vol. 31, no. 7

American

ivil Liberties

Union

Volume XXXI

Branch Board of Directors

SAN FRANCISCO, JULY, 1966

iterim Plan

For Chapter

presentation

The Board of Directors of the ACLUNC on dune 9

amended its By-Laws to provide for chapter representation

beginning in November, 1966. Each chapter in good standing

may elect one representative to the branch board whose term

shall be one year. The chapter representative must be elected -

by the membership of the chap-

ter at large in an election held

pursuant to certain procedures

established by the branch board.

_Nine Representatives

Nine chapters are presently

eligible to elect representatives.

. Such representatives would in-

erease the branch board member-

ship from 30 to a maximum of

39, Of course, as other chapters

are established they may also

elect representatives to the

branch board. At the moment, a

Fresno organizing committee is

planning to submit a petition for

_a charter.

It is understood that the pres-

ent plan is a temporary one and

that next spring after further

study the branch board will con-

sider permanent plans for chap-

ter representation. ;

Nontinating Comittee

Before local elections can be

held chapter boards must amend

their own By-Laws to provide

for them, Thereafter, the local

chairman, with the consent of

the chapter board, must appoint a

Nominating Committee prior to

September 1 composed of two

board members and three non-

board members. The Nominating

Committee must solicit names of

nominees from the membership

at large and, after considering

such names, deliver its recom-

mendations to the local board,

"first having obtained the consent

of those nominated, prior to Sep-

tember 20, 1966."

Independent Nominations

The local By-Laws also provide

that "nominations may be made

independently by any five mem-

bers or more of the chapter who

shall deliver- the name of the

nominee with his acceptance in

writing to the chairman of the

chapter board on or before Sep-

tember 30, 1966. No nomination

shall be accepted after October 1,

1966." No one shall be nominated

or elected who at the time of his

nomination or election is not a

member in good standing of

ACLUNC and a member of the

chapter.

: Mail Election

Ballots must be mailed to the

local membership by October 20.

"The ballot may be exercised by

mailing to the chapter secretary

so as to be received on or before

November 4, 1966, or it may be

brought to a special chapter

membership meeting called for

the purpose of election, and cast

thereat." The chapter representa-

tive "shall be deemed elected if

he receives a plurality of the

votes cast."

At the present time, the nine

chapter areas include about 50

per cent of the branch member-

Ship, All members residing in

chapter areas are entitled to par-

ticipate in the elections for chap-

`ter representatives.

Strength of Chapters

Last September 1, the number

of members and NEWS subscrib-

ers in chapter areas was as fol-

lows: :

Berkeley-Albany ............. 1308

Mid-Peninsula ..............,..-.. 578

Sacramento Valley ............ 4i1

Santa Clara Valley ........ 5. 201

Mt. Diablo .........-..-2-2.--- 231

Santa Cruz County ............ 123

Monterey County .............. 100

Stockton ....: See eS 719

At this writing, the proposed

Fresno county chapter has 131

supporters in good standing.

Second Court

Martial for

C.0. Seaman

The ACLUNC Board of Direc-

tors has authorized intervention

in the case of Seaman Leo Rich-

ard Christensen who faces a sec-

ond court-martial, this time a

General court-martial, for refus-

ing to obey orders. Christensen's |

application for an administrative

discharge was turned down by

the Bureau of Personnel on the

ground that Selective Service

does not regard him as a C.0O.

After serving honorably in the

Army, Christensen enlisted in the

Navy. He had been introduced to

the Society of Friends by some

Oregon friends and became an at-

tendant at the Berkeley Meeting.

He finally decided that his con-

science would no longer allow

him to serve in the Armed

Forces. His refusal to obey orders

resulted in a trial by a Special

Court-Martial. |

At the trial, Harriet Schaffran,

clerk of the Berkeley Friends

Meeting, and Ben Seaver, Con-

scientious Objector Counselor for

the American Friends Service

Committee, testified as to the sin-

cerity of Christensen's beliefs.

While the court found him guilty

of the charge he was sentenced

to "no punishment and (the

court) further recommends to

the convening authority because

all the circumstances of this case,

and this is not disclosing the

opinion of any member, because

all the circumstances of this case

indicate the sincere conscientious

belief on your part, that you be

administratively separated from

the naval service as expeditiously

as possible." The recommenda-

tion of the court was not accepted

by the Commanding Officer.

The date for the trial on the

new charge has not as yet been

set. Christensen will be repre-

-gented by Ernest Besig, local

executive director of the ACLU.

Oregon Executive

Director Sought

~The Oregon affiliate of ACLU

will hire an executive director to

commence work September,

1966. Application forms and de-

tails are available from ACLU of

Oregon, P.O. Box 774, Portland,

Oregon 97207, :

Number 7

Dirty Word

On Sign Causes

Oakland Arrest

Because he placed a sign in

his shop window on which an

eight-letter vulgar word ap-

peared, William R. Cory, who

operates a tobacco shop and book

store at 2537 Telegraph Avenue

in Oakland, was arrested on June

-16 and charged with violating

two sections of the Pena] Code.

The sign commented on a story

in a tabloid headed, "The Bible"

is a Dirty Book." When he re

fused to remove the sign the po-

lice arrested him.

One statute involved is Sec.

650% of the Penal Code which

makes it an offense to outrage

public decency. Just recently, as

Time Magazine noted, this stat-

ute was declared unconstitution-

al by the State District Court of

Appeal.

The second statute, Sec. 415 of -

the Penal Code, makes it an of-

fense to use "vulgar, profane, or

indecent language within the

presence or hearing of women

and children, in a loud and bois-

terous manner." Of course, the

whole thing was very quiet and,

consequently, the statute would

not seem to be applicable.

In any case, Cory was released

on bail, He is represented by vol-

unteer ACLU attorney Neil F.

Horton of Oakland, who will

challenge the constitutionality of

the statutes.

Ait'y Gen'l Asked

To File Memo

in Budd Case

The United States Supreme

Court last month invited the

California Attorney General to

file a memorandum in the case

of Thomas F. Budd, who has

challenged the power of the

State of California to punish him

as a criminal for public drunk-

enness when the undisputed evi-

dence at his trial showed he was

a chronic alcoholic and that his

drunkenness was involuntary.

The high court is not expected

to decide whether it will review

the case until next October.

