vol. 50, no. 1
Primary tabs
Volume XLX
lu new
January-February 1985 (c)
ACLU-NC 50th Anniversary
Bill of Rights Day Honors C.L. Dellums
`7 am fortunate that in my lifetime I
have helped to build three organizations
- the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car
Porters, the American Civil Liberties
Union and the NAACP. These organiza-
`tions are still needed. If we let them
down, our grandchildren will regret it.''
This warning thundered through the
600-plus audience in the Grand Ballroom
of the Sheraton Palace Hotel on
`December 9, as the stentorian tones of
this year's Earl Warren Civil Liberties
Award recipient C.L. Dellums made the
message of activism and commitment
even more meaningful and alive for ap-
preciative ACLU supporters.
The 84-year old Dellums, founder
with A. Philip Randolph of the
Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters,
first western chair of the NAACP and
longest serving commissioner with the
state Fair Employment and Housing
commission, was presented with the
award by national ACLU Vice-Chair
Eva Jefferson Paterson for his ``lifelong
leadership in the civil rights and trade
union movements."'
Paterson noted that among the hun-
dreds of well-wishers who came to honor
Dellums that day was his nephew, Con-
gressman Ronald V. Dellums, who had
flown in from Washington, D.C. for the
occasion. The Congressman received a
standing ovation when Paterson told the
Two generations of Dellums
crowd he had just been arrested for pro-
testing apartheid at the South African
Embassy.
This year's Bill of Rights Day Celebra-
tion also marked the fiftieth anniversary
of the ACLU-NC: that legacy was
underscored by the presence of half a
dozen former Board chairs at the event.
Paul Winternitz
" embrace at Bill of Rights Day.
Immediate past chair Davis Riemer in-
troduced the former chairs with
highlights of the civil liberties battles dur-
ing their tenure: John Merryiman,
1957-60, Howard Friedman, 1961-65,
Howard Jewel, 1969-73, Richard
DeLancie, 1973-77, and Drucilla Ramey,
1978-81. He then introduced newly
Protesters Testify on Police Abuse
fot
----
=
HAVEN'T You READ THOSE SIGNS,
NUSE YA TONGUE ,
GO To JAIL" (c)
RD 5
The San Francisco Supervisors Board
Chambers was filled to overflowing on
the afternoon of January 10 as
demonstration organizers, victims of
police abuse, legal observers, arrestees
and witnesses came to tell their stories of
police misconduct at protest demonstra--
tions to the Supervisors' ee Protec-
tion Committee.
The hearings were largely initiated and
organized by ACLU cooperating at-
torney John Crew, who, during the July
Democratic National Convention, coor-
dinated a task force which worked with
50 organizations to exercise their First
Amendment right to demonstrate.
Following a presentation by Super-
visor Harry Britt who ``demanded a
response from the Police Department"'
and Deputy Police Chief George Eimil
who refused to give an adequate one,
Crew opened up the public testimony.
`"A pattern of police misconduct, over-
reaction and questionable crowd control
tactics has created an atmosphere that is
dangerously hostile to the peaceful exer-
cise of free speech rights in San Fran-
cisco,'" he said.
``In the last nine months alone, major
San Francisco demonstrations have
resulted in at least 700 arrests, numerous
injuries and repeated complaints of ex-
cessive force being used by members of
the Police Department,'' Crew said.
Crew and other witnesses concen-
trated their testimony on police miscon-
duct at six 1984 demonstrations: the
April 17 demonstration against Henry
Kissinger, an anti-Moral Majority pro-
test and two ``War Chest Tours'' and the
Hall of Justice demonstration which
took place during the DNC, and the
November 8 protest of Caspar
Weinberger..
continued on p. 3
S
No. 1
elected Board chair Nancy Pemberton
who presided over the occasion. _
ACLU-NC_ Executive Director
Dorothy Ehrlich emphasized the half-
century of civil liberties victories and
defeats as she gave the 1984 annual
report: ``It is shocking that in 1984 as in
1934 we still fight to desegregate the
schools, that in 1984 as in 1934 police
still stifle protests with guns and clubs,
that we face the brutality of the death
penalty, the official racism of immigra-
tion laws.
`"`But our memories are vivid,"'
Ehrlich charged, ``We remember Ronald
Reagan's promises to put prayer in
public schools, to illegalize abortion and
to turn the clock back on civil rights.
And we remember Governor Deukme-
jian's veto of ABI and strip search
restrictions, and his defunding of the
state Public Defenders Office.
`After 5O years, this affiliate has truly
learned that no victory comes easy,"'
Ehrlich said.
Ehrlich also introduced George Hut-
chins, the 1984 recipient of the Lola
Hanzel Advocacy Award given to the
outstanding ACLU volunteer each year.
(see sidebar)
In accepting the Earl Warren Award,
C.L. Dellums shared some _ insights
continued on p. 4
1984 Board
Elections
As provided by the ACLU-NC by-
laws, revised in 1980, the ACLU-
NC membership is entitled to elect
its 1985-86 Board directly. The
Nominating Committee is already
seeking suggestions from the
membership to fill at-large. positions
on the Board.
ACLU members may participate
in the nominating process in two
ways:
1. They may send suggestions for
the Nominating Committee's con-
sideration before March 25, 1985.
(Address suggestions to Nominating
Committee, ACLU-NC, 1663 Mis-
sion St., S.F. CA 94103. Include
your suggested nominee's qualifica-
tions and how the nominee may be
reached.)
2. They may suis a petition of
nomination with the signatures of
15 current ACLU members. Peti-
tions of nomination, which should
also include the nominee's qualifica-
tions, must be submitted to the
continued on p. 2
aclu news
2 jan-feb 1985
Sobering Debate on Drunk Driving Roadblocks
by Dorothy Ehrlich
Executive Director
hile KCBS told its listeners that the ``California Highway Patrol
has gone about this backwards. .
.' the San Francisco Chronicle
chided the ACLU for attempting to stop a ``sensible new program.''
- In dozens of editorials, on talk shows, in letters to the editors, and
letters written directly to the ACLU, the debate over drunk driving
roadblocks raged during the recent holiday season.
It was not surprising that the ACLU-
NC's challenge to the institution of
roadblocks would create such a con-
troversy. For the roadblocks were
heralded as a device which could combat
the deadly serious problem of drunk
drivers - why would anyone want to in-
terfere with that laudable goal?
The debate was provoked by a legal
opinion issued by Attorney General John
Van De Kamp on November 8 which
gave state law enforcement the green
light to set up the roadblocks. This
served as an end-run around the
Legislature which has in the past two ses-
sions refused to pass legislation authoriz-
ing the roadblocks. The first police
roadblock was scheduled for November
16 in Burlingame.
The ACLU-NC believes roadblocks
violate the constitutional right to be free
from unreasonable search and seizures.
The Fourth Amendment and_ the
California Constitution prevent law en-
forcement officers from stopping drivers
randomly without reasonable suspicion
of wrongdoing.
This message from the ACLU was
repeated time and time again. Indeed,
the roadblock controversy created an im-
portant forum for debate on this critical
civil liberties issue. The question forces
the public, and our own ACLU-NC
membership, to re-examine the value of
the Fourth Amendment's protection
against ``unreasonable search and
seizure'' in the context of a serious pro-
blem - removing dangerous drunk
drivers from the road.
On the same day the Attorney
General issued his opinion, the ACLU-
NC Board of Directors - responding to
rumors that roadblocks were to be in-
stituted - debated the issue and over-
whelmingly voted to authorize legal ac-
tion to stop the roadblocks.
"ACLU member Bill Ingersoll, a Burl-
ingame resident, and three others step-
ped forward as taxpayer plaintiffs and
staff attorney Amitai Schwartz prepared
the lawsuit asking the California
Supreme-Court to stop the scheduled
roadblock in Burlingame and any other
roadblocks in California.
no suspicion that a driver is under the in-
`fluence of alcohol or drugs, those
resources Ought to be devoted to stop-
ping drivers who exhibit evidence of
drunkenness.
In Burlingame, for instance, more
than two dozen police officers were sta-
tioned at one corner (as opposed to
patrolling the entire city searching for
drunk drivers) where they stopped 233
cars and found no one driving under the
influence.
The roadblocks raise a serious ques-
tion about our willingness to forfeit the -
right to privacy, the right to be free from
unreasonable siezures - for the i//usion
of more safety on the road.
Unfortunately, more and more peo-
ple are being lulled into accepting
``minor'' violations of our rights as a
cost of doing business - searches are the
price you pay for traveling on an airline;
`If for nothing else glasses
full of the best strong stuff
should be raised often this holiday season to the ACLU for
its stubborn courage. When everybody else is saying ``Do
it,'' the ACLU is very apt to reply ``Don't."'
