vol. 32, no. 7

American

Civil Liberties

Union

Volume XXXIl

Conscientious Objector

SAN FRANCISCO, JULY, 1967

Christensen

fins Discharge

From U.S. Navy

The May issue of the ACLU News described the case of

Seaman Richard Christensen, who became a conscientious

objector to military service after he enlisted in the United

`States Navy. Even though Christensen had become a Quaker

and thus a traditional pacifist, the Navy adamantly denied

his request for an administrative

discharge as a conscientious ob-

jector, saying that he would not

have qualified for this status

had he been a civilian, according

to advice the Navy received from

the Director of Selective Service.

Habeas Corpus Petition |

The ACLU then filed a peti-

tion for habeas corpus in the Fed-

eral District Court for the North-

ern District of California, and

Judge Stanley A. Weigel heard

testimony on the issue on April

20 and May 11. After the con-

clusion of the testimony on May

11, Judge Weigel commented

that he was convinced that there

was no basis in fact for stating

that Seaman Christensen was not

a bona fide conscientious objec-

tor who became so after he

enlisted in the Navy, and thus

he was in all respects qualified

for an administrative discharge

under Navy regulations.

Government's Contentions

The United States Attorney

had taken the position that the

jurisdiction of the federal court

in a case such as this extended

only to the question of whether

the Navy had properly followed

its own regulations and that the

federal court could not go into

the merits of whether Christensen

was or was not a conscientious

objector. Judge Weigel refused

to accept this position and stated

that he could not agree that an

administrative decision unsup-

ported by any facts could be in

accord with due process of law

and could be beyond reach of

the federal courts on habeas

corpus.

Judicial Prodding

Before making his final deci-

sion on the matter, Judge Weigel

stated from the bench that he

would wait 30 days to see if

there were any "further develop-

ments" from the Navy. About

two weeks later, Christensen was

informed that he was receiving

an administrative discharge un-

der honorable conditions from

the United States Navy, effec-

tive May 31, 1967.

Although the administrative

discharge solves the particular

problem of Richard Christensen

-and he was most delighted to

receive it-it does not solve the

general problem that since Octo-

ber of 1965, the armed forces

have refused to grant any dis-

charges to conscientious objec-

tors regardless of the merits of

the applicants' sincere religious

objection to military force.

Ali Applications Denied

In a recent public statement,

the national office of the ACLU

and the Central Committee

for Conscientious Objectors an-

nounced that in the past 18

months, 750 applications for con-

scientious objection discharges

have come to the attention of the

CCCO and not one has been

granted. In contrast, in 1964 over

80% of such applications were

granted.

It is clear that there has been

-.am administrative decision to

stop these discharges, for rea-

.. sens which are. unknown but

Richard Christensen

might be guessed at, and that

only when the Department of

Defense has its back to the wall

(as in the Christensen ease) will

a discharge be granted, and then

it will be for "the convenience

of the Navy" and not as a con-

scientious objector.

Another No. Cal. Case

Experience in the office of the

-Continued on Page 4

Nuisance Case

Dismissed

The suit by Peter Berg, et. al.,

fo enjoin the enforcement of

California's "Public Nuisance"

law on the grounds that it in-

fringes unconstitutionally on the

rights of free expression and lo-

comotion has been dismissed by

Federal Judge Alfonso J. Zirpoli.

Judge Zirpoli held that by es-

tablishing no more than one ar-

rest under the law by each

plaintiff the plaintiff's had not

shown the sort of "irreparable

injury" that would justify Fed-

eral intervention. Judge Zirpoli

stated that his decision was not

addressed to the merits of the

claim that the nuisance law was

unconstitutional, but that it was

a matter that, under the circum-

stances, should be resolved in

state courts.

ACLUNC undertook the prose-

cution of the federal case on be-

half of Berg and others after

numerous arrests had been made

in the Haight-Ashbury and Ten-

derloin of persons who were do-

ing nothing more offensive to the

peace than standing on the

street. After the suit was filed

these arrests ceased and in the

few public nuisance cases to

come to the ACLUNC's attention

since the filing, the charge of

public nuisance has always been

coupled with another charge, us-

ually "failure to disperse."

ACLUNC will continue to con-

test the validity of the public

nuisance law in the California

Courts. The attorneys for Berg

and the other plaintiffs in the

Federal case were Paul Halvonik

and volunteer attorney Richard

Weinstein. oes

`Number 7

LOVE BOOK

TRIAL

A complete report on the-

trial of three booksellers who

sold Lenore Kandel's "The

Love Book" will appear in

next month's NEWS. Motions

to set aside the jury's verdict

of "guilty" have been denied

in the trial court, and this is-

sue of the NEWS is already

too full with stories of other

cases to allow a full report on

the testimony in the trial of

"The Love Book."

No Court-Martial

For Airman

Charles Hintlian

Airman Charles Hintlian will

not be court-martialed for alleg-

edly attempting +o undermine

the morale of others by making

remarks disloyal to the United

States.

Hintlian, while stationed at

Cam Rahn Bay in South Viet

Nam, expressed the view to some

of his fellow airmen that the

United States presence in Viet

Nam was unfortunate and that in

his opinion a Viet Cong victory

would be to the advantage of

South Viet Nam.

Sergeant Complains

_ One of the persons to whom he

spoke, Sgt. Stephen McCleary,

charged Hintlian with intention-

ally attempting to undermine his

(McCleary's) morale by such re-

marks. Hintlian was returned to

McClellan Air Force base to

stand trial on the charge and

McCleary and anGither enlisted

man were brought from Viet

Nam to testify as government

witnesses.

A hearing under Article 32 of

the Code of Military Justice was

held to determine whether or

not there was sufficient evidence

to court-martial Hintlian. At the

hearing Hintlian's attorney, as-

sistant staff counsel Paul Halvo-

nik, maintained that the evidence

showed that discontent and grip-

ing were common in Viet Nam;

that the government witnesses

admitted to engaging in such

griping; that Hintlian's remarks

were different from others only

because they had a political con- ;

tent and that there was no evi- :

dence that Hintlian intended to and

undermine anyone's morale.

Honorable Discharge

The investigating officer, Lt.

Col. Koehler recommended that

Hintlian not be court-martialed

and that he instead be dis-

charged as unsuitable for service.

Subsequently Hintlian was rec-

ommended for an honorable dis-

charge. He is presently making

an application for discharge.

Captain Lawrence Kessler, an

Air Force attorney, assisted Hal-

vonik in Hintlian's defense.

Yandell New

Berkeley-Albany

Chap. Chairman

Meeting in the recently opened

chapter office last month, mem-

bers of the new Board of Direc-

tors of the Berkeley - Albany

Chapter of ACLUNC elected the

-following officers: Chairman, Dr.