Check Case

The State District Court of Appeal in San Francisco on

May 31 refused to order reinstatement of Benny M. Parrish

as a social worker in Alameda County. Parrish had been

dismissed because he declined on January 13, 1963 to par-

ticipate in the so-called bed checks of county clients who

were receiving assistance under

the Aid to Needy Children pro-

gram. Parrish contended that bed

checks were degrading, presumed

the guilt of the clients, violated

their rights of privacy, were not

required-under his job classifica-

tion, and were inconsistent with

his training and the, rehabilita-

New Teaching

Credentials

Sit-in Cases

The Committee on Credentials

of the State Department of Edu-

cation has turned down the appli-

cation of Daniel Keig for a junior

college teaching credential be-

cause of his participation in the

Sproul Hall sit-in case of De-

cember 3, 1964. The facts in his

case are similar to the facts in

the cases of Barbara B. Bozman

and Diane M, Kepner whose ap-

plications were rejected by the

Committee but who were recently

granted credentials by the State

Board of Education on the rec-

ommendations of a Hearing Offi-

cer.

Neil F. Horton,

ACLU attorney, has appealed to

the State Board of Education to

establish a policy on the handling

of sit-in cases on the basis of its

rulings in the Bozman and Kep-

ner cases, Its attorney has been

instructed by the Board to come

in with some proposals at its

July meeting.

Still a fourth case has arisen

involving Miss Lily Kowalsky of

San Francisco. Miss Kowalsky

was convicted for sitting-in in

San Francisco's auto row civil

rights cases. Her conviction is

presently on appeal. The Creden-

tials Committee has scheduled a

hearing on her application for

July 19, The matter will be han-

dled by. ACLU staff counsel Mar-

shall W. Krause. :

Real Estate Salesman

Alleged 'Subversive' Wins

Case Against Realty Board

The Berkeley Realty Board has given up its fight to keep

real estate salesman Ida Morgan from membership on

grounds of her alleged "subversive" affiliations. The Board

and Mrs. Morgan have signed settlement papers whereby

Mrs. Morgan's suit for damages filed in April of 1964 in the

Alameda County Superior Court

will be dismissed in exchange for

agreement that she will become

a member of the Board with ac-

cess to its multiple listing service

and that the Board will not again

press the charges against her.

Public Functions

Mrs. Morgan's suit was filed by

attorneys for the American Civil

Liberties Union who claimed

that it was unconstitutional for

the Realty Board to exclude per-

sons on the basis of alleged "sub-

versive" affiliations because the

Board carries out certain public

functions, Superior Court Judge

Lyle Cook issued a preliminary

injunction against the Board pre-

venting them from taking action

against Mrs. Morgan or her em-

ployer, Pursley Realty of 2490

Channing Way in Berkeley, until

a full trial could be had in the

-matter, Now a trial will not be

necessary under the settlement

agreement reached between the

parties.

Employer Protected

The preliminary injunction re-

ferred to above also enjoined the

Board from disciplining Marilyn

Pursley for employing Mrs. Mor-

gan. :

The original charges against

Mrs. Morgan sprang from an ar-

ticle in Tocsin, a red - hunting

publication which suspended

publication but which has now

reappeared.

Political Affiliation |

The American Civil Liberties

Union is gratified by the result

in the case as it establishes that

political affiliation may not be

used against a person by organ-

izations such as the Berkeley

Realty Board.

Mrs. Morgan was represented

by volunteer ACLU attorney Jo-

-seph W. Rogers, Jr., and staff

`counsel Marshall W. Krause.

volunteer ~

tive goals of the ANC program.

Appeal Promised

Albert M. Bendich and Cole

man Blease, attorneys for Par-

rish, have promised to ask the

State Supreme Court for a hear-

ing. Robert H. Laws, Jr. and

B. V. Yturbide, volunteer ACLU

attorneys, and staff counsel Mar-

shall W. Krause, filed a friend of

the court brief in the case.

No Real Consent

The ACLU contended that a

person on welfare is not a freely-

consenting agent when his social

worker knocks on the door early

in the morning and asks permis-

sion to enter and make a search.

The District Court of Appeal

treats persons on welfare as if

they were rugged individualists

fully aware of their constitutional

rights, whereas they are in fact

dependent people who probably

do not even know they have the

right to refuse a search,

No Alternative

The court states that the social

workers were instructed "to care-

fully explain the purpose of their

call and to seek permission to

search, with the clear implication

that they were not to threaten

automatic discontinuance of bene-

fits or to use other coercive tac-

tics." The. court is unwilling to

assume that "ANC recipients had

no alternative but to submit to a

search and that it was not pos-

sible for their social workers, who

strictly complied with orders, to

obtain valid consent." The opin-

ion says nothing about the wel-

fare recipients being advised of

their constitutional rights before

a search is attempted.

Nothing Inherently Wrong

"We see nothing inherently

wrong," said the court, "with

making weekend eligibility calls

which experience has demon-

strated disclose widespread fraud-

ulent misappropriation of public

funds and the deprivation of the

children for whose benefit the

ANC program was instituted."

The court said that the facts

in the case are not in dispute.

"On November 20, 1962, the

board of supervisors unanimously

adopted a resolution requesting

the county welfare director to

conduct a series of unscheduled

visits to welfare families similar.

to `operation weekend' in Kern

county, where a large number of

welfare frauds had been discev-

ered in this manner,

Early Morning Visits

"The social workers of the

Family Service Division were

told on January 3 or 4 by the

assistant director that the first

set of unscheduled visits would

be made between 6:30 and 10:30

a.m. on Sunday, January 13, 1963,

and that the main purpose of this

visit would be to look for absent

parents or unauthorized males in

the homes of ANC (Aid to Needy

Children) recipients. The work-

ers were instructed to select both

`suspect' cases and random cases

from their case load and to ex-

clude those cases which had al-

ready been referred to the de-

partment's fraud investigation

unit, A `suspect' case was one

where the recipient's eligibility

had not been redetermined for a

period of about six months, or

where the worker had: some

grounds for concluding that the

eligibility needed further investi-

gation. The random cases were

included in order to make a bet-

ter overall statistic relating to

--Continued on Page 4

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION NEWS

Published by the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California

Second Class Mail privileges authorized at San Francisco, California.

ERNEST BESIG .. . Editor

503 Market Street, San Francisco, California 94105, EXbrook 2-4692

Subscription Rates -- Two Dollars a Year

Twenty Cents Per Copy

EBs, 151

Ralph B. Atkinson

Dr. Alfred Azevedo

Albert M. Bendich

Leo Borregard

Prof. Robert Cole

Prof. John Edwards

Rey. Aron S. Gilmartin

Evelio Grilio

Mrs: Zora Cheever Gross

Albert Haas, Jr.