Abe Melinkoff
S.F. Chronicle
It immediately became evident that
the Attorney General was not the only.
person in California with an opinion on
roadblocks. For the institution of
roadblocks seemed to touch everyone's
life - the ACLU-NC's mettle was tested
as we sought to explain our position in
an emotionally charged atmosphere.
The ACLU-NC insisted that law en-
forcement agencies have the duty to
abide by the law. That means that rather
than devote police resources to stop 0x00B0
drivers indiscriminately, where there is
or for eradicating the Med fly; or for
locating undocumented workers. The
more violations there are, the more ac-
tions of privacy plummet lower and
lower.
The Supreme Court immediately
transfered the ACLU-NC's case to the
Court of Appeals, which, although
refusing to take extraordinary action to
temporarily stop the roadblocks before
the holiday season, did agree to hear the
case.
ACLU-NC staff counsel Schwartz
argues that established California law
condemns these types of roadblocks. "`If
the courts uphold roadblocks for catch-
ing drunk drivers, they will have to
discard much of the settled search and
siezure law which protects us all. That's
why the implications of this case are
much greater than the question of how
best to detect drunk drivers.''
The ACLU continues to press for
solutions to the problem of drunk driv-
ing which do not interfere with constitu-
tional rights. The debate will surely con-
tinue in the Legislature, the courts and
before the public in the coming year. At
stake are key civil liberties questions
about the right to privacy and the
amount of unfettered power law en-
forcement will be afforded in misguided
attempts to protect us from ourselves.
Letters
Board of Directors by May 29,
1984. (20 days after the May Board
meeting.)
(Current ACLU members are
those who have renewed their
membership during the last 12
months. Only current members are
eligible to submit nominations, sign
petitions of nomination and vote.)
ACLU members will select Board
members from the slate of can-
didates nominated by petition and
by the Nominating Committee. The
ballot will appear in the June issue
of the ACLU News.
ARTICLE VII, SECTION 3: The
final report of the Nominating
Committee to nominate .members-
at-large to the Board shall be
presented at the May Board
meeting. Members of the Board
may propose additional nomina-
tions. If no additional nominations
are proposed by Board members,
the Board, by majority of those
present and voting, shall adopt the
Nominating Committee's report. If
additional nominations are pro-
posed, the Board shall, by written
ballot, elect a slate of nominees with
Board Elections continued from p. 1
each member being entitled to cast a
number of votes equal to the vacan-
-cies to be `filled; the Board slate of
nominees shall be those persons,
equal in number to the vacancies to
be filled, who have received the
greatest number of votes. The list of
nominees to be placed before the
membership of the Union for elec-
tion shall be those' persons
nominated by the Board as herein
provided, together with those per-
sons nominated by petition as
hereafter provided in Section 4.
SECTION 4: Any fifteen or
more members of the Union in good
standing may themselves submit a
nomination to be included among
those voted upon by the general
membership by submitting a written
petition to the Board not later than
twenty days after the adoption by
the Board of the slate of Board
nominees. No member of the Union
may sign more than one such peti-
tion and each such nomination shall
be accompanied by a summary of
qualifications and the written con-
sent of the nominee.
ceptable they become, and our expecta-
On Board
NATIONAL...Former ACLU-NC
Vice-Chair Eva Jefferson Paterson, cur-
rently an at-large member of the national
ACLU Board of Directors, has been
elected to serve on the national Board's
Executive Committee. Paterson was the
top vote-getter in the election to the
prestigious Committee, and was also
reelected as Vice-President of the Na-
tional ACLU Board.
AFFILIATE. ..Debbie Lee, an activist
in the area of domestic violence, has
been selected to fill an interim vacancy
on the affiliate Board of Directors. Lee,
the Special Projects and Medical Unit
Director of San Francisco's Domestic
Violence Project, has a wide variety of
experience in public education, fundrais-
ing and community organizing. Lee is
also on the boards of California Women
of Color Against Domestic Violence and
the Women's Foundation.
Several members of the board of
directors of the Gay Rights Chapter of
the ACLU were dismayed by the article
on Steve Block's death. Certainly the ar-
ticle included the important contribu-
tions Steve made during his life, his com-
mitment to public service, his
achievements in the area of civil rights
litigation, his devotion of time and
energy to the causes of civil liberties. But
the most prominent facet of his death -
that he was a victim of AIDS - was
omitted.
Many of us knew Steve. We mourn his
loss and will treasure his memory and
our awareness of his accomplishments. It
is partly for this reason that we feel it im-
portant that the cause of his death be
duly noted. AIDS is robbing, not only
the gay community, but all of us of some
of our best and brightest young leaders.
Perhaps by heightening society's
awareness of the terrible toll of AIDS,
we can encourage a greater mobilization
of the resources necessary to combat it.
We imagine Steve would have agreed.
Tom Reilly
- for the Gay Rights Chapter
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 PembertonChairperson Dorothy Ehrlich, Executive Director
Elaine Elinson, Editor
Marcia Gallo,
Chapter Page
ACLU NEWS (USPS 018-040)
1663 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 SO cents is for the national ACLU-bi-monthly publication, Civil Liberties.
Medi-Cal Fund Victory
Another unanimous decision by the
Court of Appeal on October 16 marked
the seventh consecutive success for the
ACLU-NC in the long-running battle to
preserve Medi-Cal funding for abor-
tions. On December 14, the state
Supreme Court denied a hearing on the
state's appeal of that decision thus ensur-
ing continued funding for the 100,000
women and teenagers who seek Medi-
Cal abortions each year in this state.
The ACLU lawsuit, Committee To
Defend Reproductive Rights (CDRR) v..
Rank IT, filed last July by ACLU-NC
staff attorney Margaret Crosby chal-
lenged the Legislature's 1984 Budget Act
restrictions on Medi-Cal abortion fund-
ing. The Court of Appeal order prohibits
state officials from implementing the
Legislature's Budget Act restrictions and
orders state Health Services Director
Peter Rank to ``perform all ministerial
duties necessary to insure that health care
providers receive reimbursement for
abortion services performed, including
certification of claims. ..''
The Court stated that the issue is the
same as that decided last year in CDRR
v. Rank. In doing so, they rejected.
Director Rank's contention that because
the limited ``Special Fund"' set up by the
Legislature for abortion funding was
separate from the General Fund (in the
1983 Budget Act the Special Fund was
within the General Fund) the legal cir-
cumstances of the case are different.
This argument ``is an attempt to respect -
form over substance,'' the Court stated.
As in previous years, the ACLU-NC
lawsuit was filed on behalf of a coalition
of women's groups, welfare rights
organizations, health care providers and
taxpayers in order to challenge cuts in
state funding for abortion services. Sole-
ly because of court orders issued in these
challenges has Medi-Cal funding for
over 100,000 women in California been
- maintained.
Pro-Choice Lobby
Sacramento: On January 22, the 12th
anniversary of the landmark U.S.
Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade,
more than 50 supporters of the Northern
California Pro-Choice Coalition and
others came to the state capital to lobby
legislators on the choice issue. More
details on anti-abortion measures being
introduced in the Legislature and new ef-
forts to maintain and expand reproduc-
tive freedom in the next issue of the
ALCU News.
ACLU Bombing
Washington D.C.: On January 21, the
New York Times reported that officials
from the federal Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco and Firearms, which is in-
vestigating the rash of abortion clinic
bombings, found evidence linking three
men arrested in the bombing of clinics in
the capital area to the November bomb-
ing of the ACLU office in Washington,
D.C. Fingerprints of the suspects, who
were arrested on January 19; match
those found on tape used in the device
left at the ACLU bombing.
Suit Seeks Police Records
by Michael P. Miller
Associate Director
The ACLU will soon file an appeal of
a San Francisco Superior Court ruling
refusing to order the release of public
records concerning San Francisco police
activity in monitoring and controlling
political protests during last summer's
Democratic National Convention.
The lawsuit filed on behalf of the
ACLU in October, charged that under |
the California Public Records Act the
public has a right to look at a video tape
and related police records documenting
police activity in halting a Convention-
time march by six members of the Ku
_ Klux Klan. The ACLU suit also asks that
Police Department guidelines for
monitoring of protest groups at the time
of the Convention be made public.
In late December, San Francisco
Superior Court Judge Roy Wonder ruled
against the ACLU.
According to July press accounts,
police stopped a proposed Klan
demonstration by effectively arresting all
six Klan members and forcing them to
drive their mobile home to the S.F. Hall
of Justice where, in a videotaped session,
Police Chief Murphy told the group they
could not demonstrate. No charges were
filed against the group members who
were then immediately escorted out of.