James Yandell; Vice-Chairman,

Mrs. Ruth Lyon; Treasurer, Ron-

ald Tauber; Secretary, Eileen

Keech.

The four officers, plus Wil-

liam Riess and Eugene Rosen- .

- berg. will constitute the execu-

. tive committee. se

U.S. Supreme Court

Secures Privacy

Roland Camara has won his battle to preserve the privacy

of his San Francisco apartment against invasion of health

inspectors without warrant and without probable cause that

there was any need for an inspection. Camara's victory came

in a six to three decision of the U.S. Supreme Court handed

`down on June 5, 1967. The right

of privacy he asserted for himself

has now been extended to every

residence and private premises

in the country by the Supreme

Court decision in his case, which

was handled from the outset by

attorneys for the American Civil

Liberties Union of Northern

California.

Two Cases Argued

Camara was charged with a

_erime for refusal to allow health

inspectors into his apartment on

three separate occasions. At-

tempts to obtain a writ prohibit-

ing his trial on the grounds that

the invasion was unconstitutional

failed in all California Courts.

The case was argued before the

U.S. Supreme Court in February

along with a companion case,

handled by the ACLU in Seattle,

called See v. City of Seattle

which was also decided in favor

of the ACLU position. The See

case involved the owner of a

warehouse which was not open

to the public but which the fire

department sought to inspect,

again without warrant or prob-

able cause. The Camara case

was argued by Staff Counsel

Marshall Krause. and volunteer

attorney Donald Cahen had pri-

mary responsibility for the prepa-

ration of the briefs.

Old Decision Upset

In order to rule in Camara's

favor the Supreme Court had to

overrule its ten-vear-ald decision

in Frank v. Maryland where, by

a vote of five to four, the holding

Marshall W. Krause,

ACLUNC Staff Counsel

was that since health inspectors

were not seeking to obtain evi-

dence for criminal convictions

they did not have to obtain

search warrants to force entry

into private premises. Justice

White, who wrote the majority

opinion in the Camara case,

characterized the Frank result

as based upon a "rather remark-

able premise" that inspections

by health inspectors are not the

type of invasions of privacy

which are secured against "un-

reasonable searches" by the

Fourth Amendment. a

Court's Opinion

The White opinion stated that

the basic purpose of the Fourth

Amendment "is to safeguard the

privacy and security of individ-

uals against arbitrary invasions

by Governmental officials. The

Fourth Amendment thus gives

concrete expression to the right

of people which is basic to a

free society." The opinion con-

tinued: "It is surely anomalous

to say that the individual and

his private property are fully

protected by the Fourth Amend-

ment only when the individual

is suspected of criminal behav-

jour. ... We hold that adminis-

trative searches of the kind at -

issue here are significant intru-

sions upon the interests pro-

tected by the Fourth Amend-

ment, that such searches when

authorized and conducted with:

out-a warrant procedure lack the

traditional safeguards which the

Fourth Amendment guarantees

to the individual, and that the

reasons put forth in Frank v."

Maryland and in other cases for

upholding these warrantless

searches are insufficient to justi-

fy so substantial a weakening

of the Fourth Amendment's pr

tections." a

Court's Holding

Thus the new rule throughout

the United States is that, absent

emergency conditions such as a

fire or an immediate health haz-

ard, private premises may not

be inspected against the will of

the occupant and a written war-

rant issued by a Judge indicating

the scope of the search and the

reasons why it is necessary must

be obtained even by health in-

spectors. In another portion of

its decision, the Court indicated

that such a warrant should not

be issued until a voluntary in-

-Continued on Page 4

for square dancers.

glove.

the picnic.

es Ss s

Picnic Time - July 4

The Berkeley-Albany Chapter invites all ACLU

members and friends to attend the 3rd Annual BIG

Picnic on Tuesday, July Fourth, from 11-5 p.m. at

Padre Campground, Tilden Park.

More music and more entertainment, ranging from

the Good Time Washboard Three and The Purple

Earthquake to a troupe of Indian Tribal Dancers, is

scheduled for this Independence Day event, already a

Bay Area tradition. A country music band will play

Picknickers should bring their own lunch. However,

firewood, coffee and ice cream will be provided. A base-

ball game for non-athletes is open to all; bring your

This year's donation has been lowered to $1.00 for

adults, 50c for children. Tickets may be obtained at

To reach Padre Campground, enter Tilden Park at

the Shasta Gate (Grizzly Peak Blvd. at Shasta Rd. in

Berkeley) and follow the signs to the Train Ride, then

right, to Padre. During picnic hours shuttle cars will

meet the Number 7 bus at Shasta Gate.

Legislative Advocate's Report

The Lynch-Finch-Reagan obscenity package (Senate Bills

78 and 79, authored by Senator Lagomarsino, R-Ventura)

have been put to rest by the oa Committee on Crim-

jnal Procedure.

S.B. 78, which would have drastically changed Califor-

nia's obscenity law, was given

an extensive hearing. The At-

torney General once again main-

tained that the bill was primarily

designed to incorporate the

United States Supreme Court's

Mishkin and Ginzburg decisions

into California law. ACLUNC

had insisted that the bill was

much broader, Committee Chair-

man Craig Biddle (R-Riverside)

agreed with that conclusion and

informed the Attorney General's

staff that he would support 8.B.

78 only if it were amended to do

no more than incorporate the

precise language of the Mishkin

and Ginzburg opinions. The au-

thor readily assented to this pro-

posal since he could not possibly

have gotten the bill out of com-

mittee without Biddle's support.

Amended Bill Opposed

ACLUNC continued its opposi-

tion to the bill in its amended

form, contending: 1) that the

Mishkin and Ginzburg rules were

unwise and unworkable; 2) that

the language of the cases that

Chairman Biddle proposed to

adopt was dictum and should not

_be given statutory status until

the courts had an opportunity to

apply the theories to specific

cases; and 3) that the recent U.S.

Supreme Court decision in the

Redrup case suggested that the

Court itself was re-evaluating the

tests advanced in Mishkin and

Ginzburg.

Other Opponents

Also opposed to the bill were

`the Intellectual Freedom Com-

mittee of the California Library

_Association, the Booksellers of

Northern California and many

individuals who testified before

the committee.

The vote split along party

lines. The five Republicans voted

in favor of S.B. 78;. the five

Democrats against it. Since six

votes were needed for passage

the bill remained in committee.

The handwriting was on the

wall and S.B. 79, the Attorney

General's attempt to fashion a

new category of obscenity where

minors are concerned, was -de-

feated by the same vote.

