vol. 32, no. 5

American

Civil Liberties

Union

Volume XXXII

Bedcheck

Operation

SAN FRANCISCO, MAY, 1967

Court Victory

The State Supreme Court on March 27, by a vote of 6 to

1, decided that Alameda county's mass raids on the homes of

mothers receiving public assistance grants then known as Aid

to Needy Children, were invalid because the county's failure

"to secure legally effective consent to search the homes of

welfare recipients. rendered the

mass raids unconstitutional." But

even if such effective consent

had been obtained, the court

held "the county could not con-

stitutionally condition the con-

tinued receipt of welfare bene

fits upon the giving of such con-

sent."

$12,000 Back Pay

Im consequence of the decision,

Benny Max Parrish, a social

worker who refused to partici-

pate in what was dubbed "Oper-

ation Bedcheck" on January 13,

1963, at 6:30 a.m., was ordered

reinstated to his job with back

pay less any earnings he has re-

ceived in other employment. He

is expected to recover about $12,-

000. Parrish was represented by

Prof. Albert M. Bendich, former

staff counsel for the ACLUNC,

and the ACLUNC appeared as

friend of the court through staff

eounse| Marshall W. Krause and

volunteer ACLU attorneys Rob-

ert Laws and Bonifacio Ytur-

bide.

Unauthorized Males

The raid had been authorized

by the Board of Supervisors of

Alameda County "for the pur-

pose of detecting the presence

of `unauthorized males. ...

Neither in planning nor in exe-

cuting the searches did the coun-

ty authorities attempt to secure

appropriate search warrants.

The social workers who con-

ducted the searches were not re-

quired or permitted to restrict

them to the homes of persons

whom they had probable cause

to arrest, or even to the homes

of those welfare recipients whose

eligibility they had any reason to

doubt. Indeed, . . . the majority

of persons whose homes were

searched were under no suspi-

ecion whatever and were in fact

subjected to the raid for that

very reason."

Thorough Search

The social workers were in-

structed to work in pairs "with

one member covering the back

door of each dwelling while the

recipient's own social worker

presented himself at the front

door and sought admittance.

Once inside, he would proceed to

the rear door and admit his com-

panion. Together the two would

conduct a thorough search of the

entire dwelling, giving particu-

ticular attention to beds, clos-

ets, bathrooms and -other pos-

sible places of concealment."

Parrish Refused to Participate

Parrish refused to participate

im the raid because of his con-

viction that such searches were

illegal. In explaining his posi-

tion, Parrish "repeatedly stated

that he believed the county

could not legally search the

homes of those known to be un-

der no suspicion." He was

thereafter dismissed for insub-

ordination, -.

No Consent

The court held that the clients

had not consented to the search-

es because they knew the social

workers possessed "virtually un-

limited power over their very

livelihood. These circumstances

nullify the legal effectiveness of

the apparent consent secured by

Alameda County searchers."

No Constitutional Justification

The court noted that the coun-

ty had "failed to demonstrate

that the scope of the raids was

closely correlated to the achieve-

ment of some legitimate end, but

alternate means for the detec-

tion of fraud less subversive of

constitutional rights. were avail-

able to the county, For example,

the welfare director testified

that in investigating suspect

eases his workers would main-

tain an external watch `until

such time as there (was) suffi-

cient indication to warrant the

request to enter the home and

look through it.' No one has. ex-

plained why such safeguards, ac-

corded in suspect cases, were de-

nied the non-suspect persons sub-

jected to the operation, The fore-

going factors indicate so marked

a lack of congruence between

the scope of the operation and

the legitimate goal of reducing

welfare fraud as to deprive that

procedure of any constitutional

justification."

The opinion was written by

Justice Mathew O. Tobriner. Jus-

tice Marshall F. McComb wrote

a one-paragraph dissent.

Oath Protestor

Rehired

Constance Marsh obtained her

first job as a social worker with

the Department of Social Serv-

ices in San Francisco. She had

recently secured her Bachelor's

degree from San Francisco State

College. After she was hired she

signed the Levering Act non-

disloyalty oath but informed the

personnel officer that she was

signing it "under protest' be-

cause she did not think it should

be required. The personnel offi-

cer then requested that she put

her reasons in writing although

he said that he did not mind

her signing the oath under pro-

test. However, the next day,

aiter Miss Marsh submitted her

reasons in writing she received

a memorandum from the Direc-

tor of the Department of-Social

Services, Ronald Born, informing

her that she was fired for "un-

businesslike conduct" in the way

in which her memo stating her

reasons was transmitted.

Evidently, the main objection

to the memo was the way in

which it was folded and a state-

ment that if the reasons for the

protest were not sufficient it

would be followed with a more

detailed explanation "in fervent

Eighteenth Century prose." The

ACLU, suspecting something

more behind this termination

than was admitted by Mr. Born

eontacted him and he agreed to

interview Miss Marsh and see if

she was indeed `unbusinesslike,"'

After the interview, Miss Marsh

was rehired ag a social worker,

thus terminating what might

have been an interesting legal

CASe.

Number 5

Suit Hits

Flatch Act

LoyaltyOath

On March 29 a suit was filed

in Federal District Court in

Northern California attacking

the loyalty oath questions re-

quired by the Federal Hatch Act

for U.S. government employees.

The suit was filed for Steven D.

Soltar who was refused consider-

ation for a position ag a Post

Office clerk because he did not

want to answer either of the

following two questions: "Are

you now, or have you ever been

a member of the Communist

Party, U.S.A.. a Communist po-

litical association, the Young

Communists' League, or any

Communist organization? Are

you now or have you ever been

a member of any foreign or do-

mestic organization, association,

movement, group, or combina- .

tion of persons which is totali-

tarian, Fascist, Communist, or

subversive, or which has adopt-

ed, or shows, a policy of advocat-

ing or approving the commission

of acts of force or violence to

deny other persons their rights

under the Constitution of the

United States, or which seeks to

alter the form of government of

the United States by unconstitu-

tional means?"

Volunteer ACLU Counsel

The ACLU suit filed by volun-

teer attorney Gerald B. Falk

with the assistance of Marshall

W. Krause states that such

questions deprive Soltar of his

eonstitutional rights to freedom

of speech, press and association

and violate due process of law

because of their vagueness and

uncertainty, The defendants in

the case, Postmaster General

O'Brien, the chairman of the

Civil Service Commission and

other U.S. government officials,

have not yet filed their answer.

Won't Stand Up

It is expected that the Hatch

Act loyalty gquestiong will not

stand up under official] scrutiny

when compared with recent Su-

preme Court decisions concern-

ing state loyalty oaths men-

tioned elsewhere in this issue of

the NEWS.

Photographer

Wanted

If there is any ACLU member

who would be available to take

photographs on short notice of

persons and events of special in-

terest to ACLUNC members,

please contact the ACLU office

and leave your name. There

would be no compensation for

this position except that the cost

of film and development would

be reimbursed.

Willard Cloptom

Justice William O. Douglas

Privacy in a Crowding World

Registrations for the May 20 conference on privacy on the

San Francisco State College campus are rapidly being filled,

and persons intending to attend are urged not to delay send-

ing their applications to the Faculty Program Center.