San Francisco.
``The method in which the police stop-
ped the Klan group from protesting
raises serious First Amendment ques-
tions. The public has a right to know
what happened and why. And the public
has a right to know whether the police
action is typical of the way the Depart-
ment treats controversial groups and
opinions,'' commented ACLU staff
counsel Amitai Schwartz.
In response to an August 28 ACLU (c)
letter concerning records related to the
Klan incident, Murphy refused to make
those records public.
The ACLU is also seeking Department
`"`rules, orders, and memoranda govern-
ing intelligence gathering by the Depart-
ment'' in order to determine whether -
police surveillance of all political groups
is carried out according to the Constitu-
tion and state and federal law. :
`In San Francisco police methods on
the street in handling demonstrations
frequently raise problems. We suspect
that similar problems may be found in
their intelligence work,'' commented
Schwartz.
Before the Convention, the ACLU
twice asked the Police Department to
reveal its intelligence guidelines. Neither
request was answered before the suit was
filed.
In a sworn declaration filed in the
lawsuit, a police official stated that no
guidelines or other directives exist gov-
erning the gathering and dissemination
of intelligence information. A week later
the Department reversed itself when a
new sworn declaration was filed stating
the guidelines do exist for intelligence
gathering, but not for disemmination.
aciu news
jan-feb 1985 oO
Neyman Gift to ACLU
Professor Jerzy Neyman, world-
renowned statistician and member of the
ACLU-NC, has left the ACLU Founda--
tion of Northern California a bequest of .
- $22,000. Professor Neyman died in
1981 and the estate was settled in 1984,
leaving his son and the ACLU as the
main beneficiaries.
Professor Neyman, who died in
Oakland at the age of 87, was the Direc-
tor of the University of California's
Statistical Laboratory. He has been call-
ed ``one of the founders of modern
theoretical statistics."'
Born to Polish parents in Russia in
1894, Neyman's early life was marked by
political turmoil and poverty. He rose to
international prominence for his work in
clarifying statistical theory and applying
it to the sciences, receiving numerous
honors and awards for his research.
Neyman came to Berkeley in 1938 and
worked to found the University's
Department of Statistics which became
one of the most important statistical
centers in the world. . :
His gift, combined with bequests from
other devoted ACLU-NC friends, have
enabled the organization to establish an
endowment fund. ``Each year bequests
play a greater role, insuring that the
` ACLU will be strong for years to come,"'
said ACLU-NC Associate Director
Michael Miller.
The Neyman bequest will go into the
ACLU Foundation's Special Gifts Fund
which endows the ACLU legal program.
The Special Gifts Fund contributed
$33,642.00 in earned income toward the
ACLU's legal program in 1984. The
Fund received a total of $38,026.00 in
new bequests during the year.
Donors who wish to leave a bequest to
the ACLU should designate the
`"American Civil Liberties Union Foun-
dation of Northern California'' in their
will.
For further information on how to
make a bequest to the ACLU Founda-
tion of Northern California, call or write
to Michael Miller, Associate Director,
ACLU Foundation, 1663 Mission Street,
San Francisco, 94103.
1980
cent 333 MG = Major Gifts
298 BRC = Bill of Rights
Pus
"3D
60
B
oo0' Ss
ACLU-NC Foundation Support: 1980-1984
82 1984
1983
This chart shows the steady growth in individual support for the ACLU Foundation
of Northern California. In 1984, ACLU supporters gave $92,000 to the Bill of Rights
and $241,000 for the Major Gifts campaigns. Since 1981, the two campaigns have
received over $1,100,000 to underwrite the ACLU-NC legal program.
Protesters Testify
continued from p. 1
Crew ae criticism of the following
police activities:
e steel barriers which _ trap
demonstrators in small and inadequate
areas, making it difficult for people to
join or leave an event.
(c) excessive force including the ``over-
whelming deployment'' of horses,
motorbikes and Tactical Squad officers
dressed in full riot gear with batons
drawn, and batons being swung wildly
and __indisciminately against
demonstrators, onlookers, legal
observers, medics and media people.
e use of horses and motorbikes driven
directly into crowds in a threatening and
dangerous manner.
e unidentified officers dressd in
plainclothes and refusing to identify
themselves as police even while physical-
ly handling demonstrators. .
e mass arrests including surrounding
large numbers of demonstrators without
warning and placing them all under ar-
_ rest without an opportunity to disperse.
"It is imperative that this pattern of
police misconduct be broken,"' conclud-
ed Crew, ``and that San Franciscans be
assured that the peaceful exercise of free
speech rights will be met with a peaceful
and restrained police response."'
Dozens of others also testified in-
cluding Pat Warner of the National
Lawyers Guild, Nora Roman of People's
Medics, Reverend Jim Claitor, Ernest
Cardenas who suffered severe head and
body wounds as a result of a beating by
police officers at the Kissinger
demonstration, Anne Vanderslice. who
was run over by a police motorbike at
the Moral Majority protest and Nancy
Netherland who, while unconcious from
a police chokehold, was searched by a
male officer and arrested during the
DNC War Chest Tour.
aclu news
4 jan-feb 1985
Rights Day
continued from p. 1
gained from his over SO years of ac-
tivism. An organizer of the first interna-
tional union led by blacks, Dellums said,
``The Brotherhood was led by Negroes
not because we excluded anybody but
because the Pullman Company would
not hire anybody else.
``When a handful of Negroes took on
that powerful company, we were told -
"You ought to know better, the whites .
run this company and they are going to
keep on running it.' '' Dellums was fired
by the company shortly after he stood up
to challenge those remarks and became a
fulltime union organizer for the next five
decades.
``My time is limited,'' said the oc-
togenarian activist who still serves as a
Commissioner on the FEPC - his
booming voice belying his words. ``But
that name Dellums is going to be
around, because I've got a nephew."'
And then, addressing his nephew and all
those who surrounded him he added,
`"`We must work and not grow weary.
Fight on and faint not - justice will
prevail."'
Keynote speaker California Supreme
Court Justice Joseph Grodin addressed
ACLU-NC's longevity in a slightly dif-
ferent way: ``The ACLU seems to be in
something of a rut - the battles you are
fighting now are essentially the same
ones you fought 50 years ago. Moreover,
you seem to have an attraction to the
most undesirable in our society. But, in
George Hutchins, ACLU's Thurs-
day Compaint Desk couselor for the
last twelve years, is the 1984 recipient
of the Lola Hanzel Advocacy Award.
The award was established in 1981
in honor of Lola Hanzel, an inspiring
and inspired ACLU-NC volunteer for
more than a decade before her death
in 1980. It is presented each year at
the Bill of Rights Day Celebration to
an individual who has made an ex-
traordinary contribution to the af-
filiate in a volunteer capacity. ss
Hutchins, who was recruited by
Volunteer George Hutchins is presented with the Lola Hanzel Advocacy Award
by Executive Director Dorothy Ehrlich.
Hanzel to work on the Complaint
Desk, has a longer tenure at the
ACLU-NC than any current staff
member. ``George's patience and
compassion as a complaint counselor
has been exemplary,''? said ACLU-
NC Executive Director Dorothy
Ehrlich on presenting him the award,
"`many, many callers have benefited
from George's wisdom and from his
efforts at personal advocacy on their
behalf."'
Hutchins commitment to the
ACLU-NC began almost 40 years ago
Paul Winternitz
when he joined the affiliate's efforts
in fighting the dismissal of two San
Francisco City College teachers for
refusing to sign the loyalty oath.
An. instructor in physics and
mathematics at San Francisco' City
College since the late 1940's, Hutchins
was also an active labor organizer ser-
ving as the American Federation of
Teachers representative to the San
Francisco Labor Council and as presi-
dent of the San Francisco City Col-
lege Faculty Association.
Although Hutchins retired fromhis
lifelong profession of teaching in
1970, he never retired from being an
activist. In addition to his work at the
ACLU, Hutchins has been an
energetic campaigner for the nuclear
freeze, the farmworkers union, and
many other peace and environmental
issues.
Hutchins said, ``When I started
to volunteer, I never thought Thurs-
day would become the most signifi-
cant day of my week.
`*To Lola, and to all of you - Iam
forever grateful."'
The audience responded with a
standing ovation.
tie long.run, ~ he added, "you are
right.'
Grodin cited the ACLU-NC's defense
of the right of labor to engage in
peaceful picketing, religious liberty, and
the fight against racial discrimination in
housing and employment. ``You were
creating laws as you went along,'' he
said. ``Take the Korematsu case (against
the wartime internment of Japanese
Americans), you lost the legal battle but
you won the moral war."'