If anyone harbored hopes for

a resurrection of these measures

they were dispelled when a mo-

tion to reconsider S.B. 78 and 79

in an executive session "where

a compromise might be reached"

was defeated.

Knox Bill Languishes

That left only one obscenity

bill with even the semblance of

life, A.B. 1664 (Knox). Knox,

who has been a consistent foe of

eensorship; announced that it

was the purpose of his bill to

stop the alleged flow of "smut"

to children while leaving adults

free to read what they please.

A.B. 1664 would make it a mis-

demeanor to "pander" to the

prurient interest of a child, that

js: to distribute to a person un-

der 17 years of age sexually

arousing material of `insubstan-

tial redeeming social impor-

tance" with the "specific intent

to appeal to the shameful or

morbid interest of a child in nud-

Hy, sex or excretion."

Knox's desire to forestall cen-

ACLU NEWS

JULY,

Page 2

1967

sorship of adult reading material

is sincere and laudable. His bill,

however, is open to constitution-

al attack because of its vague cri-

teria. In any case, its chances of

passage are slim, Some Republi-

can members of the Criminal

Procedure Committee have indi-

cated they will vote against. A.B.

1664 because it is "weak" and be-

cause the Democrats, including

Knox, defeated the administra-

tion's obscenity program. And so

far Knox has only been able to

secure one other Democratic

member of the Criminal Pro-

cedure Committee as co-author.

Juvenile Rights

Until the May 16 decision of

the United States Supreme

Court in the Galt case (see the

June edition of the News) pro-

tection of the rights of juveniles

had received only superficial

consideration by the Legislature.

In fact most legislation had a

contrary intent. For example, a

bill (S.B. 207, Lagomarsino) was

approved in the Senate and

killed in the Assembly Criminal

Procedure Committee that would

have permitted minors to be re-

moved to other states to stand

trial without the benefit of ex-

tradition proceedings. The Galt

decision has worked a remark-

able change. Within two weeks

of its rendition Assemblyman

Craig Biddle (R - Riverside)

amended his A.B. 1095, which

originally made only minor

changes in the juvenile law, to

provide that detained juveniles

are to be advised of their right

to counsel, their right to remain

silent, that anything they say

may be used against them and

that if they are unable to afford

counsel the state will provide

counsel. Additionally A.B. 1095

provides for various notice pro-

cedures for both parent and

child when any hearings are to

be held and provides for ap-

pointed counsel at such hearings

whether the juvenile is indigent

or not. The bill was favorably re-

ported out of the Assembly

Criminal Procedure Committee

with a unanimous vote and with

_all of the members present be-

ing named as co-authors.

Vehicle Law Repealed

S.B. 429 (Miller) has been

signed into law by Governor

Reagan. An emergency measure,

it received a two-thirds vote in

both houses and went into im-

mediate effect. S.B. 429 repealed

California's narcotics vehicle for-

feiture law. Under that law a

registered owner of a vehicle lost

his title when narcotics were dis-

covered in the vehicle and the

person who had control of the

vehicle knew of the presence of

the narcotics. The knowledge

was usually inferred; an infer-

ence not easily overcome. More-

over, the knowledge which re-

sulted in the loss of the car was

not that of the owner, but that

of the person who had control.

In a typical case a parent would

loan his car to his child. With-

out the parent's knowledge the

child had marijuana in his pos-

session. When the police discov-

ered this possession the parent

lest the car even though he did

not know the child had mari-

juana. It has been ACLUNC's

position that the vehicle forfeit-

ure law was an unconstitutional

deprivation of property without

due process of law. S.B. 429 was

New Attacks

On Punishment

Of Alcoholics

Numerous attacks are being

mounted against the practice of

punishing chronic alcoholics as

criminals when their only

"crime" is appearing in public

with symptoms of their disease.

The ACLU of Northern Califor-

nia took this issue to the U.S.

Supreme Court last year in the

case of Budd vs, California, but

Budd's certiorari petition was

denied, with Justices Fortas and

Douglas writing a strong dissent-

ing opinion.

In San Diego County, a Super-

ior Court judge has recently

ruled that it is cruel and unusual

punishment in violation of the

Eighth Amendment to the

United States Constitution to

punish a chronic alcoholic as a

"drunk" under California Penal

Code Section 647(f). The San

Diego ruling was made by Judge

George Lazar. and came in the

case of William Spinks, who was

conceded to be a chronic alco-

holic. The ruling caused Spinks'

release on habeas corpus but

Spinks was committed as an al-

coholic in a subsequent proceed-

ing under the California law re-

lating to civil commitments of

-ehronic alcoholics.

The San Diego City Attorney

has appealed the ruling to the

Court of Appeal, and the deci-

sion of that court may well de-

cide the issue in California.

Meanwhile, a bill prohibiting the

criminal punishment of chronic

alcoholics has been introduced

in the State Senate by Senator

Moscone and stands a good

chance of passage if the courts

do not first eliminate the prob-

lem.

supported by the Little Hoover

Commission and Governor Rea-

gan as an economy measure. The

state was losing a fortune in

storage and administrative costs

under the vehicle forfeiture law.

Equal Rights

California's Constitution re-

quires that one be literate in the

English language before he can

vote. A.C.A. 57 (Roberti), spon-

sored by the Mexican American

`Political Association and sup-

ported by ACLUNC, would make

literacy in the Spanish language

equivalent to literacy in the Eng-

lish language for purposes of

voting. The Assembly Committee

on Elections and Reapportion-

ment voted in favor of A.C.A.

57 with but one dissenting vote.

It has been referred to the As-

sembly Committee on Constitu-

tional Amendments where pass-

age is likely.

A.B. 816, authored by Assem-

blyman John Miller (D-Berke-

ley) would remove tax exemp-

tion from private clubs that dis-

criminate on racial and religious

grounds. It has passed the As-

sembly and was originally as-

signed to the Senate Committee

on Revenue and Taxation where

it had some chance of success.

It has since been re-assigned to

the Senate Committee on Gov-

ernmental Efficiency, the grave-

yard for civil rights legislation,

and hopes of eliminating this

form of state subsidized discrim-

ination are remote in this ses-

sion.

Bills Signed by Governor

Governor Reagan has signed

two bills supported by ACLUNC.

One, S.B. 312 (Danielson) pro-

vides that a judge may acquit a

defendant in a criminal `case,

even if there is a jury, if the

prosecution's evidence is not suf-

ficient to support a verdict of

guilty. At present a judge can

only advise the jury to acquit;

advice the jury is not bound to

follow. The other is a- measure

`authored by Assemblyman Zen-

ovich. (D-Fresno) that removes

the one-year limitation on serv-

ice by alien librarians.-Paul N.