A detailed brochure was mailed to all ACLUNC members

last month. However, for the

convenience of those who may

have misplaced it, a registration

application is printed elsewhere

in this issue.

Prominent Speakers

Headlining the list of distin-

guished participants is Justice

William O. Douglas, who will de-

liver the banquet speech. Profes-

sor Alan Westin of Columbia

will open the conference with a

keynote speech at 9:00 am. on

"Privacy in a Free Society." He

will also be a participant in the

panel immediately following.

After lunch, Willard Clopton,

a journalist with the Washington

Post, will speak on "Whose Afraid

Alan Westin

of George Orwell?" to which the

well-known private investigator,

Harold Lipset, will reply in a

speech, "I Am."

Thirteen Panels

Thirteen panels, involving more |

than 70 panelists and moderators, !

will deal with various aspects of

privacy, including personal con-_

duct, fair trial and free press, |

medical and psychiatric care, be-

havioral research and personality

and psychological testing. Alse-

to be considered will be privacy |

and schools and colleges, privacy |

and complaint to convictions, pri- |

vacy and the convicted, and man |

in the urban environment. There

will also be a panel each on "You

Under Scrutiny" and "Your Gov-

ernment. Dossier."

The panelists have been drawn

from law, law enforcement, pe-

nology, labor, medicine, psychi-

atry, sociology, engineering,

teaching, private investigation,

government and the communica-

tions media. In addition, there

will be a computer expert frome

Redondo Beach. -

Timely Conference

In light of current efforts both

in Congress and in the State Leg-

islature to regulate invasions of

privacy (particularly eavesdrop-

ping, wiretapping and by meauas

of data centers) the joint

ACLUNC-San Francisco State

College conference is very timely

and should be extremely educa-

tional, useful and interesting.

The banquet session will alse

serve as the annual meeting of

the ACLUNC membership.

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, 433-2750

Subscription Rates -- Two Dollars a Year

Twenty Cents Per Copy (c)

Be

SEC'Y CTREAS.: John R.

Ralph B. Atkinson

Br. Alfred Azevedo

Mrs. Judith Baldersten

Albert M. Bendich

Lee Borregard

Albert Culhane

Mrs. Natalie Dukes

Prof. John Edwards

Howard A. Friedman

Robert Greensfelder

Rey. Aron 0x00A7. 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

Mrs. 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 umes

of Northern California

CHAIRMAN: Prof. Van D. Kennedy aS

VICE-CHAIRMEN: Rabbi Alvin |. Fine :

Helen Salz |

May

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: Ernest Bean:

GENERAL COUNSEL: Wayne M. Collins

STAFF COUNSEL: Marshall W. Krause

ASST. STAFF COUNSEL and LEGIS.

ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT: Mrs: Pamela S. Ford

CHAPTER DIRECTOR: Mrs. Marcia D. Lang

Committee of Sponsors

Mrs. Paul Holmer -

Mrs. Mary Hutchinson

Morse Erskine

Prof. Wilson Record

Dean Robert A. Keller .

Prof. David Levin

Gerald D. Marcus

Ephraim Margolin -

Prof. John Henry Merryman

Robert L. Nolan, M.D.

Prof. Robert M. O'Neil

Frederick S. Reimheimer

Clarence E. Rust

John Brisbin Rutherford

Mrs. Alec Skoinick

Stanley D. Stevens

Stephen Thiermann

Cecil Thomas

Donald Vial

Richard J. Werthimer

REP.: Paul Halvonik

Dr. Marvin J. Naman

Mrs. Theodosia Stewart

Rt. Rey. Sumner Walters~

Richard Johnston

Roger Kent

Mrs. Ruth Kingman

_ Prof. Theodore Kreps

Rey. Robert W. Moon

Dr. Norman Reider -

Prof. Wallace Stegner

Prof Hubert Phillips

Norman Lezin

z Undermining Morale

Pro-Viet Cong Airman

lay Be Court Martialed

Last spring Airman First Class Charles A. Hintlian,

U.S.A.F., was transferred from Oklahoma to Cam Rahn Bay

- in South Vietnam. Hintlian does not agree with United States

policy in Vietnam. Before he had been there a month he

wrote a letter to the Secretary of the Air Force asking to be

returned home because he felt

the war was unjust and because

he personally preferred a Viet

Cong victory. The letter was

never sent but Hintlian gave a

copy of it to his superiors in

Vietnam, Shortly thereafter one

of Hintlian's fellow enlisted men,

Airman Steven H. McCleary, told

the O.S.I. that it was his belief

that Hintlian was purposely try-

jing to undermine his morale by

`expressing anti-war views and

urging others to discover ways

to avoid serving their full tour

ef duty in Viet Nam.

Undermining Morale

Hintlian has since been trans-

ferred to McClellan Air Force

Base where he has been charged

with intentionally attempting to

undermine McCleary's morale.

McCleary and another enlisted

man have been brought from

Vietnam as witnesses against

him. On April 17 a hearing was

held under Article 32 of the

Code of Military Justice to de-

termine whether or not there is

probable cause for a Court Mar-

tial.

Supports Viet Cong

At the hearing Hintlian was

represented by Assistant Staff

Counsel Paul Halvonik who was

assisted by an Air Force lawyer,

Captain Laurence Kessler. The

hearing revealed that Hintlian

had told McCleary and another

airman, in private conversations,

that he was of the opinion that a

Communist government, while

inappropriate for the United

States, might best serve the in-

terests of underdeveloped na-

tions and that the Viet Cong

would provide a better govern-

ment for the people of South

Viet Nam than would the United

States. His suggestions that he

and others find ways of getting

jhome before their tour of duty

had expired turned out te be no

ACLU NEWS

MAY, 1967

Page 2

more than the common

_of talk among service men sta-

.Koehler.

sort

tioned overseas. Hintlian at no

time disobeyed the orders of his

superiors nor did he urge others

to disobey orders.

Early Decision Expected

The case has been taken un-

der submission by the Investi-

gating Officer, Lt. Colonel

A decision as to

whether or not Hintlian will

have to stand trial is expected

. by early May.

Suit Challenges

Prison Limit

On Law Books

In September of 1966 Walter

Dunbar, Director of Corrections

for California, issued a new regu-

lation specifying a limited num-

ber of legal references which

would be available in the future

for prisoners in state institutions

and stating that "all existing law

books and references in inmate

law libraries not consistent with

this section are to be removed

and destroyed." Inmates were

also, by this rule prohibited from

purchasing or receiving their

own law books or reference ma-

terials. Staff counsel Marshall

Krause, in a letter to Walter

Dunbar, stated that implementa-

tion of the regulation would

raise serious lega] problems and

that it might be wise to study

the matter further before pro-.

ceeding. Dunbar responded by

assuring Krause that the new

procedures would "assist the in-

mates in their writ writing activi-

ties."