Howard H. Jewel

Ephraim Margolin

Honorary Treasurer:

Joseph S. Thompson

Honorary Board Member:

: Sara Bard Field

Mss. Gladys Brown

Mrs. Paul Couture

John J. Eagan

_ Joseph Eichler

Morse Erskine

Dr. H. H. Fisher

Mrs. Margaret C. Hayes

Prof. Ernest Hilgard

Mrs. Paul Holmer

Mrs. Mary Hutchinson

Richard Johnston

Board of Directors of the American Civil Liberties. Ee

of Northern California

CHAIRMAN: Prof. Van D. Kennedy

- VICE-CHAIRMEN: Rabbi Alvin I. Fine -

Helen Saiz

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: Ernest Besig

GENERAL COUNSEL: Wayne M. Collins

STAFF COUNSEL: Marshall W. Krause

ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT: Mrs. Pamela S. Ford

CHAPTER DIRECTOR: Mrs. Marcia D. Lang

Committee of Sponsors

John R. May

Prof. John Henry Merryman

Prof. Charles Muscatine

Rey. Robert J. O'Brien

Clarence E. Rust

John Brisbin Rutherford

Mrs. Alec Skolnick

Gregory S. Stout

Stephen Thiermann

Richard E. Tuttle

Donald Vial

Richard J. Werthimer

Roger Kent

Mrs. Ruth Kingman

Prof. Theodore Kreps

Prof. Carlo Lastrucci

Norman Lezin

Rey. Robert W: Moon

Dr. Marvin J. Naman

Prof Hubert Phillips

Prof. Wilson Record

Dr. Norman Reider

Prof. Wallace Steqner

Mrs. Theodosia Stewart

Rt. Rey. Sumner Walters

A Marred History of the

Civil Liberties Union

- Roger N. Baldwin, former national executive director

of the ACLU, has reviewed a book by Charles Lee Mark-

- Mann entitled "The Noblest Cry: A History of the American

Civil Liberties Union." The 480-page book was published by

St. Martin's Press and sells for $7.95. Mr. Baldwin's review

follows:

The ACLU has long needed a

popularly written history of its

45 years of defending the dem-

ocratic liberties embodied in the

Bill of Rights, and this is the

first to compress the voluminous

record. Others have covered only

limited periods or special issues.

Critical Dissent

Mr. Markmann gives us a re-.

markable job of research, com-

pilation, and interpretation. He

eame to it as a member of the

Union, and so strong an advocate'

of civil liberty that he calls it

"The Noblest Cry." But he bal-

ances his admiration for the

ACLU, often giving it exag-

gerated credit, with critical dis-

sent from many policies and

actions.

Every phase of the issues the

Union has tackled over so many

years is set forth in the back-

ground of its time, with facts

right up to date, but with more

emphasis on the older and more

dramatic controversies than on

the more recent and more com-

plicated problems of law and

policy. It is an arresting history

of action, cases, law, of minor-

ities, individuals, government

agencies, of politics, and of the

pressures on American liberties

of world conflict.

Not Official History

But the book is not to be taken |

as an official history in the sense

that the Union authorized it or

sponsors it. Mr. Markmann, as an

independent writer, conceived it

and sought and got the coopera-

tion of the ACLU's staff. He sub-

mitted his manuscript for cor-

rection and comment. He ac-

cepted most of the corrections of

disputed facts, but rejected much

of the comment on his interpreta-

tions and conclusions. Yet his

criticisms and dissents in most

instances are fair enough to find

supporting arguments. Factually,

the errors are minor, and fac-

ACLU NEWS

JULY, 1966

Paqe Z

tually it is good popular history

enlivened by an easy style.

Strange Philosophy

But for' many, if not most of

his readers, the book is marred

by the intrusion of a political

philosophy strange for an ad-

vocate of civil liberty and a his-

torian of the Union. Mr. Mark-

mann does not believe in de-

mocracy as the rule of the major-

ity, which he calls the mob, the

masses. He is against universal

suffrage. He would restrict it to

just the intelligent, but how they

would be selected he does not

Say.

He is for elites, good ones, of

course; and against bad ones. He

. decides which is which, He is for

the ACLU because it is a good

one. It is good because it pro-

tects minorities, individuals, dis-

senters from the stupid majority

and its subservient politicians.

But by implication he must

also be for the judicial protec-

tion of the majority mob-from

the abuses of political authority,

because he recognizes the Un-

ion's disinterested defense

`against any repression, of every-

body without distinction-major-

ity and minority alike.

Other Intrusions

`The intrusion of this incon-

sistent political theory, contra-

dictory to the Union's is accom-

panied by other intrusions of

personal scorn and prejudice-

against the Roman Catholic

church, the FBI and J.. Edgar

Hoover, Franklin Roosevelt and

ex- -Attorney General Kennedy.

He thinks much of censorship

is based on `"man's hate of

women," an inversion of the

usual notion. He is tender to-

ward homosexuals beyond any

concern of the ACLU with law.

He thinks poorly of the Warren

Commission's report on the

Oswald case.

Record Not Distorted

These irrelevancies do not dis-

tort the record; they introduce

Non-Pledging

Teacher Wins

Credential

Roger D. Owen, a Santa Clara

county school teacher, was

granted a Provisional General

Elementary Credential by the

State Board of Education on

June 10 even though he "did not

lead or participate in the Pledge

(of allegiance) and usually re-

mained silent in the rear of the

class while his pupils were recit-

ing it."

No Justice For Minorities

Owen also discussed with his

class the meaning of Pledge on

numerous occasions. He "told his

class that his objections to said

Pledge were based on (his) ob-

servation that liberty and justice

were not being accorded to all

minority groups in the United

States and in particular (he)

singled out the Negroes as illus-

trative of this fact." The board

concluded that Owens "state-

ments and actions may have

been used as a teaching tech-

nique to stimulate the pupils'

awareness of existing social in-

justices."

Unprofessional Conduct

The Credentials Commission

had argued that any teacher re-

fusing to recite the Pledge of Al-

`legiance is guilty of unprofes-

sional conduct.

The Board also declared that

Owen's "conduct, although ill ad-

vised and lacking in propriety,

resulted from the exercise of bad

judgment rather than a deliber-

ate intent to undermine the pa-

triotism of his pupils." Of course,

there was some conflicting testi-

mony as to what the teacher said.

Presently Unemployed

Owen is 29 years of age, mar-

ried, and has three children. He

was an eighth grade teacher at

the Fred Marten School in Santa

Clara County but is presently un-

employed.

Owen had representation by a

private attorney, Norman C.

Howard of San Jose.

what to many will seem alien,

and jarring, eccentricities which

are an author's privilege. But it

is unfortunate that so needed a

job, so well done, should be

marred by them. Readers who

discount them will find the his-

tory a rewarding experience,

Corliss Lamont has recently

written a review of Markmann's

book for the National Guardian

in which he declares that "The

useful information this volume

contains is so counterbalanced

by persuasive misinformation,

exaggerations and irrelevant at-

tacks upon democratic majority

rule that it cannot be relied on

as a refenrence book for either -

civil liberties or the American

Civil Liberties Union." ~

Mr. Lamont is particularly dis-

turbed over the failure of the

book to distinguish "between di-

rect counsel and activity amicus

curiae." He complains that this

results in "repeatedly assigning

to the ACLU sole credit for hard-

fought civil liberties victories in

the courts when it filed an ami-

- eus brief, which was usually not

until a case was appealed to the

U.S. Supreme Court." He believes

that the ACLU "should disown

this book."