Halvonik

Contempt of Court

Writ Issued

To Test Gag

The order of Berkeley Municipal Court Judge George

Brunn forbidding defendants and counsel in a Berkelex sit-

in trial from commenting on the issues of their crinfizal

trial will be subjected to judicial test in the Alameda County

Superior Court. The test comes as the result of the filing of

a petition for a writ of prohibi-

tion by ACLU Staff Counsel

`Marshall W. Krause on behalf

of Stephen Hamilton, Michael

Smith, Stuart Albert and Jerry

Rubin who were facing trial for

contempt of court on the alle-

gation that they violated Judge

Brunn's order. The petition

states that the order is void as

an abridgment of free speech and

press and that therefore a trial

of the contempt case would be

beyond the jurisdiction of the

Municipal Court.

Show Cause Order Issued

On the reading of the petition

and the memorandum of authori-

ties Superior Court Judge Leon-

ard Dieden signed an order

granting an alternative writ and

and requiring the Municipal

Court to show cause why the

trial of the criminal action

should not be permanently pro-

hibited on the grounds stated in

the petition. Judge Dieden also

ordered that while the matter is

pending before him the Muni-

cipal Court may not bring the

defendants to trial for contempt

of court. The hearing on the

question of whether the prohi-

bition should be made permanent

is tentatively scheduled before

Judge Dieden for 2 p.m. on July

6, 1967.

The Facts

The background of the case

is as follows: The four men who

are petitioners in the prohibi-

tion case were defendants in a

criminal action pending in Mu-

nicipal Court arising out of a

sit-in demonstration in 1966 in

the Student Union Building on

the Berkeley Campus. On De-

cember 16th, 1966, Judge Brunn

issued an order providing in part

as follows:

"The parties shall not, direct-

ly or indirectly, release to any

news media information or opin-

ion concerning the trial. or any

issue likely to be involved there-

in, other than the day and place

of trial, the names of the par-

ties and counsel, the contents of

the complaint, and the plea of

the defendants. Specifically, and

Without limitation, there shall be

no public statements or releases

concerning the merits of the

complaint, the evidence or argu-

ments to be adduced by either

side, or trial tactics or strategy.

On January 13th, 1967, there

was filed in the Municipal Court

a complaint stating that the four

men had violated Judge Brunn's

order by public statements made

that day and thus had committed

contempt of court. It is the trial

of this contempt matter which

has now been prohibited by the

order of Judge Dieden.

Earlier, ACLU attorneys had

attempted to get the case thrown

out in the Municipal Court by

demurrer, but the demurrer was

overruled by visiting Judge Rich-

ard J. Swan.

ACLU Contentions

The ACLU position is that

broad and vague orders prohibit-

ing pre-trial publicity cannot be

reconciled with First Amend-

ment guarantees. Under Judge

Brunn's order, if the: defendants

or their counsel (under another

portion of the Brunn order coun-

sel, law enforcement agencies,

the Regents of the University of

California and their employees

are restricted in an identical

"manner to the restriction on par- -

ties) were to comment that the

criminal case involved important

constitutional issues, or that the

police used harsh tactics in mak-

ing arrests, or that the arrests

were politically motivated, or.

that the facts printed in the

newspapers were not true and

that when the true facts are re-

vealed the defendants will be

-Continued on Page 3

Ralph B. Atkinson

Dr. Alfred Azevedo

Mrs. Judith Balderston

Albert M. Bendich

Leo Borregard :

Adbert Culhane

_ Mrs. Natalie Dukes

Prof. John Edwards

Howard A, Friedman

Rebert Greensfelder

Rev. Aron S. Gilmartin

Evelio Grillo

Mrs. Zora Cheever Gross

Francis Heisler

Neil F. Horton

Howard H. Jewel

Honorary Treasurer:

Joseph S. Thompson

Honorary Board Member:

Sara Bard Field

Mss. Gladys Brown

Mrs. Paul Couture

Mrs. Margaret (c). Hayes

Prof. Carlo Lastrucci

John J. Eagan

Joseph Eichler

Dr. H. H. Fisher

Prof. Ernest Hilgard

Board of Directors of the American Civil Liberties Union

of Northern California

CHAIRMAN: Prof. Van D. Kennedy

VICE-CHAIRMEN: Rabbi Alvin 1. Fine

Helen Saiz

SEC'Y-TREAS.: John R. May

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: Ernest Besig

GENERAL COUNSEL: Wayne M. Collins

STAFF COUNSEL: Marshall W. Krause

ASST. STAFF COUNSEL and LEGIS. REP.: Paul Halvonik

ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT: Mrs. Pamela S. Ford

CHAPTER DIRECTOR: Mrs. Marcia D. Lang

Committee of Sponsors

Mrs. Paul Holmer Dr.

Mrs. Mary Hutchinson

Morse Erskine

Prof. Wilson Record

Dean Robert A. Keller

Prof. David Levin

Gerald D. Marcus

Ephraim Margolin

Prof. John Henry Melman'

Rebert L. Nolan, M.D.

Prof. Robert M. O'Neil

Frederick 0x00A7. Reinheimer

Clarence E. Rust

John Brisbin Rutherford

Mes. Alec Skolnick

Stanley D. Stevens

Stephen Thiermann

Cecil Thomas

Donald Vial

Richard J. Werthimer

Dr. Marvin J. Naman

Mrs. Theodosia Stewart

Rt. Rev. Sumner Walters

Richard Johnston

Roger Kent

Mrs. Ruth Kingman

Prof. Theodore Kreps

Rev. Robert W. Moon

Norman Reider

Prof. Wallace Stegner

Prof Hubert Phillips

Norman Lezin

Sophisticated Discrimination -

Proposition 14

Loses in

U. S.

__ By the narrow vote of five to four the Supreme Court of

the United States has affirmed the decision of the Supreme

Court of California that Proposition 14, a constitutional

amendment adopted by the voters in the 1964 election, is

void as in conflict with the

purpose of the Proposition was

to create a section in the State

constitution forbidding a direct

or indirect limitation. on "the

right of any person, who is will-

ing or desires to sell, lease or

rent any part or all of his real

property, to decline to sell, lease

or rent such property to such

person or persons as he, in his

absolute discretion, chooses."

The intent of the proposed sec-

tion in the California constitu-

tion was to nullify existing laws

preventing discrimination on the

ground of race, national origin

or religion in the sale or rental

of certain real property and to

make sure that no such laws or

executive regulations were

adepted in the future.