He. also echoed the warnings of
previous speakers, ``Although we have
survived 1984 with our collective vital
signs relatively intact, there is a current
threat to our freedoms.
"When lapses do -oceur, Fhe
Associate Justice said, ``the ACLU will
be around to call our attention to them
just as it has in the past."'
Calendar
B.A.R.K.
BOARD MEETING: (Usually fourth
Thursday of each month.) Volunteers are
needed to staff hotline. Contact Joe Dorst,
415/654-4163.
EARL WARREN
BOARD MEETING: (Third Wedneday
each month.) Special Event: Wednesday,
January 16, Guest Speaker: Jenni
Morozumi, National Coalition for Redress
Reparations, will speak on Japanese
Reparations. Agenda item: Police prac-
tices in Oakland. Special Event: Wednes-
day, February 20, Elaine Elinson, Public |
Information Director, ACLU, will speak
on Chapter Public Relations. Contact
Larry Polansky, 415/ 530-4553.
MARIN
BOARD MEETING: Contact Leslie Paul,
415/381-1088.
MID-
PENINSULA
BOARD MEETING: (Usually
_ Contact Harry Anisgard, 415/856-9186.
MONTEREY
last
Wednesday of each month.) Special joint
meeting with the Women's International
League for Peace and Freedom on
January 30, 7:30 p.m., at the Friends
Meeting House, 957 Colorado Street, Palo
Alto. Guest speaker: Anne Fagan Ginger.
will speak on threats to our civil liberties.
FRESNO
each month. Contact:
209/486-2411.
GAY RIGHTS
BOARD MEETING: (Third Wednesday
Sam Gitchel,
BOARD MEETING: (Fourth Tuesday
each month.) No regular January board
meeting. Annual Meeting, Saturday,
February 2, 1:00 - 4:30 p.m. at the Cross
Roads Community Room, Rio Road,
Mouth of Carmel Valley. Contact Richard
Criley, 408/624-7562.
MT. DIABLO
BOARD MEETING: (Fourth Wednesday
BOARD MEETING: (First Tuesday each
month.) Tuesday, February 5, and March
5, ACLU, 1663 Mission Street, 4th Floor,
S.F. at 7:00 p.m. Contact Douglas
- Warner, 415/863-0487. Watch for an-
nouncement of further details of Alan
Berube's slide show, Sunday, March 31;
sponsored by Gay Rights Chapter.
of every month.) Contact Barbara Eaton
for location, 415/676-5160 or 939-ACLU.
NORTH
PENINSULA
BOARD MEETING: (Second Monday of
every month.) Contact Sid Schieber,
415/345-8603.
SACRAMENTO
BOARD MEETING: (Note change. Now
the second Wednesday each month.)
Wednesday, February 13, 7:30 p.m. at the
- County Administration Center on I Street,
Sacramento. Contact Mary Gill,
916/457-4088.
SAN FRANCISCO
BOARD MEETING: (Usually fourth
Tuesday each month.) Contact Chandler
Visher, 415/391-0222.
SANTA CLARA
BOARD MEETING: (First Tuesday of
each month.) Contact Steve Alpers,
415/792-5110.
SANTA CRUZ
BOARD MEETING: (Usually second
Wednesday each month.) Contact Bob
Taren, 408/429-9880.
SONOMA
BOARD MEETING: Contact . Andrea
Learned, 707/544-6911.
ANNUAL DINNER: Friday, Feb. 15 at 7
p.m. at Druids Hall, Santa Rosa; Guest
speaker; Justice Joseph Rattigan. Contact:
Delna Garrison, 707/544-7108.
STOCKTON
BOARD MEETING: (Third Wednesday -
each month.) Contact Bart Harloe, (c)
209/946-2431 (days).
YOLO COUNTY:
BOARD MEETING: (Thursday, January
17. Contact Michael Laurence,
916/756-8621.
Field Committee
Meetings
PRO-CHOICE TASK FORCE:
Wednesday, February 6 at 7:30 p.m. and
Wednesday, March 6 at 6:00 p.m. ACLU,
1663 Mission Street, 4th Floor, S.F. All
Pro-Choice supporters and_ friends
welcome. Contact: Marcia Gallo,
415/621-2493.
RIGHT TO DISSENT SUBCOMMIT-
TEE: Wednesday, February 6 at 6:00 p.m.
and Wednesday, March 6 at 7:30 p.m.
ACLU, 1663 Mission Street, 4th Floor,
S.F. Contact Marcia Gallo 415/621-2493.
DRAFT OPPOSITION NETWORK:
(Usually second Tuesday of Month). Con-
tact Judy Newman, 415/567-1527.
IMMIGRATION WORKING GROUP:
Thursday, February 14 at 6:00 p.m.
Organizing Town Meetings on Immigrants
Rights. Contact Cindy Forster,.
415/021-2493,
PROTEST ARRESTS of sanctuary
workers! Support freedom of conscience
ACLUN_1981.MODS ACLUN_1981.batch ACLUN_1982 ACLUN_1982.MODS ACLUN_1982.batch ACLUN_1983 ACLUN_1983.MODS ACLUN_1984 ACLUN_1984.MODS ACLUN_1984.batch ACLUN_1985 ACLUN_1985.MODS ACLUN_1985.batch 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 add-tei.sh create-bags.sh create-manuscript-bags.sh create-manuscript-batch.sh fits.log _% Oppose deportations to death. Call
Cindy or Marci at 415/621-2493 to send
mailgram.
AMERICAN CIVI LLB eA tT U
oe aA
N (c) Ral ee E RN
CAL
FORNIA
Doc. es
ANNUAL REPORT OF THE
ACLU FouloaTion oF
ACLU Figurs For
A ee
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA
As we celebrate our first half century of existence (the ACLU of Northern
California was founded in 1934 during the San Francisco General Strike to
help protect workers' rights), the list of cases on this year's docket becomes a
somber reminder that no civil liberties victory ever comes easy -- nor ever stays
won.
In 1984, as in 1934, we had to go to court to protect the basic right to dis-
sent -- and we won some stunning victories including the striking down of a
parade ordinance in Richmond which prevented immediate protests by com-
munity groups to acts of police violence, the right of anti-nuclear activists to
put their literature in the Visitors Center at the Lawrence Livermore Lab, and
the elimination of a city-imposed price tag for a march against nuclear war in
Novato.
In 1984, as.in 1934, we are fighting against official acts of racism -- a probe
of bilingual ballot seekers by the U.S. Attorney and massive raids on im-
migrant workers by the INS and Border Patrol.
And in 1984, the new `moral McCarthyism" has also affected our legal
agenda as we Carry on our fight for public funding for abortion, keeping prayer
out of public schools, and an end to encroaching censorship and chilling libel
suits.
The ACLU-NC staff counsel, Margaret Crosby, Alan Schlosser and Amitai
Schwartz have for eight years shared responsibility for directing our
remarkable legal program. This year they were joined by temporary staff at-
torney Donna Hitchens, and Democratic National Convention Project attorney
John Crew, and ably assisted by Pat Jameson and Cati Hawkins. The staff
counsel currently handle over 60 active cases with the help of 80 dedicated
private lawyers who donate their services as ACLU cooperating attorneys.
Moreover, for every case which appears on the docket, there are hundreds
of civil liberties conflicts which are resolved administratively. ACLU's Com-
plaint Desk, staffed by a dozen volunteers, receives more than 200 phone calls
each week. Assisted by the legal department and the ten law students who
clerk for the ACLU during the course of the year, these lay counselors often
provide the advocacy necessary to resolve a particular grievance.
In addition, the ACLU's public education program, directed by Elaine Elin-
son, alerts the public to the action taken and issues championed by ACLU
litigation through the media and our own publications.
Through this docket, you will witness the vital civil liberties issues which
we have fought for throughout our history -- and that will continue to challenge
us in the years ahead. We hope you will take this opportunity to join a growing
number of ACLU supporters who give us the strength we need now to continue
our work in defense of the Bill of Rights.
Nancy Pemberton
Chairperson
Dorothy Ehrlich
Executive Director
The 1984 Legal Docket was written by ACLU News editor Elaine Elinson.
LOCAL 280
`Committee to Defend Reproductive
Rights (CDRR) v. Rank Ii
(California Court of Appeal)
Following the Legislature's passage of
a Budget Act severely restricting Medi-Cal
funds for abortion, the ACLU filed the 7th
annual lawsuit challenging the cutbacks.
The Court issued an immediate stay conti-
nuing the funding and in October issued an
order prohibiting the state from implemen-
ting Budget Act restrictions and from mail-
ing out notifications of proposed cutbacks.