It is true that the intervention

ofthe national ACLU in cases is

usually on an amicus curiae ba-

sis. In the last few years, it has

departed slightly from that. posi-

tion and has provided counsel for

the individual involved. On the

other hand, the practice of a num-

ber of the larger affiliates is di-

rectly opposite from that of the

national office. The California

branch, for example, usually pro-

vides counsel in cases and only

occasionally appears as amicus

curiae.-E.B.

Mental Patients

Seek Changes In Law To

Protect Civil Liberties

A proposal for changes in the California Welfare and Insti-

tutions Code titled "The Civil Liberties of Mental Patients"

was published recently by the Mid-Peninsula Chapter of

the ACLUNC. The proposed changes have been approved by

the branch board of directors.

The introduction to the report

declares that "The civil liberties

aspects of commitment and hos-

pitalization of mental patients

are frequently neglected in the

belief that those termed mentally

ill are not capable of making or

understanding decisions that af-

fect their lives and that it is to

their best interests to have

others make decisions for them."

The proposed changes are de-

signed `to insure (1) that civil

liberties are denied mental pa-

tients only when essential to the

protection of the patient or

others and (2) that procedures

which serve to restrict the civil

liberties of individuals involved

in commitment or hospitalization

for mental illness be conducted

with continuing attention to "due

process." Although the proposals

occur under separate headings

for purposes of clarity and em-

phasis, they are not a series of

independent suggestions for

change, but are closely inter-

twined.

"The report arises out of exten-

Sive study and observation indi-

cating that under present laws,

policies and procedures, undue

abridgment of the liberties and

rights of individuals involved in

commitment procedures and

those hospitalized as mentally ill

is possible and often occurs. Un-

derlying these proposals is the

strong belief that civil liberties

must not be abridged unless

there are overpowering reasons

to do so. The fact that an indi-

vidual has been classified by ex-

perts as `mentally ill' is not suf-

ficient basis for depriving him of

many basic liberties. The term

`mentaliy ill, applied to those

whose difficulties either bring

them into a mental hospital or to

court, does not necessarily imply

a complete or even major in-

ability to decide for oneself

_about matters important to one's

Eiie:

"Although the proposals are

expressly based on civil libertar-

ian rather than psychiatric con-

siderations, the preservation of

civil liberties of the individual

considered mentally ill is highly

consistent with the modern psy-

chiatric practice of encouraging

maximum self-determination and

responsibility for decision in the

individual."

The report points out that at

the present time "the law per-

mits commitment if the person

is only, in the eyes of the law,

in need of care, treatment, super-

vision, or restraint. He may not

even be in need of all of these in

order to be committed. He may

be only in need of care or super-

vision, as are some elderly peo-

ple who have nowhere to go and

no one to care for them." The re-

port would limit commitment to.

cases where "the person is in

such mental condition that he is

dangerous to himself or to the

person or property of others,

and is in need of supervision,

treatment, care or restraint."

Among other things, the report

proposes that "Every commit-

ment shall expire twelve months

after the date of the commitment

order," and "except pursuant to

court order, all patients shall

have the right and the means to

send and receive unopened cor-

respondence and shall have rea-

sonable access to a confidential

oS

- Copies of the report may be

procured either from the branch

office or from Mrs. Judith Bur-

gess, Secretary, Mid-Peninsula

Chapter ACLUNC, 3143 Stockton

St., Palo Alto, Calif, 94303.

Golden Gate Park Gift

Exchange Case Dismissed

A public announcement that people would gather together

in San Francisco's Golden Gate Park to exchange gifts is just

the sort of nefarious activity to attract the attention of the

San Francisco Police Department. And so when about 30 or

40 residents of the Haight-Ashbury District did get together

for such a purpose one evening

in Golden Gate Park it was not

Surprising that they were first

visited by a representative of the

Park Commission who, when in-

formed of the nature of the gath-

ering, said that it was okay and

left, a troop of San Francisco

firemen who, when they saw that

the glow created by the meeting

was the light of a few candles

Said that was okay and left, and

by a group of San Francisco

policemen who, when they found

that they could make no arrest

for narcotics or sex violations

broke up the gathering and ar-

rested a young lady whom they

believed was the `leader." -

The young lady was charged

with a violation of section 86

of the Park Code of the City and

County of San Francisco which

provides that a lodge or club

having 25 or more members de-

siring to use facilities of public

parks shall obtain a permit there-

for from the Park Commission

not less than one day prior to

such use. The ACLU was con-

tacted by the young lady and

staff counsel Marshall Krause

filed a demurrer in the Municipal

Court stating that the statute was

not applicable te the young lady

and in any event, its violation

was not made a crime. Before

these issues could come to a head

the District Attorney decidtd he

wanted no part of the case and

dismissed the complaint, How-

ever, the young lady still has an

arrest record and a group of 30.

or 40 people were prevented

from exchanging gifts in Golden

Gate Park,

A Matter of Principle

The American Civil Liberties Union follows the credo

that constitutional rights belong to all, without regard to in-

dividual belief or circumstance. Often in following through

on its purpose, the ACLU finds itself on the unpopular side.

Currently it is opposing restrictions proposed by the

phone company on the "Let Freedom Ring" recorded phone

messages, a project of the far right.

The ACLU frequently has been accused of being over-

mindful of the rights of the ultra-left. But in attacking what

it considers an infringement of free speech in the case of

Let Freedom Ring, the ACLU is seen again in the role of

defender of constitutional freedoms, without picking and

choosing among individuals or organizations -Editorial, San

Francisco Examiner, May 5, 1966.

The American Civil Liberties Union assailed the United

States Coast Guard last month for barring a merchant sea-

man from sailing on American civilian vessels because of his

former political beliefs and associations.

The civil liberties organization filed a brief in the US.

, Court of Appeals for the Second

_ Circuit urging a reversal of the

Federal District Court's order

denying the merchant marine's .

motion for a summary judgment

-and dismissing his complaint.

Former C, P. Member

Joseph Clinton McBride, a

Florida Negro who joined the

Communist Party in 1938 or 1939

because -he believed the Party

supported Negro rights, brought

the action when the Coast Guard

refused to validate his merchant

marine certificate several years

after he dissociated himself from

the Communist movement.

ACLU attorneys are handling

McBride's case.

The Union argued in its brief.

that the Coast Guard's actions in

denying McBride the means of

earning his living were arbitrary

and without due process of law,

and that the statutes, executive

orders and Coast Guard regula-

tions on which the Coast Guard

based its action violate civil lib-

erties protections of the US.