Federal Suit

Subsequently, a number of in-

mates challenged the new regu-

lation by a civil rights suit in the

Federal Distriet Court. The Fed-

eral Court appointed John Wahl

of San Francisco to represent the

`months. -

Conrad Chance

Cenviction

Affirmed

The Appellate Department of

the San Mateo County Superior

Court has affirmed the convic-

tion of Conrad Chance by the

Redwood City Municipal Court

of one count of selling "obscene"

photographs. Chance was de-

fended by ACLU staff counsel

Marshall Krause and was acquit-

ted on all but one count of an

eleven-count complaint. The

ACLU appealed the conviction

because it was convinced that

the judge in instructing the

jury and in ruling on matters of

what should be before the jury

had committed prejudicial error

which would be dangerous in

subsequent cases. However, the

Appellate Department refused to

write any opinion in the ease

even though they had had it sub-

mitted to them for over three

They merely affirmed

the conviction and refused to

eertify the case to any higher

eourt. This means that the only

remedy now available to Chance

is a petition for certiorari to the

United States Supreme Court.

The ACLU will file such a pe-

tition since important eonstitu-

tional questions in the First

Amendment area are presented

by the kind of instructions which |

must be given in obscenity cases

and the kind of evidence which

is allowed to come before the

. Jury in such cases.

John A. Menz

Heads Sac'to

Valley Chapter

Saeramento Valley Chapter

members attending their annual

meeting on February 28 elected

officers and directors to their

board for the 1967 term. Serving

his second term as chairman is

John A. Menz. Vice-Chairman

Trimble Hedges, a Professor of

Agricultural Economics at U.C.

Davis Campus, is serving his first

term on the Board, as is the

newly elected Secretary, Ann

Jenkins, a housewife. Hans

Poppe, a veteran member of the

Chapter's Board, continues as

Treasurer.

Other New Members

Other newly elected directors

are Messrs. Leonard Cain, pro-

fessor of sociology at Sacramento.

State College; Victor Comerchero,

professor of English, Sacramento

State College; Jerry Larson,

teacher, San Juan Unified School

District; Richard Mayers, Deputy

Attorney General, State of Cali-

fornia; Marcus Vanderlaan, at-

torney-at-law, and the Rev. Rob-

ert Moon, minister of St. Marks

Methodist Church and a member

of the Committee of sponsors of

the ACLUNC.

Continuing Members

Continuing members. of the

pDoard are Messrs. Jack Cleven-

-ger, Julian Colby, Wilson Dok-

ken, Clyde Jacobs, Rebert Lam-

bertsonm and Rev. Robert Senghas.

prisoner-plaintiffs in their cause.

ACLUNC has been in consulta-

tion with Mr. Wah] and is pres-

ently seeking leave of the court

to participate in the matter as

amicus curiae.

ACLU Intervenes

In a "Memorandum of Points

and Authorities in Support of

Plaintiffs," prepared by assistant

staff counsel Paul MHalvonik,

ACLUNC has urged that a three-

judge federal court be convened

in order to review the prison

regulations, and asks that a hear-

ing be held to determine whether

or not the regulations violate due

process because of their alleged

"interference with aecess to the

courts," a right guaranteed by

the Fourteenth Amendment.

Defend Right to Distribute

Abortion Literature

Section 601 of the Business and Professions Code of Cali-

fornia makes it a felony to publish any notice or advertise- -

`ment of any medicine or means for producing or facilitating

an abortion. Rowena Gurner and Patricia Teresa Joan Magin-

nis are charged with this felony in San Mateo County where

they face a preliminary hearing

on the charge on May 19. Last

month the ACLUNC Board of

Directors voted to provide the

defense for their case on the.

ground that section 601 contra- -

venes the First Amendment as an

illegal restraint on went of free

speech.

Well-Publicized Class

It seems that Miss Gurner and

Miss Maginnis had led a well-

publicized class in San Mateo

County on the subject of self-

induced abortions at which they

passed out written information

concerning this practice as well

as an "abortion kit" containing

certain standard items such as

sterile Q-tips and sterile cotton.

ACLU Position

It is a crime in California to

perform an abortion or to assist

in an abortion. The ACLU posi-

tion is that the First Amendment

protects the right to distribute

information including informa-

`tion on how to do something,

which if actually done, would be

a erime. It is not a crime in

California to distribute informa-~

tion on how to smoke marijuana

or pick a lock. The connection

between actually performing an

illegal act and distributing infor-

mation of a pedagogical nature

about that illegal act seems too

remote to justify any infringe-

ment of First Amendment rights.

Law Over-Bread

Section 601 also seems uncon-

stitutionally over-broad since it

would make a felony giving

written `information to a person

concerning how to obtain a

Jegal abortion. Thus an adver-

tisement telling persons that

abortioris may be legally obtained

in Sweden would be a felony

under this section. The section

has been in the law sinee 1919

and has only been applied once

and there the conviction was

thrown out since it was held

that the statute did not apply to

the giving of eral information

but only written information

by advertising and notice.

The Attorneys

The defense will be handled

Kinsolving

Speaks at Sac'to

Sun. Breakfast

The ACLUNC Sacramento Val-

ley Chapter will hold its anntal

"Sunday Breakfast on May 21 at

10 a.m. in the El Dorado Room

of the Hotel El Dorado, on High-

way 40 (16th Street entrance)

at Canterbury Road, Sacramento.

The main speaker is the Rev.

Lester Kinsolving, Co-Chairman

of Legislation, Episcopal Diocese

of California, and columnist for

the San Francisco Chronicle. His

tepic is, "Should the church be

involved in politics?" John A.

Menz, chapter chairman, will pre-

side.

Essay Contest Winners

A special feature of the pro-

gram is distribution of prizes to

the winners of the Chapter's

school civil liberties essay con-

test. This year, there were 70 en-

trants in the junior high divi-

sion. The judges are Hon. Albert

Rodda, State Senator from Sac-

ramento, Dr. Victor Comerchero,

professor of English, Sacramento

State College, and Dr. Dean Dorn,

professor of sociology at Sacra-

mento State College. Mrs. Lawr-

ence Karlton is chairman ef the

essay contest committee.

Reservations

Tickets for the breakfast cost

$2.50. For reservations in Sacra-

ments, phone 428-8010, or, in the

evening, 925-3665. In Davis,

phone 753-3340. Mrs. Eileen Kear-

ney is chairman of the breakfast

committee.

by ACLU staff counsel Marshall

W. Krause with the assistance

of volunteer attorney `Patrick

Hallinan.

Santa Clara

Valley Chapter

Elects Officers

New members of the Board of

Directors of the Santa Clara Val-

ley Chapter of ACLUNC elected

at the Chapter's annual meeting

in February are Evelyn Lages, a

housewife of San Jose; Arthur

Foster and Peter Grossman, both

clinical psychologists, and Argo

Gherardi, assistant manager of

the Cupertino office of the State

Department of Motor Vehicles.

Dave Stuart, Chairman'

Officers of the board were also

"elected, with David Stuart acting

as chairman for the 1967 term,

- and Evelyn Lages as Secretary.

Vice Presidents in.charge of

membership, finances, program

and local affairs are, respectively,

Theodore Balgooyen, Peter Szego,

John Brokenshire and Justin Van-

derlaan.