In addition, the Court ordered all state
health officials to comply with the duties of
their offices and certify all claims and per-
form all tasks necessary to ensure con-
tinued Medi-Cal funds.
In December, the California Supreme
Court refused to hear the state's appeal,
thus ensuring the continuation of Medi-Cal
funding for abortion for the 100,000 women
and teenagers who seek such aid each year
in this state.
Margolis v. Deukmejian
(Sacramento Superior Court)
In September the ACLU asked for a sum-
mary judgment in its challenge to the
state's 1967 Therapeutic Abortion Act
which established an absolute 20-week
time limit for the performance of any abor-
tion. The suit, filed on behalf of doctors who
perform abortions and taxpayers, disputes
an interpretation of the act by the former
state Attorney General George Deukmejian
that the 20-week time limit be enforced
unless prosecutors conclude that the fetus
was not viable or the life or health of the
pregnant woman was in danger.
The ACLU argues that this interpreta-
tion violates several U.S. Supreme Court rul-
ings and that the Attorney General does not
have the power to rewrite the law.
Miller v. California Commission on the
Status of Women
(California Court of Appeal)
In April, the Court of Appeal lifted a
19-month injunction prohibiting the Califor-
nia Commission on the Status of Women
from taking positions on or promoting
legislation on women's issues.
In 1976, the Commission was sued by an
anti-ERA group which charged that the
Commission had unlawfully used public
monies to gather support for the ERA. In the
1982 trial, the trial court judge ordered the
Commission to limit its activities to
"technical and consultative advice," free of
any advocacy.
The ACLU filed an amicus brief in the
Court of Appeal on behalf of the Commis-
sion, arguing that the Constitution does not
prohibit the Commission from adopting
positions on women's issues, advising the
public of those positions and lobbying
before the Legislature in support of
women's rights.
Bohemian Club v. Fair Employment
and Housing Commission
(California Court of Appeals)
The Bohemian Club is an all male
private club with several northern California
facilities. The state Fair Employment and
Housing Commission (FEHC), after a hear-
ing, ruled illegal the Club's employment
practice of hiring only males at its Sonoma
County Bohemian Grove facility and for
most of the jobs at its San Francisco facili-
ty. The FEHC's decision was reversed by
the Sonoma Superior Court.
The FEHC appealed the court's decision
and the ACLU and California Women
Lawyers filed an amicus brief in the Court
of Appeal arguing that the rights of privacy
and association can be regulated to further
a compelling government interest such as
equal employment opportunity and that cer-
tain minimal adjustments by the Club could
afford women equal employment opportuni-
ty while protecting members' privacy rights.
In addition, the ACLU argues that even if
women may be excluded from specific jobs
at the Club, they should not be barred from
employment in all other jobs where they
would not interact with members in their
private associational activities.
Isbister v. Santa Cruz Boys Club
(California Court of Appeal)
In 1983, the state Court of Appeal revers-
ed the 1980 landmark ruling by the Santa
Cruz Superior Court which determined, in
agreement with ACLU arguments, that the
Boys Club policy of excluding girls was il-
legal and that membership in the club must
be open to children of both sexes. The
ACLU argued the case before the California
Supreme Court in June.
2
Sokolow v. Mounted Patrol
(San Mateo County Superior Court)
After attempting for almost a decade to
become a member of the men-only Mounted
Patrol, an experienced and accomplished
horsewoman is suing the Mounted Patrol
and the San Mateo County Sheriff's Depart-
ment, the county agency which oversees
and screens applicants for the Patrol.
The ACLU is representing the
equestrienne and charging the Sheriffs
Department and the Patrol with sex
discrimination.
me Cres
International Molders v. Nelson
(U.S. District Court) .
In November, the ACLU and other Bay
Area legal organizations argued in federal
court for an injunction against INS pro-
cedures which violate the civil liberties of
workers who look Hispanic or are of
Hispanic background.
The lawsuit stems from a_ highly
publicized nationwide series of raids on
worksites in 1982 by the INS euphemistical-
ly called `"`Operation Jobs." The ACLU,
MALDEF and others filed a class action suit
against the INS, charging that in northern
California INS and Border Patrol agents
violated the constitutional rights of
employees and employers by illegally enter-
ing worksites without warrant, probable
cause or consent, by detaining workers
simply because they looked Hispanic
without any reasonable suspicion that they
were undocumented aliens and by depriv-
ing those detained, often with violence or
threats of violence, of their due process and
Fourth Amendment rights.
Olagues v. Russoniello
(U.S. Court of Appeals)
The U.S. Court of Appeals heard
arguments in August after a federal court
judge ruled the courts have no power to en-
join a U.S. Attorney's investigation of per- ~
sons seeking bilingual election materials.
The discriminatory probe of persons
who seek bilingual election materials in-
itiated by the U.S. Attorney in nine northern
California counties, just weeks before the
1982 spring election registration deadline,
was challenged by the ACLU and MALDEF
in a class action suit on behalf of Chinese
and Spanish speaking voters. The ACL"
charges that the investigation was in viola-
tion of the Constitution and federal Voting
Rights Act.
Roman and Guillory v. City of Rich-
mond
(U.S. Court of Appeals)
The ACLU has joined the defense of the
$3 million dollar judgment awarded by a
federal jury in 1983 to the families of two
black men shot by Richmond police of-
ficers.
The four month trial focused on the
racist and brutal practices of the Richmond
police toward the black community. The Ci-
ty of Richmond appealed the trial court
judgment and the ACLU is handling the ap-
peal for the families.
Johnson v. Orr
(U.S. District Court)
In October, the ACLU and the Lesbian
Rights Project filed a lawsuit on behalf of
an officer in the California Air National
Guard (ANG) who was_ involuntarily
`discharged simply because she wrote a let-
ter to her commanding officer stating that
she was a Lesbian. The discharged officer,
who received excellent performance ratings
since 1981 as a lieutenant in the ANG was
discharged solely because she asserted
she was a Lesbian and not because of any
finding that she had engaged in homosex-
ual activity or illegal conduct of any kind.
The lawsuit charges that the Air Force
`violated the former lieutenant's constitu-
`tional rights of freedom of speech and
association. In addition, since members of
the ANG are employees of the state of
California, the Air Force overstepped its
bounds by ordering the discharge: Califor-
nia law prohibits the termination of govern-
_ ment employees solely on the basis of sex-
ual orientation.
In November, the court rejected the
ACLU arguments for a preliminary injunc-
`tion and the ACLU is now awaitingthe writ-
ten decision of the judge beforedeciding
whether or not to appeal.
Adolph Coors Co. v. Howard Wallace et
al.
(U.S. District Court)
In February, a U.S. District Court judge
ruled that the Adolph Coors Brewing Com-
pany's antitrust suit against gay rights and
labor groups that have a boycott against
the company's beer products was an at-
tempt to use the legal process to chill free
speech rights.
The ACLU represented Solidarity, a gay
rights group in San Francisco that produc-
ed a leaflet supporting the boycott of Coors
beer, outlining Coors' objectionable labor
policies and political activities. Coors sued
the AFL-CIO Coors Boycott Committee and
Solidarity, claiming that in a successful ef-
fort to persuade KQED television to cancel
a special `COORS DAY' auction they
violated antitrust laws.
During the course of the suit, the ACLU
was also successful in convincing the
federal district court that Solidarity did not
have to turn over its membership lists,
financial records, and minutes to Coors, as
had been requested by the company.
Coors has appealed the trial court's rul-
ing.
Brinkin v. Southern Pacific
(San Francisco Superior Court)
The ACLU is representing a gay
employee of Southern Pacific who was
denied the contractual 3-day funeral leave
when his lover of 11 years died. The suit, fil-
ed against the SP company and the railway
clerks union, claims that the denial of
benefits is discriminatory under California
statutory and constitutional law, both for
using the standard of marriage as a require-
ment for benefits and for discriminating
against homosexuals who are prohibited
from achieving the legal status of marriage.
BP LS
NAACP v. City of Richmond
(U.S. Court of Appeals)
The Richmond city ordinance that was
used to prevent NAACP and ACLU
demonstrators from marching in the streets
to protest police abuse in the black com-
munity in the fall of 1982 was struck down
by the federal Court of Appeals in
September after the ACLU challenged its
constitutionality.
Although the 1982 march itself was able
to proceed as a result of the ACLU's earlier
successful appeal to the Court of Appeals,
the ordinance itself, which required that
groups obtain a march permit from the
police department 20 days prior to an event
unless the City Council waives the notice
requirement, was the subject of a new ap-
peal. The Court of Appeals held that the or-
dinance was in clear violation of the First
Amendment.