Constitution.

Long Investigation

McBride sailed on American

flag vessels from 1941 through

1948. He left the sea in 1951 and

worked in other trades for the

next several years, not applying

- foy authorization to return to

the merchant marine until 1959.

He was then subjected to a 17-

month investigation of his~ past

and present political beliefs and

-associations, which terminated

late in 1960. A November 23,

1960 letter from Coast Guard

Captain Edwards, chief of the

`Merchant Vessel Personnel Divi-

- sion, informed McBride that the

service's Commandant "is not

satisfied that your character and

`habits of life are such as to war-

rant the belief that your pres-

ence on board vessels of the

United States would not be inimi-

eal to the security of the United

States."

Twenty-five Reasons

. he letter listed twenty-five

reasons why McBride should be

considered a security risk, all

connected with his former as-

sociation with the Communist

Party. Among these reasons were

McBride's employment at Com-

munist Party headquarters in

New York in 1948, and his part-

`time employment at Party head-

quarters in 1951. The Coast

Guard also objected to McBride's

signing a friend-of-the-court brief

filed in the U.S. Supreme Court

urging reversal of an espionage

conviction against Morton Sobell.

Other arguments listed in the let-

ter included attendance at Com-

munist Party political functions,

frequenting Party headquarters,

and participating in the Party's

political campaigns.

Advancing Negro Rights

McBride exhausted all admin-

istrative remedies in his effort

to obtain a reversal of the un-

favorable ruling. At a hearing

before the Coast Guard officials

in 1962 and 1963, he testified that

he did not join the Communist

Party for the purpose of over-

throwing the U.S. Government by:

force or to commit espionage or

sabotage; that he. never believed

in or committed violence, sabo-

tage or espionage; that he joined

the Communist Party for the

purpose of advancing Negro

rights, and left it in or before

1957, when he became disillu-

sioned with the Party's role in

the equal rights struggle. No evi-

dence was produced in his pur-

ported hearing that in any way

contradicted McBride's _ testi-

mony. Yet, he was informed in

a letter dated October 14, 1963,

that the evidence brought forth

at his hearing supported the

Coast Guard's earlier denial of

McBride's request. The Appeal

Board of the Coast Guard heard

the case on February 6 and 7,

1964, In a letter on March 3, it

reaffirmed the earlier decision

against the would-be merchant

seaman.

Guiltless Membership

The ACLU brief argued that

"for the (Coast Guard's) decision

to meet the requirements of due

process there must be evidence

in the record which rationally

justifies the conclusion that (Mc-

Bride's) presence on board a

U.S. vessel would be inimical to

the security of the United

States," pointing out that "the

right to follow a chosen occupa-

tion is protected against govern-

mental interference by the due

process clause of the Fifth

Amendment." The brief noted

that the freedoms exercised by

McBride, including political af-

filiation, picketing, handing out

and selling literature, working at

rallies, and participating in pa-

rades, all fell within guarantees

of the First Amendment, and

that "these freedoms are pro-

tected not only against frontal

attack, but also from being sti-

fled by more subtle government-

al interference." The Union as-

serted that "a man cannot be de-

nied a validated document be-

cause there is a likelihood that

he will engage in constitutionally

protected activity." The civil lib-

erties group maintained that "af-

filiation with political organiza-

tions, including guiltless mem-

bership in the Communist Party,

is protected by the First Amend-

ment's guarantees of freedom of

expression, association and as-

sembly."

Bootstrap Operation

Arguing that "there is no evi-

dence ... to establish that Mc-

Bride knew of the illegal activi-

ties of the Party, much less had

the necessary commitment to

them," the ACLU brief observed

that his testimony "was that he

could not absorb Marxism or

Leninism, did not understand the

theory of Marxism ... , and

knew only that Marxism dealt

with `equality of man'.. ."

Charging that the Coast Guard's -

"pare :

treatment of McBride's

membership" in the Party "as

evidence that he was aware of

and committed to the illegal ac-

tivities of the Communist Party

is a bootstrap operation," the Un-

ion brief cited the testimony of

the government's chief witness,

who confirmed that "as a rank-

and-file Party member, M Bride

would not have been aware of

the Party's illegal activities, and

that efforts to commit espionage,

sabotage or other crimes were

`completely separate and apart

from the political structure of

the Party ..." The ACLU brief

argued: "it could hardly be sug-

gested that. because a member of

a Democratic or Republican club

was directed to and did engage

in organizing a rally, he would

be likely to engage in espionage

or sabotage at the direction of

his club . . . So far as McBride's

activities in the Party are con-

cerned, it was no different."

Attacking the basic regulation

-Continued on Page 4

Fasting Treasure

Island Marine

Rided By AGLU

The ACLU intervened last

month in behalf of Marine Re-

- serve Private Philip B, Hocking,

26, of San Francisco. The Ma-

rines turned dewn Hocking's re-

quest for an Administrative dis-

charge as a conscientious ob-

jector and then called him into

active duty for 12 days at Treas-

ure Island to make up for drill

periods he had missed. Hocking

with the knowledge of the Ma-

rine Corps went on a fast and ~

maintained his fast until his re-

lease. To counter the fast, the

. Marine Corps required Hocking

to take an hour of calisthenics in

the morning and again in the

afternoon. While this was going

on he was taunted by the ser-

geant.

Ernest Besig, ACLU executive

director, after visiting Hocking

put his commanding office on no-

tice that if anything happened to

Hocking he would be held re-

sponsible. Thereafter, Hocking

was. examined by a physician

each morning and the calisthen-

ics were suddenly interrupted

by rest periods.

Hocking served six months on

active duty before being trans-

ferred into reserve status. He

was ordered on active duty again

on June 17 but refused to re-

port. The Marine Corps has said

that he "will either be placed

on an involuntary duty status for

45 days or else be classified as

1A by his draft board and will

be eligible for immediate induc-

tion. Hocking has filed as a con-

scientious objector with his draft

fe which is located in Bakers-

ield.

Los Gatos and Saratoga

Performances in Public Parks

_ A suit was filed in the San Francisco Superior Court last

month to compel the Recreation and Park Commission to

allow the San Francisco Mime Troupe, Inc. and its direetor

Ronald G. Davis to present 19 works of "major dramatic

significance" in the city's parks this summer. The matter was

heard by Superior Court Judge

Joseph Karesh who continued the |

hearing to allow the Troupe to

file a new application for a per-

mit. Since previous applications

had been turned down because

the Commission regarded the

Troupe's plays as offensive, it

had been deemed futile by the

Troupe to file an application for

a permit for this summer's pro-

gram,

New Application Denied

The Commission on June 23

furned down the new application

"without prejudice,' however,

since it coincidentally retailored

its regulations to meet the needs

of the law suit.