Member Participation Invited

Board Chairman David Stuart

has directed an invitation to all.

members in the Santa Clara Val-

ley area to participate in the pro-

gram of the Chapter for the

coming year, and is taking steps

to expand the membership on

key committees and to enlist the

aid of members in projects te be

undertaken by the Chapter,

stressing supportive action for

the ACLUNC legislative action

program, the education program

and legal activities. He has ex-

tended an invitation to all mem-

bers of the Chapter to attend

Board meetings held monthly on

second Wednesdays at 300 West

Hedding Street in San Jose, at

8 p.m.

Committees

Heading the Legal Panel for

1967 is Phil Hammer, while Helen

Mineta and William Nelson will

serve as co-chairmen of the edu-

cation committee and Sam Wash-

ington heads the legislative com-

mittee.

Berk.-Albany

Annual Meeting

May 15 -

The annual membership

meeting of the Berkeley-Al-

bany Chapter of ACLUNC is

scheduled for Monday eve-

ning, May 15, at 8 o'clock. As

we go to press, the place of

the meeting has not been de-

termined. Berkeley members

will receive further notice and

all others may call the Berke-

ley office, 548-1322, or Ruth

Lyon, 526-3338.

A panel discussion on Crime

and Juvenile Justice will be

moderated by Prof. Sanford

Kadish of University of Cali-

fornia School of Law (Boalt

Hall), Berkeley. Panelists are

Hon. Robert K. Barber, Judge

of the Alameda County Su-

perior Court; Joel A. Gold-

farb, attorney at law; and Dr.

David Matza, Socielogy De-

partment, University of Cali-

fornia and author ef the book

`Delinquency and Drift."

The public is invited. There

will be a floor discussion. This

is also the last oppertunity fer

members to cast their ballots

for the 1967-1968 Berkeley

Chapter ACLUNC Board of

Directors.

- Leones

The conviction of Professor Edmund Everett diTullio for

disturbing the peace by using "vulgar, profane or imdecent

language in a loud and boisterous manner within the pres-

ence of women or children" has been reversed by the Butte

County Superior Court. The incident arose when Professor

diTullio was accused of having

used such language at a rally in

the Chico Town Square protest-

ing the war in Vietnam. Profes-

sor diTullio, along with many

other professors and students at

Chico State College, had partici-

" pated in the long meeting in Oc-

tober of 1965. The bulk of the

meeting was fielding questions

by a predominantly hostile audi-

. ence and in the course of answer-

ing questions some strong lan-

guage was used. ACLU staff

counsel Marshall W. Krause de-

fended diTullio in a long jury

trial in the Chico Justice Court

- with a retired highway patrol-

-Ynan, not a lawyer, acting as

judge and the District Attorney

of Butte County, Lucien Vande-

grift, himself prosecuting the

ease. :

Statute Upheld

The decision reversing the con-

viction was written by Superior

Court Judge J. F. Good, who de-

elined to accept the argument

put forward by ACLU counsel

that the language of the statute,

Penal Code sec. 415, was uncon-

stitutionally vague and over-

broad and a violation of the First

Amendment. Judge Good felt

that the language of sec. 415

must be considered in the light

of its common law derivation

and "legislative purpose to avoid

the occasion of violence that is

apt to result when profane or

mdecent language is used in a

Joud or boisterous manner in the

presence of women and chil-

dren." He said that strong lan-

guage used in front of women

and children is more likely to

provoke fights and breaches of

the peace than if only males are

present. Judge Good did not feel

that Sec. 415 was a censorship

statute but rather intended mere-

ly to prevent actual breaches of

the peace creating a clear and

present danger of riotous cen-

duct.

Three. Trial Errors

Judge Good focused on three

trial errors which he felt were

so prejudicial as to require the

reversal of the conviction. The

first was the ruling that cer-

tain defense witnesses could not

testify because, according to the

judge, they had violated a rule

prohibiting witnesses to be pres-

ent in the courtroom. Judge

Good pointed out that such a vio-

lation, if it were proven, would

be grounds for a contempt ci-

_tation, but is not grounds for de-

priving a defendant in a criminal

ease of the testimony of these

witnesses. He also pointed out

that the prosecutor had com-

mitted prejudicial error in insist-

ing on questioning defense wit-

nesses on the subject of their

presence in the courtroom before

they were allowed to testify for

the defendant. This allowed the

prosecutor to make charges

against these witnesses before.

their testimony had even been

heard.

Cross-Examination

The second prejudicial error

. which Judge Good found was in

the manner in which Professor

diTullio was cross-examined by

the District Attorney. Specifical-

ly, the defendant testified that

he had cringed when he heard

-the words which he was accused

to have said read to the jury and

the prosecutor insisted on _ at-

tempting to show that he could

have had his counsel waive read-

jing of the complaint containing

the words to the jury and thus

e

avoided "cringing." Judge Good

pointed out that there was a con-

stitutional duty to read the com-

plaint to the jury and that "the

use of due process for the kind

of impeachment here attempted

was a gross abuse thereof. Al-

though the trial judge sustained

objections to all of these ques-

tions, the prosecutor apparently

refused to accept the rulings and

continued them, arguing that

they were proper matters for

impeachment.

"A motion to strike was grant-

ed and the jury instructed to

- disregard the questions. The ad-

monition was routine and not a

forceful one. Whereupon the Dis-

trict Attorney repeated = his

charge that the defendant per-

sonally insisted upon the read-

ing and again stated it was a

proper matter for the jury to

eonsider. The inference was ar-

gued that the defendant enjoyed

hearing the public use of such

language despite his denials.

"In a court where the presiding

judge is not a trained lawyer and

from the standpoint of both sal-

ary and qualification for office

holds a public office of consid-

erably less importance than that

of the District Attorney, a judi-

cial ruling may well have less

impact than the argument or

gesture of the District) Attorney."

Erroneous Instructions

The third error pointed out by

the Superior Court was the kind

of instructions which were given

by the trial court. The trial

judge refused to tell the jury

that they should consider the

alleged words of the.defendant

in context and not in isolation.

The Superior Court held that this

was a proper instruction and

should have been given, as the

context of the surrounding words

is imperative in order to under-

stand their meaning. The Su-

perior Court also criticized the

vague and broad instructions

given as to the meaning of Sec.

415, which included the concept.

that if someone's "modesty" was

offended, the statute was violat-

ed. "To so instruct the jury was

to inform them that any lan-

guage that one of them might

eonsider `immodest' regardless of

the context of a discussion would

constitute a disturbance of the

peace. The jury was thus invited

to consider matters of decorum

and taste rather than to focus

upon the use of vulgar, profane

or indecent words in the manner

`described in Sec. 415 and

circumstances apt te occasion

breach of the peace."

Certification Sought

Recognizing that the issues of

this case were of great impor-

tance, Judge Good indicated in

his opinion that he would certify

the case to the Court of Appeal

on the application of either party.