Encouraging Discrimination

The majority of the U.S. Su-

preme Court in its

handed down May 29th, 1967, in

the case of Reitman v. Mulkey

came to its conclusion that Prop-

osition 14 would offend the equal

protection clause of the Four-

teenth Amendment because it in-

validly involved the State in

racial discrimination in the hous-

_ ing market. The majority relied

heavily upon the California Su-

- preme Court's determination that

the Proposition meant that the

State was encouraging its citizens

to discriminate on the grounds of

_race.in the housing. market and

that it was not the same as a

mere repealer of existing anti-

discrimination legislation. The

latter would be a "neutral" ac-

tion and not "state action deny-

ing the equal protection of the

laws."

Ne Neutrality

Justice White, writing for the

majority, pointed out that priv-

ate racial discrimination in hous-

ing was not only freed from ex-

isting laws by Proposition 14,

but also "enjoyed a far different

status than was true before the .

passage of the laws against hous-

ing discrimination. The right to

discriminate, including the right

to discriminate on racial grounds,

was now embodied in the State's

basic charter, immune from

legislative, executive or judi-

cial regulation at any level of

State government. Those prac-

ticing racial discrimination need

no longer rely solely on their

personal choice. They could now

invoke express constitutional au-

thority, free from censure or in-

terference of any kind from of-

ficial sources." Thus the High

Court rejected the argument of

the California Real Estate As-

sociation that Proposition 14 did

not encourage discrimination but

merely performed the "neutral"

act of leaving the decision of

whether or not to discriminate in

private hands, which was not pro-

hibited "State action."

The Purpose

In rejecting the CREA argu-

ments, the Supreme Court cited

its previous decision stating that

a State statute authorizing a rail-

road to furnish segregated Pull-

man cars was unconstitutional -

even though the decision as to

whether or not to furnish these

cars was up to the Railroad, its

decision forbidding States to give

to political parties the right to

determine who shall be electors,

its decision forbidding the State

to lease its property to a private

person who would follow a dis-

criminatory policy in restaurant

service, and its decision that pri-

decision.

Fourteenth Amendment. The

vate segregation following an an-

nouncement of an official segre-

gation policy in a community,

which were all held violations of

the Fourteenth Amendment. The

Court concluded: `Here we are

dealing with a provision which

does not just repeal an existing

law forbidding racial discrimina-

tions. It was intended to author-

ize, and does authorize, racial

discrimination in the housing

market. The right to discrimi-

nate is now one of the big basic

policies of the State. The Cali-

fornia Supreme Court believes

that the section will significantly

encourage and involve the State

in private discrimination. We

have been presented with no

persuasive considerations indi-

cating that this judgment should

be overturned."

Sophisticated Discrimination

Mr. Justice Douglas, while con-

curring in the opinion of the

majority, added a few words ex-

pressing his views that Proposi-

tion 14 was essentially a device

for shifting a governmental

function, zoning, to - private

groups in order to engage in a

sophisticated form of racial dis-

crimination. He cited evidence

from the Commission on Civil

Rights that large property own-

ers, real estate personnel, mort-

gage and banking personnel and

builders, follow a standard prac-

tice of "preserving" white com-

munities from the influx of per-

sons of other races. The function

of deciding where people shall

live, Justice Douglas concluded,

is too important not to be affect-

ed with the kind of public inter-

est within the reach of the equal

protection of the Fourteenth

Amendment.

Dissent

Justices Harlan, Black, Clark

and Stewart joined in a dissent

taking the position that the only

"state action" was the repeal of

existing anti-discrimination laws

and that this cannot. be said to

have been an act of denial of

equal protection of the laws un-

less the constitution requires all

the States to have such laws,

which it obviously does not. The

dissenters felt that the result of

the Court's decision would, in

the long run, handicap progress

in the field of racial equality.

They pointed out that when leg-

islation in this field is unsuccess-

ful there should be wide oppor-

tunities for legislative amend-

ment, as well as for change

through such process as the pop-

ular initiative and referendum.

"This decision, I fear, may inhib-

it such flexibility. Here the elec-

torate itself overwhelmingly

wished to overrule and check its

own legislature on a matter left

open by the Federal Constitu-

tion. By refusing to accept the

decision of the people of Califor-

nia, and by converting a new

and ill-defined constitutional

concept to allow Federal Judi-

cial- interference, I think the

Court. has taken to itself powers

and responsibilities left else-

where by the Constitution."

Amicus Brief

The ACLU of Northern Cali-

fornia had a small part in the

decision by a brief amicus curiae

prepared by volunteer attorney

Jerome Falk and Staff Counsel

Marshall W. Krause. This brief

emphasized the disabling effect

`which Proposition 14 would have

WRIT ISSUED TO

TEST GAG RULE

Continued from Page 2-

acquitted, then a contempt of

court would be committed. This

result would follow regardless of

the truth of the comment.

Criminal Precess

The ACLU does not believe

that the criminal process can be

or should be a sancrosanct area

isolated from the ordinary criti-

cisms and complaints which are

common to other areas of govern-

ment. Only where publicity is so

strong and pervasive as to active-

ly interfere with the right to

have a fair trial (such as in the

ease of Dr. Sam Shepard) should

a Court step in and issue a re-

strictive ruling, and then it

should be narrowly and precisely

drawn. Judge Brunn's rule would

prevent the defendants from

bringing to the attention of the

public what they might feel were

abuses in the criminal process.

Under our system of government

public opinion is a powerful and

effective force for change and

even defendants in a criminal

trial have a right to make their

side of the story known.

L.A. Court Voids

California

Loyalty Oath

Superior Court Judge Robert

Kenny, former state attorney

general, on May 16, declared

California's Levering Act loyalty

oath to be unconstitutional. He,

therefore, issued a preliminary

injunction in a -taxpayer's suit

brought by the ACLU against

Los Angeles county. The county

will undoubtedly appeal.

A three-judge Federal Court

in San Francisco will soon hear

the Levering Act test suit of Mrs.

Alison Glickman, which is being

handled by the ACLUNC.

Gurner-Maginnis Case

On June ist San Mateo Municipal Court Judge Roy Sea-

graves handed down his opinion in People of the State of

California v. Rowena Gurner and Patricia Maginnis who are

charged with a felony because they vielated Section 601 of

the Business and Professions Cede making it a crime to

". . willfully write, compose or

publish any notice or advertise-

ment of any medicine or means

of producing or facilitating a

miscarriage... 2

Judge Seagraves agreed with

the defendant's attorneys, ACLU

Counsel Marshall W. Krause and

volunteer attorney Patrick S.

Hallinan, that the law was an un-

constitutional abridgement of

freedom of speech and press and

that the statute must be declared

void on its face. He stated that

an order holding the defendants

to answer on this charge would

be beyond his jurisdiction as it

would require him to abridge the

freedom of expression of the de-

fendants. The District Attorney

of San Mateo County has an-

nounced that he will appeal

Judge Seagraves' decision to the

Appellate Department of the

Superior Court.