The new regulations "relating

to the use of property ... for the

conducting of theatrical perform-

ances" appear to be just as arbi-

trary as the old ones. Theatrical

performances would be restricted

to only six parks and squares

and, of course, the less desirable

areas. No blanket permits will be

`issued, except for the same per-

formance presented on no more

Baccalaureate Services

Test Case Ruled Moot

The California District Court of Appeal in San Francisco

last month refused to rule on the legality of baccalaureate

services in the Los Gatos Joint Union High School District

"on the basis that the issue in respect to the June 1964 bac-

calaureate services was moot

possible baccalaureate services in

future years was speculative and

premature."

: Services In Schools

The suit was filed by Prof. The-

odore J, Balgooyen who had a

daughter in the senior class of

one of the district's high schools.

At issue was the policy of the

board, adopted May 25, 1964, "to

make the schools and campuses

available for use by the parent-

teachers associations, students,

and outside groups to hold bac-

calaureate services. At the same

meeting the Board granted per-

mission to the parent-teachers as-

sociations of the respective high

schools to use without payment

of rent the buildings and cam-

puses on Sunday, June 7, 1964,

for baccalaureate services for the

graduating classes. In accord-

ance with the Board's policy,

such permission was granted on

the conditions that all students

.be invited but not required to

attend, that the public be invited,

and that the services be com-

pletely nonsectarian....

"At its May 25th meeting, the

Board declared that its policy of

permitting such use of the school

premises was a firmly established

policy of the District and would

remain so for an indefinite pe-

riod....

New Order

"On June 4, 1964, following

commencement of the present ac-

tion, the Board at a duly con-

vened meeting ordered that the

baccalaureate services for the

1964 graduating class be held off

school property. On June 7, 1964,

the service for the senior class

at Los Gatos High School was

and the issue in respect to

held at the St. Mary's Catholic

Parish Hall, and the services for

the senior class at Saratoga High

School were held at the Odd Fel-

lows Home Picnic Grounds." It

was agreed that the holding of

these services was without preju-

dice to the parties to the suit.

Principal's Testimony

The principal of Saratoga High

Schoo] testified "that in 1963 the

duties of organizing the bacca-

laureate service were assumed by

the parent-teachers association;

that during 1963 the faculty mem-

bers assisted in the organization

of the services on a voluntary

basis after school hours; that

those faculty members who as-

sisted in 1964 also did so on a

voluntary basis; and that in 1963

at least one class meeting was

devoted in part to the up-coming

baccalaureate service. He further

testified that choir rehearsals of

the senior choir (organized and

existing as a group solely to per-

form at the baccalaureate serv-

ice) under the direction of Rich-

ard Moyer, Saratoga High's di-

rector of music, were held in 1963

during school hours; that in 1964

the senior choir once more start-

ed to rehearse the baccalaureate

service during school hours but

that these rehearsals were ter-

minated pursuant te the vice-

principal's advice to the choir

director."

Rehearing Denied

The District Court's decision

was handed down on May 26 and

thereafter it also turned down a

petition for a rehearing. Counsel

is now considering whether to

ask the State Supreme Court for

a hearing. Balgooyen is repre-

`sented by volunteer ACLU at-

torney Philip L. Hammer of San

Jose and ACLU staff counsel

Marshall W. Krause,

than three consecutive days. Con-

sequently, nine applications will

have to be filed by the Troupe.

Moreover, an applicant must pur-

chase liability insurance and hire

a "uniformed security guard who

shall be present prior to, during

and at the conclusion of any per-

formance . . ."

Repressive and Restricted

Mr. Davis called the new regu-

lations "repressive and restrict-

ed." He said he had expected the

Commission to use every possible

measure to harass the Troupe.

The new regulatiens wound up

before Judge Karesh at a hear-

ing on June 24. He declared that

requiring "a general description

of the performance" in order to

secure a permit is unconstitu-

tional. You just don't have the

right to ask for a summary of the

performance," the judge told

Deputy City Attorney Bernard

Ward. Since the hearing was not

concluded it was continued until

June 29.

The Park Commission previ-

ously revoked a permit to present

entertainment which had been

granted to the Troupe on June

_ 25, 1965. New applications were

made on August 4, 1965, and No-

vember 26, 1965. A letter ex-

plained that the last denial was

"on the basis of your having

failed to adhere to certain regu-

lations in connection with a pre-

vious Permit which was granted

to you by this Commission for

the use of park lands."

`Troupe's Contentions

The complaint alleged that the

Commission had violated the

Troupe's rights to freedem of

speech under the First. and Four-

teenth Amendments to the Unit-

ed States Constitution. It also

claimed that an ordinance allow-

ing the Commission to "exercise

its sound discretion" as to wheth-

er a permit "should be granted,

transferred, denied or revoked"

failed to set up any standards

for handling permits and, there-

fore, deprived the Troupe of'

equal protection of the laws.

Last August 7, Ronald G. Davis,

director of the Troupe, was ar-

rested in Lafayette Park for per-

forming a play without a permit

after the Troupe had sought un-

successfully to secure a permit.

He was subsequently convicted

and such conviction is now on ap-

peal.

Content of Speech

Marshall Krause, ACLU staff

counsel, had appeared before the

Commission and argued that it

was not its job to regulate the

content of speech activities in the

public parks, that instead their

duties were limited to deciding

the time, place, and manner of

public park activities. Krause in-

formed the Commission it should

leave any potential law violation

to the Police Dapartment. He also

pointed out to the Commission

that if it censored one activity it

might find itself urged to censor -

all other activities in the public

parks, including, for example, de-

termining whether a particular

painting in the De Young Mu-

seum was "offensive."

The present suit is being han-

died by volunteer ACLU attor-

neys Stephen Adams and Philip

Adams as well as ACLU staff

counsel Marshall W. Krause.

ACLU NEWS

JULY, 1966

Page 3

Unclean Hands

of

sel

The American Civil Liberties Union asked the United

States Supreme Court last month to review the appeal of a

convicted narcotics peddler who was compelled to stand trial

without counsel. The post-conviction appeal was denied by

the U.S. Court of appeals in San Francisco, because of the

defendant's approval of an al-

leged pre-trial bribery plan which

his family-retained lawyer had

purportedly arranged. The de-

fendant subsequently refused to.

help in the "pay-off" and dis-

charged the lawyer before going

to trial.

Unclean Hands

In a friend-of-the-court brief

filed with the high court, the Un-

jon and its Northern California

affiliate, the ACLU of Northern

California, argued the suspected

narcotics peddler's "unclean

hands" in the "pay-off" plans

could not be used to deny him

the Sixth Amendment right to

counsel, "the bedrock of all other

protections of the accused in the

criminal process" available to all

persons under the United States

Constitution.