People v. Brannon
(Appellate Department, Alameda Superior
Court)
~ An ACLU amicus brief challenged the
convictions of anti-nuclear protesters at the
Livermore Laboratory who, in the fall of
1983, peacefully blockaded roadways in
order to prevent Lab employees from enter-
ing the Lab to work on nuclear weapons
development. The ACLU is arguing that the
protesters could not properly be convicted
for willfully and maliciously obstructing
other persons when the jury had been
precluded from hearing evidence about the
defendants' state of mind and when the
court improperly instructed the jury that ac-
ting ``maliciously"" meant acting with intent
to obstruct.
ACLU Legal Docket
unusual punishment.
The lawsuit also engendered im-
provements in the provisions for prisoners'
safety at Santa Rita, particularly in the
transportation facilities.
DeLancie v. McDonald
(San Mateo Superior Court)
Ad Hoc Committee for Nuclear Disar-
mament in Novate v. City of Novato
(U.S. District Court)
When the Ad Hoc Committee for
Nuclear Disarmament planned a rally and
march in Novato in 1982, they had to obtain
insurance and pay fees for additional police
protection in order to get a permit. The
ACLU represented the Committee in a suit
challenging the price tag on First Amend-
ment rights.
In March the U.S. District Court approv-
ed an agreement that reimbursed the Com-
mittee for insurance and police fees paid to
the city of Novato for their anti-nuke march,
and a new parade ordinance was enacted
by the City Council.
Bennett v. Livermore Unified School
District
(Alameda County Superior Court)
When graduating seniors at Granada
High School in Livermore objected to hav-
ing a prayer at their 1983 school graduation
ceremony, they were opposed by several
school committees, the principal, and the
school board. The ACLU went to court on
behalf of one of the students and a Liver-
more taxpayer charging that inclusion of
the prayer was in violation of the constitu-
tional principles of church-state separation.
The injunction issued by the superior
court was allowed to stand by the Court of
Appeal and Supreme Court on the eve of the
graduation ceremony and the prayer was
not included in the program.
In May of this year, the Alameda County
Superior Court issued a final order holding
that the inclusion of a prayer in the high
-school's ceremony is impermissible under
the state and federal Constitutions. The
school district has appealed; the continu-
ing litigation could affect public school
graduation ceremonies statewide.
Wexner v. Anderson Unified High
School District :
(California Court of Appeal)
The ACLU's 1978 challenge to a Shasta
County school board ban on the books of
the late prize-winning poet-novelist Richard
Brautigan resulted in a Summary judgment
from the superior court in 1980 that the ban
was unconstitutional and the books must
be returned to the school library. The court
refused, however, to order the return of the
books to Enlish classes where they had
been previously used.
The ACLU appealed that decision argu-
ing that the superior court erred in holding
that the books may be banned from
classroom use; the school board also ap-
pealed, arguing that the books should not
be returned to the school library.
md EN
Torrey v. County of Alameda
(Alameda Superior Court)
In October, the ACLU won a settlement
of $40,000 for a former Santa Rita inmate
who was raped and physically abused by
another inmate while being transported on .
a county vehicle and in the care of two
Alameda County deputy sheriffs. The ACLU
sued Alameda County and the Sheriff's
_ Department on behalf of the former inmate
claiming that the systematic 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
~ electronically monitoring and
In a landmark prisoners' privacy rights
case, the California Supreme Court ruled
that the monitoring of detainees' conversa-
tions for the purpose of gathering in-
criminating evidence was illegal. ;
The ACLU, representing a detainee, his
wife and his lawyer and local taxpayers,
had argued in the Supreme Court that the
San Mateo County Sheriff's practice of
recording
conversations between prisoners and their
visitors violated the California
Constitution's guarantee of privacy. The
high court decision is the first one in the
country to determine that inmates' conver-
sations may be monitored solely for securi-
ty reasons and not for the purpose of ob-
taining evidence against them. After the rul-
ing. the case was sent back to the trial
court, where, in January, a consent decree
was issued halting the bugging.
Diaz v. Watts
(California Court of Appeal)
The ACLU filed an appeal on behalf of
the inmate editor of the prison newspaper
at the California Medical Facility in
Vacaville against new regulations on the
paper issued by the California Department
of Corrections.
In 1981 a superior court injunction
ordered prison officials at CMF who had
censored, destroyed and shut down the
prisoner run newspaper to allow the paper
to resume publication and cease harass-
ment of the inmate editor. However, the
CDC issued new regulations in the wake of
the Supreme Court decision in Bailey, and
the new restrictions were upheld by the
superior court last October despite an
ACLU challenge to them as being un-
constitutionally vague and overbroad.
In re Charles Williams
(California Court of Appeal)
The inmate editor of the San Quentin
prison newspaper filed a _ petition for
habeas corpus challenging the rules
regulating prison newspapers. The ACLU ~
filed an amicus brief in the Court of Appeal
arguing that the rules are vague and over-
broad, but the court upheld the rules. The
California Supreme Court has now been
asked to review the case.
Underwood v. Compoy
(U.S. Court of Appeals)
The ACLU is representing a_ black
prisoner at Folsom who was given 10 days
solitary confinement for writing an angry
letter to the Director of the Department of
Corrections and a black member of the
Board of Prison Terms indicating that they
were a disgrace to their race.
The federal district court dismissed the
prisoner's lawsuit as frivolous, but the
federal appellate court vacated the
dismissal and ordered the lower court to
consider the value of the prisoner's First
Amendment claims.
- v/ UVENILE
OFFENDERS
Arias and Bolton v. California Youth
Authority
(California Court of Appeal)
The ACLU-NC filed an amicus brief to
stop the use of an electronic listening
device in the chapel of a California Youth
Authority (CYA) facility. At stake are the in-
mates' rights of religious freedom and
ACLU Legal Docket
privacy. (In 1982 the ACLU won a similar
case before the California Supreme Court,
that outlawed electronic surveillance of
adult inmates in DeLancie v. MacDonald.)
In October, the Court of Appeal upheld
the CYA's right to install and maintain the
bugging devices.
In re Jerald C.
(California Supreme Court)
Parents of a juvenile offender who is
placed in custody do not have to reimburse
the state for the support of the child as a
result of a May decision by the state
Supreme Court. The ruling invalidated Sec-
tion 602 of the State Welfare and Institu-
tions code which held parents liable for
"such payment.
The ACLU had argued as amicus
curiae that because both
`criminal statutes and its incarceration
statutes facilities serve special societal _
needs, the costs of incarcerating a juvenile
offender must not be borne by only a few
citizens - the offender's parents -but is the
responsibility of the state. The ACLU
argued that when the government elects to
use its judicial machinery to segregate a
child from his family based on a finding of
juvenile misconduct rather than parental
neglect, it must subsidize the incarceration
it demands.
Christopher T. v. San Francisco Unified
School District
(U.S. District Court)
The ACLU-NC joined the national
ACLU's Childrens Rights Project and Legal
Services for Children in a class action suit
on behalf of disabled children who were
denied educational benefits accorded them
by law.
In violation of the provisions of the
Education for all Handicapped Children
Act, parents of handicapped children in San
Francisco and elsewhere have been forced
to give up custody of their children in order
to receive financial assistance for the cost-
ly residential education their children re-
quire.
The, District Court granted the plaintiffs'
motion for partial summary judgment com-
pelling the school district to assume the
cost of residential placements for the two
plaintiffs and to return both children to the
legal custody of the parents. Settlement
discussions to reach a class-wide resolu-
_ tion of the problem are proceeding.
wr amas
McCoy et al. v. Hearst Corporation et
al.
(California Court of Appeal)
The appeal of 1.6 million dollar libel
judgment against two former San Fran-
cisco Examiner reporter Raul Ramirez and
freelance writer Lowell Bergman was
argued in February and will be reargued by
the ACLU in the Court of Appeal in
February, 1985.
The seven figure libel judgment, award-
ed by a San Francisco jury in 1979, was the
result of 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 controversial murder trial in
which a 19-year-old Chinatown youth was
convicted.
The case strikingly documents the
potential of libel suits to limit journalistic
inquiry into the activities of public officials.
Pittsburgh School Employees
(California Court of Appeal)
An amicus brief by the ACLU in the
the state's (c)
Court of Appeal argues that four school
employees involved in a labor dispute were
exercising First Amendment rights when
they engaged in peaceful, non-obstructive
informational leafleting at the private
business offices of two school board
members.
rad Nae,
THE RIGHTS
oe
Wd .444
Fiat 5to ae
University of California Nuclear
Weapons Labs Conversion Project v.