Both parties have now applied

for certification of the case to

the Court of Appeal so as to

avoid a further lengthy trial be-

fore the settling of important.

constitutional issues. The ACLU

hopes that the Court of Appeal

will aecept the case and strike

down the portion of See. 415

quoted above as unconstitution-

ally vague and overbroad in the

area of free speech. Professor

diTullio was net rehired in the

History Department at Chico

State despite the recemmenda-

tion of his Department and

Chairman that he be rehired.

in

Arrest of

Pickets Set

Aside on Appeal

In early February Judge Shee-

hy, of the Sacramento Superior

Court, in anticipation of a

threatened strike by Sacramento

euroounty's Social Workers, issued

an injunction which, among

other things, prohibited all per-

sons .. ."in concert or among

themselves" from inducing or at-

tempting to induce any county

employee to cease work and from

picketing or demonstrating at

county buildings. 2

Mass Arrests

Mass arrests followed. Persons

were arrested for carrying signs

which proclaimed they support-

ed the social workers strike. Per-

sons were arrested for picketing

-near county buildings with signs

that said "support your local

police." Persons were arrested

for carrying signs urging the re-

call of certain elected officials.

Persons were arrested a earry-

ing blank signs.

In all there were in excess of

seventy arrests, some of those

arrested were members of the

union, others were not. The basis

of the arrests was Penal Code

section 166 which makes it a

misdemeanor to disobey any law-

ful order of a court.

Free Speech Issues

Four of the arrestees peti-

tioned the Court of Appeal ask-

ing that they be released on the

grounds that their rights of free

speech and to petition their gov-

ernment for redress of griev-

ances had been violated. The

Court of Appeal, in the case of

In re Berry, agreed. The Court

declined to decide whether or

not the order was lawful but-

concluded that, even if it were,

criminal sanctions would be inap-

propriate and that where an

injunction against peaceful pick-

eting is involved resort should

first be had to civil remedies

aS a means of enforcement. :

Civil Remedies

The court explained that:

"even when picketing is subject

to injunctive restraint because

of an inacceptable purpose, the

communicative element does not

dissolve into thin air . . .Both

kinds of contempt action, civil

or criminal, pose threats to ex-

pression usually at a time when

public interest is highest and

when constitutional freedoms are

most vital to the embattled par-

ticipants .. . the threat of ecrimi-

nal sanctions is far more acute,

far more compelling, far more

chilling to the communicative

aspects of the controversy, than

auguries of civil contempt."

ACLU Intervenes

Attorneys for the petitioners

were the lawyer for the worker's

union, Laurence Karlton and

Coleman Blease of Sacramento.

Assistant Staff Counsel Paul Hal-

vonik appeared -on behalf of

ACLUNC and ACLUNC Board

member Albert Bendich ap-

peared on behalf of the National

Social Workers Association.

Edmund Everett diTullio

Since his conviction he has been

active in politics in Berkeley

and has been working at a Berke-

ley bookstore.

Levering Act Oath

Califernia's Levering Act Oath, in force since 1950, has

again been challenged for its unconstitutionality, this time

in Federal District Court. Mrs. Alison Glickman has charged

in a complaint filed April 4 in San Francisco that the John

Swett Unified School District has violated her Ae Ceal

rights by requiring that she exe

cute the Levering Act Oath as

wel] as a special teacher's oath

stating that she is not knowingly

a member of the Communist

Party before she can be paid the

$45.00 due her for two days'

teaching. The suit was filed by

ACLU staff counsel] Marshall W.

Krause and requests that the

Federal District Court declare

that both the Levering Act Oath

and the special teacher's oath

are unconstitutional and enjoin

their enforcement as well as re-

quire the defendant School Dis-

trict to-pay Mrs. Glickman for

the work she has performed.

After the filing of the suit

United States District Judge Wil-

liam T. Sweigert found that a

substantial constitutional ques-

tion was presented and ordered -

a three-judge court convened.

The Chief Judge of the Ninth

Circuit has now designated Cir-

cuit Court Judge Ben C. Duni-

way, District Court Judge Wil-

liam T. Sweigert, and District

Court Judge Peckham to serve

on the panel.

`Rodeo Scheel Involved

Mrs. Glickman resides in San

Francisco and is the Director of

the Married Students' Coopera-

_ tive Nursery School at San Fran-

cisco State College. She also at-

tends college in pursuit of an ad-

vanced degree. In July of 1966

she responded to an urgent call

for a substitute at, Tiny Tots

Nursery School at Redeo, Cali-

fornia, and taught there for two

days. "At the time she did not

realize that the school was con-

nected with the public school

district and was not asked to

sign any loyalty oath prior to

her employment. When _ she

sought to be paid she was told

she would have to swear under

oath that she did not advocate

the violent overthrow of the gov-

ernment of California or of the -

United States and was not a

member of any party or organ-

ization which so advocated, nor

_had she been a member of any

such party or organization with-

in the past five years, nor would

she become a member of such

organization during the eourse of _

her employment, nor would she

herself advocate violent over-

throw of the government of the

United States or the State of

California during her employ-

ment. She was also required to

state that she was not knowing-

-ly a member of the Communist

Party. Mrs. Glickman has con-

scientious scruples against such

oaths and refused to sign. The

_ school district refused to pay her

salary and the suit followed.

Mere Membership _

The ACLU feels that both the

`Levering Act Oath and the spe-

cial teacher's oath are unconsti-

tutional for a variety of reasons.

In a suit involving the loyalty

oath for New York government

employees, the United States Su-

preme Court recently ruled that

it was unconstitutional to disqual-

ify public employees merely be-.

cause they refused to answer

questions concerning member-

ship in organizations, The major-

ity of the Supreme Court pointed

out that mere membership in

any organization should not be

held against a person because

one can be a member without

advocating or even agreeing with

Mrs. Alison Glickman

the official position of the or-

ganization. The Supreme Court

said that what was required was

some showing of an actual intent

to further unlawful aims of an

organizttion. This case was Key-

ishian v. Board of Regents ef the

University of New York and was

decided by the narrow margin

of 5 to 4.

Guilt by Association

ACLU's legal position will also

"rely on several other decisions

supporting loyalty oaths in Ari-

zona, Washington, and Florida.

In the Arizona case, Elfbrandt v.

Russell; it was pointed out that:

"Those who join an organization (c)

but do not share its unlawful

purposes and who do not parti-

cipate in its unlawful activities

surely pose no threat, either as

citizens or as public employees."

Thus no longer will the U.S. Su-

preme Court accept the doc-

trine of guilt by association

`which has been the basis of pre-

vious decisions upholding loyalty

oaths.

Vague and Over-Inclusive

The ACLU also believes that

the California Levering Act Oath

is unconstitutionally vague and

unconstitutionally over-inclusive.

Since one never knows just what

organizations will be thought of

or found to have advocated vio-

lent overthrow of the govern-

ment, there is a tendency to shy

away. from membership in con-

troversial organizations to avoid

any charge that one who has

taken the Levering Act Oath is

violating it. Many conscientious

persons who have not and did

net intend to violate any laws

have shied away from govern-

ment employment because they

do not like to be told that un-

less they swear that they will

not act in a disloyal manner they

are not "loyal"

hired as employees.