Arrested in 1961

The case concerns Alfredo Del-

gado Arellanes who was arrested

on March 17, 1961 on narcotics

charges, According to Arellanes,

his family-retained lawyer inves-

tigated the case and reported

that his situation was bad and

that the prosecution had a strong

ease. The attorney warned that

Arellanes might get a sentence

of up to 80 years, four times the

sentence he was realistically like-

ly: to get, Suggesting that the

suspected narcotics peddler's

only chance to get off with a light

sentence would be to bribe the

narcotics agent in charge of the

investigation, the attorney al-

legedly solicited a $3,000 fee to

use for this purpose.

The "pay-off" negotiations

failed when Arellanes refused to

name his narcotics supplier, The

lawyer gained a 24-hour delay in

the trial date for resolving what

was described as a difference be-

tween the lawyer and client, but

Arellanes dismissed the attorney.

When he requested a further ex-

tension to seek a new attorney,

the trial court refused, compell-

ing him to go on trial unrepre-

sented by counsel,

Deceived the Court

While preparing to appeal his

conviction, Arellanes was

charged with a second narcotics

offense, on the basis of incrimi-

nating information from an ac-

complice, and was sentenced to

twenty years in jail, Arellanes'

allegations that the conviction

and sentence were illegal because

he had been denied counsel and

because the evidence against him

had been illegally obtained, were

investigated by the U.S. Court of

Appeals, for the Ninth Circuit,

which concluded: "At every step

of the way (Arellanes) attempted

to deceive the court. He approved

of a supposed effort to bribe the

prosecution ..." The Court of

Appeals decided that this was

"a case for the application of the

`clean hands' doctrine" which dis-

qualified Arellanes from appeal-

ing the judgment against him be-

cause of his `unclean hands'."

The ACLU brief attacked the

"unclean hands" theory for deny-

ing the right to counsel as "star-

tling in its application against

a criminal defendant, degrading

in its understanding of the role

of counsel in a criminal case, and

staggering in its implications for

destruction of the constitutional

rights of the criminal accused."

Pointing out the danger of the

"unclean hands" principle, the

Union brief argued that "how-

ACLU. NEWS

JULY, 1966

Page 4

ever intelligent and experienced,

Arellanes as a layman.could not

possibly have understood the

total alienation from his inter-

ests, the total hostility to his de-

fense, which his lawyer's extor-

tionate efforts involved."

Lack of Precedent

Emphasizing the lack of any

precedent in criminal cases for

the "unclean hands" concept, the

ACLU brief noted that it~ has

been used in "courts sitting in

equity" (resorting to general

principles of fairness where the

law is inadequate) to deny post-

conviction proceedings only when

there is evidence that a future

crime will be committed and

where "the constitutional claim

sought to be vindicated by the

process was insubstantial." In

Arellanes' case, argued the AC-

LU, judicial recognition of his

claim "would not assist him in

the perpetration of any present

or future crime. Nor would it in

the least insulate him from the

consequences of any past crime

he may have committed. The

brief asserted that "to deny Arel-

lanes his right to counsel, to the

indispensable condition of a fair

trial on narcotics charges against

him, merely as a means for.

punishing him for the past and

unrelated misdeeds of agreeing

to a `fix' or lying to the court,

cannot be justified by resort to

the maxim of `unclean hands'

even as that maxim is applied in

equity." The Union called such

a mode of punishment "brutish,

disproportionate and arbitrary."

Other Criminal Laws

The Union contended that

there are already "criminal laws

and procedures enough to protect

the processes of justice from

`fixers' and liars," adding: "If a

criminal defendant violates those

laws - the only ones which Con-

gress has thought it necessary to

enact to ward against the dangers

of `fixers' and liars - and if he

is found by those procedures with

their own incidental safeguards

to be guilty of the violation, he

is fully liable to punishment: for

perjury, for bribery, for con-

spiracy, for obstruction of jus-

tice." ee

Trivial Conception

The Civil Liberties Union brief

struck at the use of the "unclean

hands" principle as a "trivial con-

ception of the right to counsel

itself, and of the role and re-

sponsibility of the criminal trial

defense lawyers." The Union

brief stated that the function of

a lawyer for the accused is "not

merely to make their proof and

maneuver their cases through the

mazes of procedural rules, but

also to assist them fundamentally

in appreciation of the signifi-

cance of their position and in the

development of an appropriate

attitude in relation to it." The

brief argued that Arellanes' "re-

sponsibility for his own ugly con-

duct" in agreeing to the lawyer's

bribe plan. does not lessen the

Sixth Amendment's guarantees

to protect "the lay defendant at

least against the kind of treacher-

ous blandishments and pressur-

ings from his own lawyer to

which petitioner was subjected."

Warning of the `frightening im-

plications" in the use of the "un-

clean hands" maxim to deny the

appeal of an adverse criminal

judgment, the Union cited the

words of the late U.S. Supreme

Court Justice Felix Frankfurter:

"Tt is a fair summary of history .

Membership (c)

Now at

Record 6725

As the NEWS goes to press,

the paid-up membership of the

ACLU of Northern California

stands at a record high of 6725

as compared with 6631 on June

30 a year ago. In addition, there

are 191 separate subscribers to

the NEWS compared with 189 a

year ago and a paid up mailing

list of 6914.

The membership gain thus far

this year is not as spectacular as

during the past couple of years.

In 1964 there was an increase of

549 members and 639 last year.

By the end of the fiscal year on

October 31, the membership

should have increased 250 to a

record total of 6900, plus about

two hundred subscribers to the

NEWS.

- A report on the highly success-

ful spring membership campaign

will be carried in the August is-

sue of the NEWS.

Rosenfield Case

To Be Heard By

State Sup. Court

Last month, the State Supreme

Court agreed to hear the case of

Gerald Rosenfield vs. James Mal-

colm without first having the

matter considered by the State

District Court of Appeal. The

Rosenfield case involves a doc-

tor who was fired by the Ala-

meda County Health Director

solely because he refused to re-

sign his membership in the Ad

Hoc Committee to End Discrimi-

nation.

In a letter to the high court,

the ACLU had urged the court to

hear the Rosenfield case be-

cause it raised questions similar

to those in Bagley vs. Washington

Township Hospital District,

which it had already agreed to

hear. In the Bagley case the Dis-

trict Court had decided that in

the absence of a protecting stat-

ute Miss Bagley could be fired

from her government employ-

ment for any reason whatsoever

"even if such cause was as al-

leged an unreasonable infringe-

ment of the employee's constitu-

tional rights."

The Rosenfield case is being

handled by the ACLU and has

been fully briefed with the as-

sistance of volunteer attorney

James R. McCall. The ACLU is

appearing in the Bagley case as

a friend of the court. Miss Bag-

- ley is represented by attorney

Victor Van Bourg.

to say that the safeguards of

liberty have frequently been

forged in controversies involving

not very nice people."

