNO BOARD MEETING: Wed. Oct.

16, 5:30 p.m. War on Dissent Road Show

on Sat. Dec. 14, 1985, 9-12 a.m. Contact

Sam Gitchel, 209-486-2411 (days),

209-442-0941 (eves).

GAY RIGHTS BOARD MEETING:

(Usually first Tues.) Tues. Nov. 5, 7:00 p.m.

ACLU, 1663 Mission Street, #460, SE

Contact Douglas Warner, 415-621-2493.

MARIN COUNTY BOARD MEETING:

(Third Mon.) Mon. Oct. 21, 7;30 p.m. at

Citicorp Savings. Contact Milton Estes

415-383-6622 (days), 415-383-8405 (eves).

MID-PENINSULA BOARD MEETING:

(Usually last Wed.) Contact Harry Anisgard,

415-856-9186.

MONTEREY BOARD MEETING:

(Fourth Tues.) Tues. Oct. 22 and Tues. Nov.

27, 7:30 p.m., Monterey Library. Open to

all interested members to attend. Sun. Oct.

27, Ninth Annual Ralph Atkinson Award

honoring Dr. Charles Clements at Santa

Catalina School, Mark Thomas Drive,

Monterey. 1-5 p.m. Buffet dinner ($17

donation). Make reservations early. Contact

Richard Criley, 408-624-7562.

MT. DIABLO BOARD MEETING:

(Fourth Wed.) Contact Hotline

415-939-ACLU.

NORTH PENINSULA BOARD MEET-

ING: (Second Mon.) Sears Bank, San

Mateo, 8:00 p.m. Contact Sid Schieber

~ 415-345-8603.

SACRAMENTO VALLEY BOARD

MEETING: (Usually first Wed.) The

Annual Meeting was held on September

27 and Honorable Alice Lytle was the guest

speaker. Contact Jerry Scribner

916-444-2130.

SAN FRANCISCO BOARD MEETING:

(Usually fourth Tues.) This month only-

Tues. Oct. 29, 6:00 p.m., ACLU, 1663

Mission Street, #460, SE Contact Chandler

Visher, 415-391-0222.

Calendar

_ Wed. Nov. 6, 7:30 p.m., ACLU,

SANTA CLARA BOARD MEETING:

(First Tues.) Contact Michael Chatsky

408-379-4611.

SANTA CRUZ BOARD MEETING:

(Second Wed.) Contact Bob Taren,

408-429-9880.

SONOMA BOARD MEETING: Contact

Andrea Learned, 707-544-6911.

STOCKTON BOARD MEETING: (Third

Wed.) Contact Eric Ratner, 209-948-4040

(eves).

YOLO COUNTY BOARD MEETING:

Thurs. Oct 17. General membership invited

to attend. Contact Dan Abramson, .

916-758-2762. The Yolo Chapter is spon-

soring two showings of the film "Unfinished

Business" on Wednesday, November 13,

1985. Cinema II Theatre, 207 E Street,

Davis. Call theatre for times: 916-756-6670.

Tickets ($6) may be purchased at box office

in advance; contact Harry Roth

916-661-0669 (days) or 916-753-0996 (eves).

FIELD COMMITTEE MEETINGS

PRO-CHOICE TASK FORCE: Wed. Nov.

6, 6:00 p.m., ACLU, 1663 Mission Street,

#460, SE Contact Marcia Gallo or Deborah

Shibley, 415-621-2494. Join us for a day of

commeroration for Rosie Jimenez on

Saturday, Oct. 5, 1-6 p.m., The Women's

Building, 3543 18th Street. Workshops on:

Successfully Fighting Anti-Abortion Initi-

atives, Disability and Reproductive Rights,

Infant Mortality and the Need for Access

to Health Care, Responses to "The Silent

Scream." Speaker and entertainment.

RIGHT TO DISSENT COMMITTEE:

1663

Mission Street, #460, SE Contact Marcia

Gallo, 415-621-2494.

DRAFT OPPOSITION NETWORK: |

1251 Second

Thurs. Nov. 14, CCCO,

Avenue, SE Contact Judy Newman,

415-567-1527.

IMMIGRATION WORKING GROUP:

Thurs. Nov. 14, 6:00 p.m., ACLU, 1663

Mission Street, #460, SE Join ACLU-IWG

participation in final preparations for

National Day of Justice on October 19, for

immigrants and refugees. Contact Marcia

Gallo or Cindy Foerster, 415-621-2494.

Your Civil Liberties

Ignore them

and they'll

go away!

of ath the ACLU

) Individual $20 ()

Joint $30

and an additional contribution of $=

) This is a gift membership from

Zip

| Return to ACLU-NC, 1663 Mission St., S.F. 94103

ee |