Decision on Motions

It is expected that the Glick-

man suit will be decided on mo-

tions for summary judgment

within the next few months.

After the judgment of the three-

judge court there is a direct ap-

peal to the United States Su-

preme Court by the losing party

and so the Levering Act Oath's

validity should be finally settled

by the summer of 1968.

ACLU NEWS

MAY, 1967

Page 3

enough to be

ie

eo

Legislative Report os =

In the last edition of the NEWS it was reported that the

Senate Committee on Governmental Efficiency had taken

S.B. 9, the repealer of the Rumford Fair Housing Act, under

submission. This, it was noted, was a surprising development

because Senator Burns (D-Fresno) voted for taking the mat-

ter under submission instead of

voting the bill out of committee

and took the opportunity to dis-

cuss the merits of compromise in

the fair housing field, The aber-

ration has been corrected. With

notice to no one and no hearing

the Governmental Efficiency

~ Committee released S.B. 9 to the

Senate floor. Senator Burns

joined the majority that made

release possible and had his

mame substituted as author in

place of that of Senator Schmitz.

By putting his name on the bill

Burns gave it the prestige of

sponsorship by the President Pro

Tem of the Senate and removed

what ever taint Schmitz's John

Birch Society membership may

have supplied. Some newspapers

fhad been characterizing S.B. 9 as

the "Bircher Bill" and apparent-

ly Burns did not want any such

ixrelevancies to distract the sen-

ators from considering the sub---

stance of the measure.

Burns Uninformed

This laudable objective was un-

dermined by Burns himself when

he presented S.B. 9 to the Sen-

ate floor. It was painfully ap-

- parent that he did not know what

the bil] did. Thus he informed

his colleagues that S.B. 9 only

`repealed the Rumford Act and

did not affect publicly financed

housing which would continue to

be covered under the Hawkins

Act, In fact the Hawkins Act was |

repealed in 1963 and incorpof-

ated in the Rumford Act so that

_0x00A7.B. 9 does repeal all fair hous-

ing law dealing with publicly-fi-

nanced housing.

Eloquent Debate

The debate following Burns'

introduction of S.B. 9 on the Sen-

ate floor was spirited and at

times eloquent. Among those who

took the floor to speak against

Rumford repeal were Senators

Petris (D-Alameda), Short (D-

San Joaquin) and Stierne (D-

Kern) all from districts that had

voted overwhelmingly for Prop-

osition 14. Each of them called

upon his colleagues to demon-

strate political courage; their call

did not receive enough answers.

All the Republican members and

four Democrats supported S.B. 9

and it passed by a vote of 23 to

15.

Assembly Fate Uncertain

0x00A7:B. 9 is now in the Assembly

where it has been assigned to

the Committee on Governmental

Efficiency and Economy. Five

yotes are needed to keep the

pill from reaching the Assembly

floor.

have already announced their

epposition to the bill. They are:

Brown (D-San Francisco), Brath-

waite (D-Los Angeles), Miller

(D,Berkeley) and- McMillan (D-.

Les Angeles). Two members,

Dent (R - Contra Costa) and

Greene (D-Sacramento) main-

tain they have not yet decided

how they will vote. Crandall (R-

San Jose) has said he prefers

modification of the Rumford

Act to outright repeal. Crandall

`is a co-author of a modification

bill introduced by Bagley (R-

Marin) (A.B. 729, see April edi-

tion of the News) that has also

been referred to the Assembly

Committee on Governmental Ef-.

ficiency and Economy.

Modification forces have now

received some support from the

ACLU NEWS

MAY, 1967

Page 4

Four committee members -

Governor who has said he will

sign S.B. 9 if it reaches his desk

but that he is of the opinion

that there should be fair housing

coverage of large apartment

houses.

. Obscenity

~The lLyneh-Finch obscenity

bills, carried by Senator Lago-

marsino (R - Ventura), easily

passed the Senate after their

approval by the Senate Judiciary

Commitee. The result was as pre-

dictable as the organizations that

testified before the committee,

as one witness aptly described

them "on one side we always

have law enforcement and on the

other people who like to read

books."

The Story of "0"

The day before the committee

hearing the Attorney Genera] is-

sued his report on obscenity.

Like The Story of "O" it comes

in a plain cover but unlike The

Story of "O" it has a bonus for

the illiterate: photographs! Pic-

tures of undraped and partially

draped maleg and females and

pictures of devices used, one

must assume, for sexual stimu-

lation. The Attorney General

calls these items "soft core por-

nography.' At least someone on

the staff reads The Realist, if

only superficially. Paul Krassner

coined the term as a description

of the blatant sexual appeal in

conventional commercial adver-

tisements, None of these appear

in the Attorney General's re-

port.

Report Not Readily Available

The Report on obscenity is al-

most impossible to obtain.

haps this can be attributed to a

becoming modesty. Skeptics have

suggested a less virtuous mo-

tive. Two years ago the Attor-

ney General was given $50,000

to conduct a study of obscenity.

The Legislature was primarily

concerned with a statistical sur-

vey of obscenity arrests and con-

victions. Buried in the report, ob-

scured somewhat by the pictures

of the girls and boys, are the

results of that survey. They re-

fute the contentions made by

law enforcement about the need

for changing the obscenity law.

They show that there is ah as-

tonishing high arrest-conviction

ratio of 70%. When one realizes

that among the 30% of those

arrested who were not convicted

are included people who offend-

ed law enforcement's taste by

selling such books as Tropic of

Cancer the success of prosecu-

tions under the present obsceni-

ty law becomes incredible and

even a bit frightening. Moreover,

the Report's statistics establish

that arrests for sale of Beco

te children are: nominal.

Assembly Hearings May 23

-0x00A7.B. 78 and 79 are now in the

Assembly where they have been

assigned to the Committee on.

Crimina]| Procedure. They will be

heard before that committee on

May 23.