Lawrence Livermore Laboratory
(California Court of Appeal)
In December, Lawrence Livermore
Laboratory agreed to a judgment permitting
the U.C. Nuclear Weapons Labs Conversion
Project access to the Lab's Visitors Center
for anti-nuclear education materials and for
slide and film showings about the dangers
of nuclear weapons. The settlement follow-
ed an April state Court of Appeal ruling that
the anti-nuclear group has the right to use
the Visitors Center and auditorium at the
Lab. to distribute their educational
materials.
The ACLU represented the Project in
this landmark First Amendment lawsuit. In
1980, the superior court issued an injunc-
- tion allowing the group to use the Lab's
facilities for their First Amendment ac-
tivities; however, lawyers for the University
of California, which administers the Lab for
the U.S. Department of Energy, appealed
the lower court decision.
Allende v. Shultz (and other visa cases)
(U.S. Court of Appeals)
The ACLU-NC and the national ACLU fil-
ed four lawsuits challenging the Reagan
Administration's visa denials to Latin
critics including Tomas Borge, Hortensia
Allende, and two Cuban women leaders.
The ACLU argued the denials abridge the
freedom of speech and assembly
guaranteed by the First Amendment. -
In March, the district court upheld the
visa denials and the ACLU is appealing that
decision.
ACLU v. Murphy
(San Francisco Superior Court)
The ACLU filed a suit under the Califor-
nia Public Records act seeking records per-
taining to an incident during the July
Democratic National Convention in which
members of the Ku Klux Klan were escorted
across the Bay Bridge, arrested and taken
to the Hall of Justice where they were told
by the Chief of Police that they could not
demonstrate in San Francisco. The suit
also seeks copies of guidelines regulating
the gathering and dissemination of in-
telligence information by the San Francisco
Police Department.
Franklet v. U.S.
(U.S. Court of Appeals)
The ACLU is representing over a dozen
war tax resisters who are challenging a
1982 amendment to the Internal Revenue
Code which imposes a $500 penalty on per-
sons who filed a `frivolous' income tax
return. The ACLU argues that the frivolous
return penalty is directed against persons
who engage in political or religious protest,
and thus violates constitutional rights to
freedom of speech, religion and cons-
cience. In addition, the ACLU asserts that
the term "frivolous" is unconstitutionally
vague and that the IRS violated due process
by requiring payment of the penalty without
prior notice and hearing.
ACLU affiliates are handling more than
half a dozen cases in other states challeng-
ing the imposition of the frivolous return
penalty.
Monterey County Democratic Central
Committee v. U.S. Postal Service
. (U.S. District Court)
When the postmaster at the Carmel
Valley Post Office refused to allow the local
Democratic Committee to register voters in
front of the post office, the ACLU filed a
lawsuit seeking an injunction and a declara-
tion that the U.S. Postal Service regulation
forbidding `partisan' groups to register
voters at post offices was unconstitutional.
In August, the court ordered the
postmaster to allow the group to register
voters in time for the registration deadline
for the November elections. However, in
December, the same judge refused to grant
a permanent injunction prohibiting the ban
on registering voters by partisan groups
and the case is being appealed.
Washburn v. City of Berkeley
(Alameda County of Superior Court)
The ACLU is representing several in-
dividuals who signed a statement in the
Berkeley voters handbook forthe November
1984 election who were sued by opponents
for allegedly making false statements
about a ballot measure.
After an agreement was reached cover-
ing changes in statements, the opponents
of the measure asked the court to award
them attorney's fees for bringing the
lawsuit. The ACLU claims that an award of
attorneys fees under such circumstances
will have a severe chilling effect on the will-
ingness of persons to sign ballot
arguments in the voters handbooks in the
future. In January 1985 the superior court
granted attorneys fees and the ACLU is ap-
pealing.
POA v. NAACP
(California Court of Appeal)
In an amicus brief filed in March, the
ACLU asserts that the San Francisco Police
Officers Association's defamation `suit
against the local NAACP is fundamentally a
political controversy which does not belong
in a court of law. The purported defamation
was an alleged statement by an NAACP
spokesperson in 1978 that San Francisco
police officers pursue a ``systematic,
sadistic and criminal program of assaults
on Black citizens."
The ACLU argues that the 1982 superior .
court judgment in favor of the NAACP is
correct based on the arguments that
critical statements were issued against the
government (police) itself and therefore
may not be the basis of a defamation action
and the allegedly slanderous statements
are constitutionally protected opinion.
In Re Price
(Immigration and Naturalization Service)
The ACLU is representing a permanent
resident alien who seeks U.S. citizenship
but refuses to answer the question on the
standard naturalization form requiring him
to list all organizations to which he was
ever affiliated. The federal Court of Appeals
ruled in a prior ACLU case. (In Re Duncan)
that it would not reach the constitutionality
of the membership question because the
party seeking citizenship had not followed
proper procedures. This is a follow-up to the
earlier lawsuit and seeks to have the courts
rule the membership question unconstitu-
tional under the First Amendment.
Schmid v. Lovette
(California Court of Appeal)
This year the Court of Appeal upheld an
award of attorney's fees to the ACLU ina
case in which the ACLU challenged the use
of a McCarthy era loyalty oath as a prere-
quisite for employment by the Richmond
Unified School District. The superior court
had previously struck down the oath as un-
3
constitutional and prohibited its use in
1981.
EMI Santa Rosa Limited Partnership v.
Sonoma County Nuclear Weapons
Freeze Campaign
(Sonoma County Superior Court)
In 1982 the ACLU won a preliminary in-
junction against restrictive rules for
political campaigners at a Santa Rosa
shopping center. The mall was subsequent-
ly sold and in January 1984 the new owners
issued new rules -- more restrictive than the
earlier ones -- including a limitation on cam-
paigning activity to once every six months,
no access on weekends and holidays and
no solicitation of donations.
In January the mall went to court to pre-
vent an anti-nuclear group and others from
leafleting in the mall. The ACLU filed a
countersuit two weeks later on behalf of the
campaigners. In February, the court issued
a preliminary injunction against the mall
and allowed the groups to carry out their
First Amendmeni Activites at the shopping
center.
Taxpayers for Vincent v. Los Angeles
City Council
(U.S. Supreme Court)
The U.S. Supreme Court struck a major
blow at poor people's speech in this case
where they upheld a city ordinance banning
the placing of election posters on public
utility poles because the posters created
"visual clutter."
The ACLU presented a friend of the
court brief in the case arguing that an ab-
solute ban on the posting of political signs
violates the First Amendment and
eliminates one of the only effective means
by which the economically disadvantaged
can participate in the electoral process.
Women's International League for
Peace and Freedom v. City of Fresno
- (California Court of Appeal)
The Women's International League for
Peace and Freedom (WILPF) opposes draft
registration and sought to put up signs in |
city buses with a photo of soldiers saying,
"Why is this the only job our government
has.to offer 19-20 year olds?. Think before
you register for the draft." They were
prevented from doing so by a city ordinance
prohibiting political messages on public
property.
The superior court held that the city or-
dinance was unconstitutional but stated
that the city could ban the WILPF signs
because they advocate illegal activity, i.e.,
not registering for the draft. Both sides are
appealing the decision and the ACLU is
representing WILPF on the appeal.
Carr v. Warden and Pacifica
(California Court of Appeal)
When Friends of Pacifica, an en- .
vironmental group, was sued by members
of the city Planning Commission for slander
based on a statement made by the
organization's chair and reported in a local
newspaper during the campaign for a local
growth control measure, the ACLU defend-
ed the group.
In 1982, the San Mateo Superior Court
dismissed the $125,000 slander suit, agree-
ing with the ACLU argument that
statements made by the chairperson of
Friends of Pacifica during the campaign
were expressions of opinion and thus pro-
tected under law. That decision was upheld
by the Court of Appeal in July.
Franklin v. Stanford
(California Court of Appeal)
In 1972, during the height of the Vietnam
War, Stanford University professor Bruce
Franklin was fired for speeches he made
during campus protests. In December, 1982,
after a decade of hearings and litigation,
the ACLU filed its challenge to Franklin's
dismissal in the state Court of Appeal.
The ACLU challenge allows the ap-
pellate court to consider for the first time in
4
this lengthy case whether, as the ACLU is
arguing, Franklin's constitutional rights
were violated by the Stanford firing.
Robbins v. Superior Court
(California Supreme Court)
Sacramento County requires
employable persons receiving general
assistance live in a poorhouse as a condi-
tion of county support. In a case challeng-
ing the poorhouse for indigents, the ACLU
is arguing as a friend of the court that the
involuntary poorhouse condition violates
the right to privacy, freedom of movement
and due process.