Legal Acts Covered

Judge Seagraves' opinion

pointed out that Section 601 is

not limited to acts which are il-

legal in the State of California

but encompasses information

about abortions which are legal

in California as well as abortions

which may be legal in other

areas of the United States or the

world. Nor does Section 601 ex-

cept from its prohibition the

Veterans Service Officer

Loses Fight for Job

After three and a half days of testimony Judge Ross A.

Carkeet, assigned to the Superior Court of San Joaquin

County by the Chairman of the Judicial Council, has ruled

that William C. Madden is not entitled to be returned to his

job as County Veterans Service Officer. The ACLU had filed

a petition for a Writ of Mandate

on behalf of Madden charging

that the only reason that he was

dismissed from his position in

July of 1966 was because he ex-

ercised his right not to be a wit-

ness against himself in a crimi-

nal case pending against his son.

No Appeal

The ruling of Judge Carkeet

was made on a finding that Mr.

Madden was fired for other good

and sufficient reasons and not

for use of his Fifth Amendment

privilege and that therefore he

was not fired for an unconstitu-

tional reason. Because of the

factual nature of the decision,

the ACLU has decided not to

carry the case any further.

Original Issue

When the Madden case first

came to the attention of the

ACLU the only issue in the case

was whether the County had the

right to fire Mr. Madden because

of his use of the Fifth Amend-

ment. The County had claimed

that because Madden was an em-

ployee who served "at the plea-

sure" of the Board of Supervi-

sors of the County he could be

fired for any reason and the

termination of services could not

be questioned in any Court.

on State legislative, executive

and judicial processes, and also

urged that the California Su-

preme Court was in the best po-

sition to make judgments as to

whether or not racial discrimina-

tion was in fact encouraged by

the Proposition. The main argu-

ments in the Reitman case were

handled by Attorneys for the

ACLU of Southern California.

When the ACLU filed suit.in the

case this was still an open ques-

tion, but, before the case came

to trial, the cases of Bagley v.

Washington Township Hospital

District and Rosenfeld v. Mal-

colm were decided by the Cali-

fornia Supreme Court and they

held that even an employee with-

out any employment rights could

not be fired by a government

agency for reasons which re-

stricted his constitutional privi-

leges.

A New Reason

When these decisions were

brought to the attention of the

County Counsel in the Madden

case, they switched tactics and

said that Madden was fired for

improper use of County station-

ery. At the trial all five members

of the Board of Supervisors testi-

fied that this was the reason

Madden was fired and that they

did not take into consideration

his use of the Fifth Amendment.

Since the meetings at which the

firing was discussed were priv-

ate, there was little chance to

disprove this testimony unless

the Judge chose to believe all

five Supervisors were liars.

Volunteer ACLU Counsel

The Madden case is an ex-

ample of the elusiveness of civil

liberties issues in litigation. What

seems to be a clear civil liberties

case turns out at the last minute

to be obscured by a factual dis-

pute. In any event, the great ef-

fort put into this case by the

volunteer Attorneys Ruth Rathke

and Edwin Baltimore of Walnut

creek, California, served to gain

respect for civil liberties princi-

ples throughout the Valley area.

teaching of accepted medical

means of producing an abortion.

' Medical School Training

Judge Seagraves wrote: "To

curtail or limit the scope or qual-.

ity of medical school training in

California by elimination from

the courses taught the proper

techniques for performing abor-

tions would be in clear violation

of the constiutional guarantees

: -Continued on Page 4

Figh Court Will

Review Social

Workers' Case

A Sacramento Superior Court

Judge, anticipating a strike by

the county's social workers, is-

sued an injunction that, among

other things, prohibited any

picketing or demonstrating near

county buildings. Violations of

that order resulted in over sev-

enty arrests.

What They Said

Persons unconnected with the

union were arrested for carrying

signs that said "Support Social

Worker Strike'; persons were

arrested for carrying signs that

said "Support Your Local Po- -

lice" (Sacramento police admit-

ted some embarassment at ar-

resting persons who carried such

a splendid slogan) and persons

were arrested who carried blank

signs. Four of the persons so

arrested, including three -who

carried blank signs, sought a

writ of habeas corpus to _test

their arrest.

Review Granted

The Court of Appeals, in the

case of In re Berry, held that the

four could not be tried for vio-

lating the injunction but declined

to hold the injunction void on its

face. Neither side was happy

with the opinion. The Attorney

General, on behalf of the state,

and the Social Workers Union's

attorneys, Lawrence Karlton and

Coleman Blease, on behalf of the

petitioners, sought review by the

State Supreme Court. That Court

has granted a hearing.

ACLU Friend of the Court

ACLUNC assistant staff coun-

sel Paul Halvonik appeared as

amicus curiae on the petitioner's

behalf in the Court of Appeal.

ACLUNC is also participating as

amicus curiae in the Supreme

Court. In a brief prepared by

Halvonik, ACLUNC attacks the

injunction as an unconstitutional

infringement of the rights of

free speech and to petition gOv-

ernment for a redress of grievy-

ances. The brief states:

"The vast case law on free ex-

pression reveals no comparable

attempt of government to insul-

ate itself from the opinions of a

dissatisfied citizenry. The First

Amendment does not permit

such insulation. `The censorial

power is in the people over the

government, and not in the gov-

ernment over the people.'

"Freedom of speech entails not

only communication but effec-

tive communication. .. . Indeed

effective communication with

government and other citizens

is perhaps the greatest free ex-

pression problem of the day. In

a mass society demonstrations

may be the only way to drama-

tize a legitimate grievance."

ACLU NEWS

JULY, 1967

Page 3

19 r Fi

in "Un Chant

On the last day of its term the U.S. Supreme Court de-

cided 14 cases in the area of obscenity. In 13 of these cases

State and Federal convictions for sale of alleged obscene

matter were reversed, and in only one, involving Genet's

film, "Un Chant D'Amour, " was the finding of obscenity

stistained. The one ruling which

was out of step came in the case

of Landau v. Fording, a case in-

itiated by ACLUNC attorneys

to try to get a declaratory judg-

ment that the Genet film was not

Obscene. The trial court ruled

that the film was obscene, the

District Court of Appeals af-

firmed this ruling and the Su-

preme Court of California re-

fused to review the case by a

vote of four to three. (The April

1967 NEWS contains a fuller ac-

count of the California proceed-

ings.) In a most unusual proce-

dure, the United States Supreme

Court granted review of the de-

cision of the District Court of

the Appeal but then voted to af-

firm the decision by the narrow

margin of five votes to four with-

out an opportunity to present

briefs on the matter or orally

argue it before the Supreme

Court.