Anti-Nazj Bill

A.B. 141 (McMillan) is refer-

red to by its suporters as an anti-

genocide bill. It is only partially

concerned with "genocide," de-

fined in the bill as various acts

"committed with the intent to

destroy, in whole or in part, a

national, ethnical, racial or re-

ligious group . ." It also

would prohibit advocacy of the

"propriety" of genocide; make

it unlawful to wear certain uni-

and decora-

forms, medallions

Per- ACLUN_1946 ACLUN_1946.MODS ACLUN_1946.batch ACLUN_1947 ACLUN_1947.MODS ACLUN_1947.batch ACLUN_1948 ACLUN_1948.MODS ACLUN_1948.batch ACLUN_1949 ACLUN_1949.MODS ACLUN_1949.batch ACLUN_1950 ACLUN_1950.MODS ACLUN_1950.batch ACLUN_1951 ACLUN_1951.MODS ACLUN_1951.batch ACLUN_1952 ACLUN_1952.MODS ACLUN_1952.batch ACLUN_1953 ACLUN_1953.MODS ACLUN_1953.batch ACLUN_1954 ACLUN_1954.MODS ACLUN_1954.batch ACLUN_1955 ACLUN_1955.MODS ACLUN_1955.batch ACLUN_1956 ACLUN_1956.MODS ACLUN_1956.batch ACLUN_1957 ACLUN_1957.MODS ACLUN_1957.batch ACLUN_1958 ACLUN_1958.MODS ACLUN_1958.batch ACLUN_1959 ACLUN_1959.MODS ACLUN_1959.batch ACLUN_1960 ACLUN_1960.MODS ACLUN_1960.batch ACLUN_1961 ACLUN_1961.MODS ACLUN_1961.batch ACLUN_1962 ACLUN_1962.MODS ACLUN_1962.batch ACLUN_1963 ACLUN_1963.MODS ACLUN_1963.batch ACLUN_1964 ACLUN_1964.MODS ACLUN_1964.batch ACLUN_1965 ACLUN_1965.MODS ACLUN_1965.batch ACLUN_1966 ACLUN_1966.MODS ACLUN_1966.batch ACLUN_1967 ACLUN_1967.MODS ACLUN_1967.batch ACLUN_1968 ACLUN_1968.MODS ACLUN_1969 ACLUN_1969.MODS ACLUN_1970 ACLUN_1970.MODS ACLUN_1971 ACLUN_1971.MODS ACLUN_1972 ACLUN_1972.MODS ACLUN_1973 ACLUN_1973.MODS ACLUN_1974 ACLUN_1974.MODS ACLUN_1975 ACLUN_1975.MODS ACLUN_1976 ACLUN_1976.MODS ACLUN_1977 ACLUN_1977.MODS ACLUN_1978 ACLUN_1978.MODS ACLUN_1979 ACLUN_1979.MODS ACLUN_1980 ACLUN_1980.MODS ACLUN_1981 ACLUN_1981.MODS ACLUN_1982 ACLUN_1982.MODS ACLUN_1983 ACLUN_1983.MODS ACLUN_1984 ACLUN_1984.MODS ACLUN_1985 ACLUN_1985.MODS ACLUN_1986 ACLUN_1986.MODS ACLUN_1987 ACLUN_1987.MODS ACLUN_1988 ACLUN_1988.MODS ACLUN_1989 ACLUN_1989.MODS ACLUN_1990 ACLUN_1990.MODS ACLUN_1991 ACLUN_1991.MODS ACLUN_1992 ACLUN_1992.MODS ACLUN_1993 ACLUN_1993.MODS ACLUN_1994 ACLUN_1994.MODS ACLUN_1995 ACLUN_1995.MODS ACLUN_1996 ACLUN_1996.MODS ACLUN_1997 ACLUN_1997.MODS ACLUN_1998 ACLUN_1998.MODS ACLUN_1999 ACLUN_1999.MODS ACLUN_ladd ACLUN_ladd.MODS ACLUN_ladd.bags ACLUN_ladd.batch add-tei.sh create-bags.sh create-manuscript-bags.sh create-manuscript-batch.sh fits.log

Arrest Warrant

Procedures

Under Scrutiny

Oe `The law in California provides

that for a misdemeanor offense

an arrest may be made only if it

was committed in the presence

_ @f a police officer or if there is

aa arrest warrant issued by a

magistrate. Section 840 of the

Penal Code states that arrest_

warrants for misdemeanors can-

not be served at night "unless

upon the direction of the magis-

trate, endorsed upon the war-

rant." However, in San Francisco

the "direction of the magistrate''-

is rather automatic since the

printed forms for arrest warrants

in misdemeanor cases include the

legend that the warrant may be

served at night. Thus every time

the magistrate signs an arrest

warrant he automatically author-

izes it to be served at night.

Legislative Intent Defeated

When this practice was called

to the attention of the Police De-

partment and a question raised

as to its statutory validity, the

answer was that the magistrate

could strike out the provision al-

lowing the warrant to be served

at night if he did not desire it to

be so served. The ACLU believes

that this practice violates the in-

ACLUN_1946 ACLUN_1946.MODS ACLUN_1946.batch ACLUN_1947 ACLUN_1947.MODS ACLUN_1947.batch ACLUN_1948 ACLUN_1948.MODS ACLUN_1948.batch ACLUN_1949 ACLUN_1949.MODS ACLUN_1949.batch ACLUN_1950 ACLUN_1950.MODS ACLUN_1950.batch ACLUN_1951 ACLUN_1951.MODS ACLUN_1951.batch ACLUN_1952 ACLUN_1952.MODS ACLUN_1952.batch ACLUN_1953 ACLUN_1953.MODS ACLUN_1953.batch ACLUN_1954 ACLUN_1954.MODS ACLUN_1954.batch ACLUN_1955 ACLUN_1955.MODS ACLUN_1955.batch ACLUN_1956 ACLUN_1956.MODS ACLUN_1956.batch ACLUN_1957 ACLUN_1957.MODS ACLUN_1957.batch ACLUN_1958 ACLUN_1958.MODS ACLUN_1958.batch ACLUN_1959 ACLUN_1959.MODS ACLUN_1959.batch ACLUN_1960 ACLUN_1960.MODS ACLUN_1960.batch ACLUN_1961 ACLUN_1961.MODS ACLUN_1961.batch ACLUN_1962 ACLUN_1962.MODS ACLUN_1962.batch ACLUN_1963 ACLUN_1963.MODS ACLUN_1963.batch ACLUN_1964 ACLUN_1964.MODS ACLUN_1964.batch ACLUN_1965 ACLUN_1965.MODS ACLUN_1965.batch ACLUN_1966 ACLUN_1966.MODS ACLUN_1966.batch ACLUN_1967 ACLUN_1967.MODS ACLUN_1967.batch ACLUN_1968 ACLUN_1968.MODS ACLUN_1969 ACLUN_1969.MODS ACLUN_1970 ACLUN_1970.MODS ACLUN_1971 ACLUN_1971.MODS ACLUN_1972 ACLUN_1972.MODS ACLUN_1973 ACLUN_1973.MODS ACLUN_1974 ACLUN_1974.MODS ACLUN_1975 ACLUN_1975.MODS ACLUN_1976 ACLUN_1976.MODS ACLUN_1977 ACLUN_1977.MODS ACLUN_1978 ACLUN_1978.MODS ACLUN_1979 ACLUN_1979.MODS ACLUN_1980 ACLUN_1980.MODS ACLUN_1981 ACLUN_1981.MODS ACLUN_1982 ACLUN_1982.MODS ACLUN_1983 ACLUN_1983.MODS ACLUN_1984 ACLUN_1984.MODS ACLUN_1985 ACLUN_1985.MODS ACLUN_1986 ACLUN_1986.MODS ACLUN_1987 ACLUN_1987.MODS ACLUN_1988 ACLUN_1988.MODS ACLUN_1989 ACLUN_1989.MODS ACLUN_1990 ACLUN_1990.MODS ACLUN_1991 ACLUN_1991.MODS ACLUN_1992 ACLUN_1992.MODS ACLUN_1993 ACLUN_1993.MODS ACLUN_1994 ACLUN_1994.MODS ACLUN_1995 ACLUN_1995.MODS ACLUN_1996 ACLUN_1996.MODS ACLUN_1997 ACLUN_1997.MODS ACLUN_1998 ACLUN_1998.MODS ACLUN_1999 ACLUN_1999.MODS ACLUN_ladd ACLUN_ladd.MODS ACLUN_ladd.bags ACLUN_ladd.batch add-tei.sh create-bags.sh create-manuscript-bags.sh create-manuscript-batch.sh fits.log tention of the Legislature in en-