Rush v. Obledo
(U.S. Court of Appeals)
In April, the ACLU joined other public in-
terest and women's legal organizations in
filing an amicus brief arguing that state of-
ficials should not be allowed to conduct
warrantless surprise inspections of
residential child care centers.
The ACLU supports the district court rul-
ing that warrantless searches of private
family day care homes by agents of the
Department of Social Services violate the
Fourth Amendment.
Fort Help v. Municipal Court
(Alameda County Superior Caurt)
The ACLU is representing a methadone
program in its attempts to protect the con-
fidentiality of clients' records against a
search by Berkeley police officers. The
court ruled the September 1983 search was
illegal and the ACLU is seeking civil
remedies from the City of Berkeley.
that ,
The ACLU was a friend of the court on
behalf of an unlisted phone company
subscriber arguing that the warrantless
search by a San Bernadino sheriff's deputy
violated the privacy provisions of the
California Constitution and that the
evidence obtained as a result of the search
had to be excluded.
Citizens for a Better Environment v. Ci-
ty of Vallejo
(Solano County Superior Court)
In Vallejo, a city ordinance requires that
all persons who seek to canvass door-to-
door for political or charitable purposes
must submit to fingerprinting by the police.
An ACLU suit filed on behalf of Citizens for
a Better Environment, Citizens Action
League and Greenpeace, argues that the or-
dinance is unconstitutional as it violates
the canvassers' privacy and their First
Amendment right to communicate with the
people of Vallejo.
Cohen v. Superior Court
(California Court of Appeal)
The ACLU filed an amicus brief in the
Court of Appeal challenging the constitu-
tionality of a San Francisco ordinance
passed in 1981 establishing a comprehen-
sive regulatory system for the very broadly
defined category of ``escort services." The
ACLU is asking that the ordinance be struck
down because the constitutional guarantee
of privacy is violated by its requirement that
escort services maintain a daily register,
open to the police and health departments,
showing the names and adresses of
patrons, their escorts, times and places
where escort services took place and the
fee charged.
People v. Chapman
(California Supreme Court)
Ingersoll v. Palmer
(California Court of Appeal)
The California Supreme Court upheld
the principle of personal privacy in ruling
that the police, acting without a search war-
rant, are prohibited from obtaining the
name and address of an unlisted telephone
Charging that the police roadblocks set
-up to deter drunk drivers are in violation of
the Fourth Amendment, the California Con-
stitution, and California law, the ACLU filed
suit in November on behalf of four Califor-
nia taxpayers to prohibit the use of, such
Janese and Becker v. Letona
(San Francisco Superior Court)
The ACLU successfully defended a vic-
tim of police abuse when he was sued by
two police officers for filing a complaint
against them with the San Francisco Inter-
nal Affairs Bureau, alleging that they had
used unnecessary force in arresting him.
The police libel suit, filed under a statute
passed by the Legislature in 1982, was
dismissed by the superior court in March
and is now awaiting resolution in the Court
of Appeal.
Kirk v. City of San Francisco
(U.S. Court of Appeals)
The ACLU is representing a man whose
lawsuit was dismissed by a district court
judge for failing to state a claim under the
federal Constitution. The man claims he
was unlawfully arrested and lost his job
after San Francisco police falsely claimed
that he had been required to register as a
sex offender. The district court ruled that
the federal courts would not entertain the
lawsuit even if the facts alleged are true
because constitutional rights were not
violated.
Ramey v. Murphy
(San Francisco Superior Court)
The ACLU has appealed a ruling by a
superior court judge upholding the San
Francisco Police Department's practice of
using an obstruction of sidewalks law as a
means of detaining persons who would not
otherwise be punished by legal means.
During a lengthy and complex trial in
1982, the ACLU had sought an injunction
and a declaration that the bad faith en-
forcement by the police of Section 647c of
the state Penal Code was unconstitutional.
Evidence produced at the trial indicated
Be Free FROM UNREADNABLE SeARCH AND SEIZURE
MW -Taz a a ae
lawsuit was filed following the establish-
ment of a roadblock in Burlingame and the
announcement by several other police
departments and the California Highway
Patrol that they were planning to set up
roadblocks during the holiday season.
In December, the court agreed to hear
_arguments in the case in the future but
refused to issue an immediate order halting
the holiday season roadblocks.
roadblocks throughout the state. The
ay CAN S Ween Tus Docker"
with your special tax-deductible contribution to the ACLU Foundation
of Northern California. Without these special gifts, the docket you are
holding might be only one-half the size.
subscriber from the telephone company.
| want to help support the ACLU's legal work in northern California.
Enclosed is my tax-deductible contribution of
c $1000 (c)$500 0$250 0$100 0$
Name
Address
City State Zip
Phone
Please make checks or money orders payable to the ACLU Foundation of Nor-
thern California and send to ACLU Foundation, 1663 Mission St., S.F. CA 94103.
(o ee me ew eo om om om ow ew ew ee ee Oe OP Se ee ee eam em)
Game GED GED GEE GED GED GED GED GE GED GEE GED Gu ame a= amp awe see ww SP SD @ @ GS ap Gp a =!
Oliver v. U.S.
(U.S. Supreme Court)
In a landmark decision whose _ per-
nicious effects will be felt for years to
come, the U.S. Supreme Court held that
Americans have no reasonable expectation
of privacy in the land surrounding their
homes. Stating that even fenced and guard-
ed fields are not protected by the Fourth
Amendment, the court held that even if the
police commit trespass, their entry is not
"unreasonable". As a result, the police can
move onto an individual's land and surveil
his activities from that vantage point full-
time for weeks or months and the Fourth
Amendment would not be offended at all.
The ACLU-NC was amicus in this case
which stemmed from the arrest of a retired
farmer by government agents who, without
warrants, drove on to his property, passing
four "No Trespassing" signs and a locked
metal gate where they found a marijuana
field a mile from the farmer's house which
was apparently being cultivated by tenants.
The ACLU argued that the ``open fields" ex-
ception to the Fourth Amendment should
only justify warrentless searches if the .
owner of the land has not exhibited an in-
tent to retain privacy.
ACLU Legal Docket
that 94% of the people arrested under 647c
have their charges dropped at their first ap-
pearance in court and that less than one in
200 persons is actually convicted of
obstruction. The ACLU appeal argues that
since the courts have struck down vagrancy
and loitering laws, the police now sweep
the streets of undesirables as they had
under the old laws, they just avoid submit-
ting thearrests for prosecution.
Britt v. Police Commission
(San Francisco Superior Court)
Despite the fact that San Francisco
voters approved the establishment of the
Office of Citizen Complaints in the
November 1982 election to investigate com-
plaints of police investigation replacing the
police department-run Internal Affairs
Bureau, the OCC was not completely fund-
ed by the City. The ACLU filed a suit to force
the San Francisco Police Commission to
consider a larger budget for the OCC as the
budget allocated is insufficent for the OCC
to carry out all necessary investigations.
The court ruled in March that resolutions of
the suit was premature.
Sundance v. Municipal Court -
(California Supreme Court)
The ACLU filed a brief challenging the
widespread arrests without prosecution or
trial of public inebriates in Los Angeles
County. The record in the case shows over
150,000 arrests for public inebriation, with
only eight convictions after trial. The ACLU
brief argues that people cannot constitu-
tionally be subjected to arrest, booking, and
incarceration when arresting officers
reasonably know that the persons arrested
will not be prosecuted or convicted.
Penny v. Fremont
(Contra Costa Superior Court)
In September, the ACLU finally resolved (c)
a landmark settlement with the City of Fre-
mont limiting strip searches at the Fremont
Detention Facility. New guidelines issued
for all police personnel at the Fremont
Detention Center require that there be in-
dividualized suspicion warranted before
any strip search can be conducted and that
there must be a written record of the
reasons for the search and the search
itself.
The ACLU represented a Fremont
mother of four with no previous arrest
record who was strip searched at the deten-
tion facility for failure to pay a dog license
fee for a dog which she no longer owned. As
part of the settlement, the strip search vic-
tim was awarded monetary damages. Prior
to the settlement, Fremont had a policy of
randomly strip searching all persons de-
tained in the jail without individualized
suspicion that the person was carrying con-
traband.
Scott v. Oakland
(Contra Costa Superior Court)
The ACLU is representing a female bank
employee who was strip searched by the
Oakland police despite the fact that she
had no previous arrest record, was detained
for the infraction of failure to pay a dog
license fee and the authorities had been in- -
formed that her father was en route to the
jail with bail money.
The case is still pending in superior
court. :