No Representation

' Arguing that the constitutional

right to counsel calls for the serv-

ices of an attorney devoted

solely to the interests of his

client, the Union brief contended

that Arellanes had "no repre-

sentation at all." The brief

stated: "Counsel's scheme to de-

fraud Arellanes' family depended

critically upon his ability to nego-

tiate a plea bargain; only if he

did so could he make it appear

that the `fix' had come off, and

thus succeed in pocketing the

`fix' money. His interests thus

were antagonistic to petitioner's

so far as any trial defense might

be concerned; it was worth $3,000

to him to fail to perceive any

defense which would justify try-

ing the case."

The Union brief was prepared

by Anthony G, Amsterdam, AC-

LU cooperating attorney, Melvin

L. Wulf, ACLU legal director,

and Marshall Krause, counsel of

the ACLU of Northern Califor-

nia, _ ae

Challenge Denial

Of Validated

Document

Continued from Page 3-

used by the Coast Guard against

McBride, that employment docu-

ments for merchant seamen shall

not be issued to individuals

whose presence on board would

be "inimical" to U.S. security,

the Union brief charged that the

term "inimical" is "unconstitu-

tionally vague." The brief stated:

"The vice of a vague statute lies

in its failure to create a stand-

ard sufficiently definite to give

adequate guidance both to those

charged with administering it

and to those who seek to comply

with it. A statute that contains

no definite standards, but de-

pends on shifting interpretations, .

moods and attitudes, is antagon-

istic to the axiomatic theme of

our jurisprudence that law must

be unvarying in its application.

The vice of unconstitutional

vagueness is further aggravated

where, as here, the statute and

regulations touch upon the exer-

cise of those freedoms protected

_ by the First Amendment."

No Express Statutory Authority

In further - argument, the

ACLU. charged that the Coast

Guard's screening program for

merchant seamen and waterfront

workers lacked "express statu-

tory authority." The brief con-

tended that "only the clearest

Congressional authorization

could support a program which

brands individuals with that

most odious designation, `secu-

ity risk,' on the basis of their be-

liefs and associations."

Concluding its brief, the Civil

Liberties Union pointed out that

the Coast Guard screening pro-

gram departed from "traditional.

forms of administrative and judi:

cial procedure" in three funda-

mental respects: "First, there is

no appeal from a decision of an

examiner or hearing board to the

Commandant or from the Com- -

mandant to some higher author-

ity. To the contrary, although the

regulations call for four separate

decisions of the same issue, all

four decisions are to be made by

the same person: the Comman-

dant .. . Secondly, although the

Commandant's decision at each

stage of the proceedings is made

with the benefit of recommenda-

tions and analysis of the evi-

dence, as the regulations are ad-

ministered the applicant has no

opportunity to know what these

recommendations are... Finally,

although the regulations call for

repeated decisions by the Com-

mandant and despite the fact

that he is the only person who

is empowered to decide whether

to grant the application, the reg-

ulations afford no opportunity

to submit arguments written or'

oral, directly to the Commandant

... It simply cannot be assumed

that Congress intended to author-

ize a screening program employ-

ing procedures so futile and Kaf-

kaesque as these."

The Union brief was prepared

by ACLU legal director Melvin

L. Wulf and ACLU cooperating

attorney Benjamin S, Duval, Jr.

Seek High Court

Hearing in

ed Check Case

Continued from Page 1- ~

the county's total case load of

about 6,000 recipient families,

Precise Instructions

"At a subsequent meeting on

Thursday, January 10, workers

chosen to go that weekend were

given precise instructions for the

procedure to be followed by the

re

lex

we)

supervisor of the department's

fraud unit, This particular mass

operation to determine eligibility

was to be conducted by pairs of

social workers; the worker known

to the recipient would present

and identify himself at the front

door of the home of the recipient,

indicate the exact purpose of the

call and request admission. If the

request for entry was denied, the

workers were directed not to en-

ter the home. If the entry was

allowed, they were directed to

investigate in the.same manner

as they had. on other occasions

for the ANC program.

Back Door Guarded

"If the worker was admitted

into the home, before proceeding -

into any other part of the house

he was to ask permission to do so

from the recipient. The second

worker was to be stationed at the

back door or other exit; if the

worker at the front door was ad-

mitted, he was then to go through

the house and let his partner ih

by the other exit. As in the past

the department had withheld ben-

efits from recipients who re-

fused entry to members of the

fraud unit, it was asked whether

a refusal of entry on January 13

would automatically be a ground

for discontinuance, The workers

were instructed that if admission

was not granted, benefits would

not automatically be discontinued

but the reason for denying ad-

mission would subsequently be

investigated. ... i

"The primary purpose of the

mass operation of January 13,

1963, was to identify and find the

unauthorized males, The second-

ary purpose was to make the

usual kind of administrative in-

vestigation relating to eligibility

and to find out how much food

there was in the house, the condi-

tion of the home and children;

how the recipients were faring

with their monthly checks, ete.

As to food and money, the work-

ers were instructed to ask the

recipient how much was left of

the grant. Any unauthorized per-

sons found in the home were to

be identified and asked to explain

their presence. If given permis-

sion to search, the workers were

instructed to thoroughly search

the premises, including looking

in and under the beds."

The court concluded that Par-

rish was not required to partici-

pate in any unconstitutional ac-

tivity and the order was made in

the exercise of the county's duty

to determine the continuing eligi-

bility of recipients. "As all work-

ers in the Family Service Depart-

ment were asked to participate

in an operation of this kind on.a

weekend, the request was not un-

reasonable as to appellant."

The first right of a citizen

Is the right -

To be responsible ~

JOIN TODAY

oiarizs 151

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION |

(OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA =

Patron Membership ....c.+0cess-e eaves cevess ++ $100.

Sustaining Membership

Business and Professional Membership ....0.scceee00

eee e oer ec oe ese ee eee 80 8H HOOD

50

Zo,

Pamily Membership'... .... 36-5 e0 oe 7 IA

Associace Membership =... 53.5.5 secs ee |

AnnualgMembershipe: 2.25 ca es oe oe os ce

0

=

StudentsMembership. =. ..2.: A. o is oe ee 2

ACLU News Subscription 2. .25.2.2 35. ss eo. 2.00

NAME.

CHP SSHHSHHSHHHHHHHCSHHSSHHHSHHHSHSEHHSHTH HHO HBSTHHOCHRHOHHO OH SEES

ADDRESS. 2.0 ..cccessccccccccrcsccccesscscssrcessreveseveces

TELEPHONE NUMBER. ..

and

and

codcgucocooos cans IENICHONED Soe Gaodon

503 Market Street

San Francisco, 94105