Rehearing

One possibility exits for chang-

ing the result in the Landau case

and that is a petition for a re-

hearing now being pursued by

volunteer Attorney Neil Horton

and Staff Counsel Marshall W.

Krause who have handled the

case thus far. In order to obtain

a rehearing, one of the Justices

who voted with the majority must

change. his mind. The new Su-

preme Court Justice, Thurgood

Marshall, appointed to replace re-

tiring Justice Tom Clark, will not

be able to participate in the de-

cision on rehearing.

No Opinions

Neither the majority nor the

dissent wrote an opinion in rul-

ing in the Landau case. Chief

Justice Warren and _ Justices

Brennan, Clark, White and Har-

Jan voted to affirm the California

court, while Black, Douglas, For-

tas and Stewart voted to reverse

the California court. The key

Vote differentiating the Landau

case from the 13 cases in which

convictions were reversed was

that of Justice White, who voted

against censorship in all the oth-

er cases. Strangely and disturb-

ingly the 13 cases reversing judg-

ments of obscenity involved ma-

terials which range from talent-

less. "strip" movies where ele-

phantine-breasted women proved

that they possessed what nature

gave them and could even move

it around a little, to sado-maso-

chistic torture studies, and to sex

fantasy novels where a hero

tumbled in and out of 192 beds

in 192 pages, Genet's film is a

Slice of life concerning prisoners

in solitary confinement in an un-

named prison. It shows masturba- -

tion and homosexual fantasy as

well as sadism by prison guards.

Shocking as these scenes are, no

one has denied that they are

truthful depictions of human

feelings and that Genet has spok-

en meaningfully about the pains

of human isolation and the need

for human love.

The Difference

' The crucial difference between

the 183 decisions reversing con-

victions and the decision in the

Landau case seems to be this;

artists, writers and playwrights

must beware of telling the truth

about sex. If they tell us some-

thing which we do not like to

admit, something degrading and

unfortunate about human beings,

we are likely to hide from this

truth by calling it `obscene.'

Whereas those who dally with

sex, who exploit it, treat it vi-

ciously and brutally but never,

never, tell the truth about it, do

not affront community standards

and are protected by constitution-

al. guarantee. Of course, this

theory of constitutional law is

not only at variance with the in-

ACLU NEWS |

"JULY, 1967

Rage' 4

tention of the framers of the

First Amendment who wanted to

protect unpopular and even

shocking points of view from sup-

' pression by an offended majority,

but is at war with the Court's

own test that ideas having any

social importance whatsoever are

protected by the Constitution and

cannot be "obscene."

Redrup Case

In all the 13 cases reversing

convictions for obscenity a case

decided on May 8th, 1967, Red-

rup v. State of New York, was

cited as authority. The Redrup

case involved sex novels and

girlie magazines. There was a

short opinion by the Court which

stated that a majority of the Jus-

tices are not agreed upon one

approach in the obscenity area,

but that seven Justices are

agreed that the particular ma-

terial at issue is protected by the

First Amendment to the Consti-

tution. The Court was careful to

point out in the Redrup case

that the opinion did not involve

"a specific and limited State con-

cern for juveniles" nor "was

there any suggestion of an as-

sault upon individual privacy by

publication in a manner so ob-

trusive as to make it impossible

for an unwilling individual to

avoid exposure" nor was there

any evidence of pandering

which the Court condemned in

the Ginsburg decision. Were it

not for the decision in the Lan-

dau case, we could say with some

confidence that the Supreme

Court has decided that nothing

will be obscene absent one of the

three considerations mentioned

immediately above. But the Lan-

dau case had none of these con-

siderations. Rather it was a case

where the undisputed testimony

established great social impor-

tance for the film as an artistic

creation and as meaningful com-

munication.

Therefore the prevailing rule

in the United States Supreme

Court seems to be that nothing is

obscene absent one of the three

factors mentioned above except

if one of the five majority Jus-

tices doesn't like it. Two ques-

tions remain open: How will the

Court rule on a petition for re-

hearing? and what will be the

position of Justice Thurgood

Marshall in future cases?

Abortion Ban

Held Invalid

Continued from Page 3-

of freedom of speech and press.

For the foregoing reasons it is

the opinion of the Court that

Section 601 of the Business and

Professions Code is unconstitu-

tional per se."

Inhibiting Effect

In addition to the points made

by Judge Seagraves, the ACLU

lawyers argued that the statute

has an inhibiting effect in the ex-

ercise of First Amendment free-

doms which includes the right to

discuss issues of public interest

and possible legislative change.

Section 601 would inhibit the ad-

vocates of a change in-abortion

laws from distributing informa-

tion about how easily abortions

could be accomplished with

proper surgical techniques.

The ACLU memorandum

states, "The public has the right

to receive information concern-

ing the ease or difficulty of abor-

tion, the dangers involved, the

availability of doctors who can

perform abortions, and the num-

ber of women who injure them-

selves by unprofessional abor-

tion techniques. To withhold. this

information from the general

public, as Section 601 would do,

`ministrative discharge.

Was recognized as a sincere con-

Christensen

Wins Discharge

Continued from Page 1- -

Northern California ACLU sub-

stantiates the refusal of the

armed forces to recognize their

own regulations on discharges

for conscientious objection. This

office will soon be filing a suit

on behalf of Patrick Noonan, a

Roman Catholic pacifist, who

enlisted in the Army and then,

when his pacifist views became

clear to him, applied for an ad-

Noonan

scientious objector entitled to the

relief he sought,

through the chain of command,

including a lieutenant-general

who commanded the Third Army.

However, when the request for

discharge reached Washington,

the Director of Selective Service

advised the Army that Noonan

would not be eligible for a con-

scientious objector classification

with Selective Service, and on

this basis the Army refused to

grant the discharge.

The Director of Selective Serv-

ice has given the same advice to

every application presented to

him since October of 1965.

Arbitrary Action

In Christensen's case and in

Noonan's case and in many other

cases, arbitrary action has re-

sulted in the denial of rights of

conscience protected by the

United States Constitution. Many

young men have been court mar-

tialed for the "offense" of refus-

ing to violate their principles as

pacifists. There is a tremendous

waste of manpower within the

service by trying to keep these

sincere young men in the service

and by processing the requests

for discharge which are doomed

to failure.

It is expected that in connec-

tion with the Noonan case, dep-

ositions of high officials such as

Lt-Gen'l Hershey will be sought

to find out whether there is a

blanket directive requiring de-

nial of applications for conscien-

tious objection discharges, and

whether it is the Department of

Defense or the Director of Se-

lective Service who is responsible

for such a policy.

The decision in the Christensen

case is a fine victory for Dick

Christensen, who will now be

able to finish his college educa-

tion. It is also a victory on the

ACLU position that the Federal

District Court does indeed have

jurisdiction to hear these cases.

Several other District Courts

have ruled in accordance with

the government argument, which

is that once a person volun-

tarily enlists in the armed serv-

ices, he cannot obtain his release

under any circumstances unless

the branch of the armed forces

involved agrees to discharge him

prior to the expiration of his en-

listment period.

is to attempt to keep the public

in ignorance merely because

some few persons might use

some of the information for an

illegal act. On the same reason-

ing, information on how to vote

might be prohibited because an

alien ineligible to vote might

take advantage of it."

Protected Activity

The attorneys for Miss Gurner

and Miss Maginnis also pointed

out that the evidence before the

court in the particular case made

Section 601 void as applied to

the defendants, The two women

are active advocates of a change

in abortion laws and passed out

literature concerning where abor-

tions could be obtained in other

parts of the world and how one

could accomplish a self-induced

abortion by a relatively simple

procedure. They were not en-

gaged in commercial solicitation

and did not themselves offer to

perform any abortions. This ac-

tivity is protected under the

First Amendment.

A decision of the Appellate De-

partment of the. Superior Court

in this appeal is. expected. some-_

time in. August. ~

all the way.

Victory in Camara

Case Secures Privacy

Continued from Page 1- ..

spection at a reasonable time head

first been refused.

Wide. Discretion

"Under the present system,"

the Court pointed out, "when

the inspector demands entry, the

occupant has no way of knowing

whether enforcement of the mu-

nicipal code involved requires .

inspection of his premises, no

way of knowing the lawful limits

of the inspector's power to

search, and no way of knowing

whether the inspector himself is

acting under proper authoriza-

tion. These are questions which

may be reviewed by a neutral

"magistrate without any re-assess--

ment of the basic agency decision

to canvas an area. .

tical effect of the present sys-

tem is to leave the occupant sub-

ject to the discretion of the of-

ficial in the field. This is pre-

cisely the discretion to invade

private property which we have

consistently circumscribed by a

requirement that a disinterested

party warrant the need to

search."

Basis For Obtaining Warrant

On a second issue, what kind

of a showing before a magistrate.

would be necessary to obtain a

search warrant for a health in-

spector, counsel in the two cases

before the court differed. In the

Camara case it was argued that

individual probable cause ought

to be shown to obtain a warrant

for a search of a particular prem-

ises. In the See case it was ar-

gued that a search warrant for

a particular premises did not

have to be obtained so long as

there was a valid warrant for a

general area. The majority of

the Supreme Court adhered to

the latter position in making its

decision.

Standards for Inspection

The Court stated: "Unlike the

search pursuant to a criminal

investigation, the inspection pro-

grams at issue here are aimed

at securing city-wide compliance

with minimum physical standards

for private property. ... In de-

termining whether there is

probable cause to issue a warrant

for that inspection-the need

for the inspection must be

weighed in terms of these rea-

sonable goals of code enforce-

ment." The Court then went on

to declare that an agency's de-

cision to conduct an area inspec-

tion is unavoidably based upon

its knowledge of conditions in

the area as a whole and not its

knowledge in each particular

building.

Area-Wide Inspections

The Court stated that the pub-

lic interest demands that all

dangerous conditions be prevent-

ed or stopped and yet it is doubt-

ful that any canvassing tech-

nique other than an area-wide

inspection would give acceptable

results, since many `such condi-

tions are not observable from the

outside of the building and may

not be apparent to the occupant

himself. The Court pointed out

that even the dissenting Justices

2] The

. The prac-

in Frank v. Maryland had indi-

cated that standards for probable

cause would be different in the

health inspection - area from

criminal searches. __

The Yardstick

Court concluded that

probable cause for a warrant

exists "if reasonable legislative

or administrative standards for

conducting an area ingpection

are satisfied with respect to a

particular dwelling. Such stand-

ards ... may be based upon the

passage of time, the nature of

the building, or the condition of

the entire area, but they will not

necessarily depend upon specific

knowledge of the condition of

the particular dwelling. Such an

approach .. . gives full recogni-

tion to the competing public and

private interests here at stake

and, in so doing, thus fulfills the

historic purpose behind the con-

stitutional right to be free from

unreasonable government inva-

sions of privacy."

Three Dissenters

Justices Clark, Harlan and

Stewart joined in a_ strongly

worded dissent to the conclusion

of the main opinion. They would

uphold Frank v. Maryland as an

historically valid exception to

the Fourth Amendment and be-

cause any other result would -

`jeopardize the health, welfare

and safety of literally millions

of people." Also Justice Clark

charged that the majority had

in fact weakened the Fourth

Amendment by allowing a "box

car warrant" which will be

"printed up in pads of thou-

sands" and "issued by Magis-

trates in broadcast fashion as a

matter of course." This, states

Justice Clark, will destroy the

integrity of the search warrant

procedure.

Broad Luplicatiang

The implications of the Camara

decision are widespread and cer-

tainly the ruling extends to other

types of inspections by govern-

ment officials. Also overruled by

implication was the decision in

Abel v. United States, holding

that immigration officials had

more power to search without

warrant than did FBI agents be-

cause the former were not en-

forcing. the criminal law. Most

importantly, a large chink has

been closed in the security `of

all citizens that their homes and

private premises may not be

invaded at the whim of govern-

ment officials. All such requests

must now be channeled through

an impartial magistrate. Addi-

tionally, current California law

makes no provision for search

warrants in non-criminal cases :

and, if such legislation is pro-

posed, an opportunity will be

present to create _ additional

safeguards for privacy.

Defendant Maintains Privacy

Finally, Mr.. Camara himself,

while pleased with the decision,

insisted on maintaining his pri-

vacy by making no statement

and declining to pose for pic-

tures, even for the ACLU News:

The first right of a citizen

Is the right

To be responsible

JOIN TODAY

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION

OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA

Patron Membership ee

Sustamning Membership. .2.......:.....--seee sess 00

Business and Professional Membership ......e2++e+22 29

Family. Membership. 5... s. 62.60 2-000 e sss on LD

Associate Membership ...ceec as cece ware tre cwsane 10

Annual Membership, 77445... -2s50 6.65 os bance taees 6 8

Student Membership: ...0.-.oseesc5s sis sce. cs es. 28

AGLU News Subseription' 2... ejstecs se were eso 2-00

NAME: 26 oo. s ccc cc oss oc occ s occ oes cbs cls ccs ccscees cle se eco

ADDRESS and ZIP CODES os coves esc bab sw ewe ce cee ess pinee

TELEPHONE NUMBER. ..-.cocceccece -AMI. ENCLOSED... ++++00e

503 Market Street

San Francisco, 94105