acting Penal Code section 840

which was that warrants for mis-

demeanor arrests were to be

served at night only in exception-

al cases. The existence of an ar-

rest warrant allows a peace offi-

cer to break and enter any home

or other premises and thus, un-

less its use is restricted, it can

involve a severe and unnecessary

invasion of privacy on a minor

charge. The practice in San

Francisco is to serve arrest-war-

rants for unpaid parking tickets

at night and, since the officer

need not have the warrant in his

possession but may make a radio

check to find out if one exists,

many persons questioned at night

end up being arrested because of

outstanding traffic tickets.

ACLU Action

The ACLU has asked the

Municipal Court judges to stop

the practice of automatically

granting authority to serve arrest

warrants in misdemeanor cases

at night and revise the form. If

this is not done, persons arrested

under such warrants may wish to

bring damage actions to test ee

validity.

tions; and make it unlawful to

imitate the "drill formations, sa-

lutes, or other methods used" by

Nazis.and the Ku Klux Klan. Ad-

ditionally, it has a~group libel

section making it a misdemeanor

to utter or publish false ma-

terial "tending to show deprav-

ity, criminality,

lack of virtue of a class' within

200 yards of at least 10 adult

._ members of the "class." A "class"

is defined as "any group of citi-

zens of any race, color, religion,

or ethnical (sic) origin which

any person is holding, or at-

tempting to hold, up to contempt,

derision or obloquy." It can be

seen that the "class" can be a

mixture of races and that since

everyone is a member of some

racial group a "class," under this

pill, is any group of people. The

misdemeanant would define the

"class" by his very act of speak-

ing ill of it. Hence one could be

tried under this bill for defam-

ing the Legislature.

Strange Bedfellows

A.B. 141 is supported by a

number of Jewish organizations

based in Southern California. Be-

sides ACLUNC, it is opposed by

organizations that describe them-

selves as "Christian National-

ists" and a great many Northern

California Rabbis. Here, indeed,

are some strange bedfellows. The

bill has received one hearing;

further hearings will be held in

May or June, when the Criminal

Procedure Committee also hears

a genocide bill, as yet not in

print, authored by Assemblyman

Alan Sieroty (D.-Beverly Hills).

-Paul N. Halvonik,

unchastity or.

MG

Privacy in a Crowding World

REGISTRATION APPLICATION

Mail to Faculty Program Center Telephone: 469-1205

San Francisco State College, AD 220

1600 Holloway, San Francisco 94132

Mr.

Mrs, Daytime Phone? ..W.c.-n0snconnnowe

Miss :

Address ..... a eles

street number city zip code

-I_ enclose ($............ ) $12 for general (includes banquet) or ($............)

$6 for a student registration (banquet not included) in PRIVACY

_IN A CROWDING WORLD. (Make check payable to The Frederic

Burk Foundation.)

Students who wish to attend the banquet may do so (subject to avail-

ability of space) at the general registration fee of $12.

Advance registration is urged. No refunds after May 18.

Please select panel (by Roman Numeral) in order of your prefer-

ence.

Morning Afternoon

Ist Choice....:.......... Ist Choice...

2d Choice... 2d Choice...

3d Choice.......... Se 3d Choice.

Note: Panel preferences granted on a first- come as served basis.

On April 20 a full day was spent hearing testimony con-

cerning the conscientious objection to war of Seaman Rich-

ard Christensen who enlisted in the United States Navy and

then became a religious objector to war. The hearing was

had before Federal District

Christensen's application for a

writ of habeas corpus filed by

ACLU counsel Marshalj Krause.

Christensen contends that he is

a conscientious objector and

must follow his religious views,

which are those of the Society

of Friends, but that the Navy

has arbitrarily denied his re-

quest for administrative dis-

charge as a conscientious ob-

jector.

Government's Contentions

The United States Attorney,

representing the Navy, claims

that administrative discharges

`are a matter of grace and that

the Federal Court has no juris-

- diction to look into the question

of whether Christensen is a con-

scientious objector and that even

if he is a conscientious objector

within the meaning of the law

the Navy could still refuse to

discharge him without giving

any reason. Judge Weigel, after

hearing the impressive testi-

mony concerning Christensen's

beliefs, seemed to be taking the

position that the government

must come forth with some evi-

dence showing that either Chris-

tensen is not a sincere consci-

entious objector or else that it

would be impractical or inequit-

able to discharge Christensen as

a conscientious objector. So far

the government has come up

with no such evidence but Judge

Weigel continued the case until

May 11 to allow the government

to seek to find such evidence.

Witnesses

Testifying on behalf of Chris-

tensen were Judge George Brunn

of the Berkeley-Albany Munici-

pal Court, ae E. D. Spru-

REI:

Ee

The first right of a citizen

Is the right

To be responsible

Judge Stanley A. Weigel om

ance, the Commanding Officer of

the School's Command at Trea-

sure Island; Lt. J. K. Kennedy,

Christensen's former division

officer; Ben Seaver of the Soci-

ety of Friends who has coun-

selled thousands of conscientious

objectors, Harriet Shraffron,

Clerk of the Berkeley Friends

Meeting, and Christensen him-

self. All these witnesses testi-

fied as to Christensen's religious

belief and presented a very

strong case that there was no

basis for finding that he was not

a religious objector to war who

would be classified IO if he

were before his draft board rath-

er than in the Navy.

One of a Series of Cases.

The Christensen case is one

of a series of cases where per-

sons in the armed services who

have become conscientious ob-

jectors" after their enlistment

have been denied any relief. Pre-

sumably, the armed forces are

concerned that if one person gets (c)

`out on this ground there wil] be

a flood of applications. The gen-

eral procedure is to refer such

applications to the Director of

Selective Service. Since October

of 1965 there has been no case

in which the Director of Selee-

tive Service has been willing toe

state that a member of the armed

forces is indeed a bona fide con-

scientious objector. It is hoped

that the Federal District. Court

will recognize that such arbitrary

exercises of power are not good

for any government agency in-

cluding the armed forces and re-

quire that Christensen be given

the discharge he seeks.

SESS

JOIN TODAY

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES eNO

OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA

Patron Membership BY

Sustaining Membership .:....-. 2... +... smeesse es 00

Business and Professional Membership .......0-+++s2 20

Family Membership... 35... .. 4.6. os eae etn 1D

Associate Membership 2. os... 2. e225 essa ccsicsessss 10

Annual Membership: ....... 1... +. 00 es cece reese ces 8

Student Membership

ee ee

ACLU News Subscription rece ciie sees ccecios sere $2.00

NAME.

ADDRESS and ZIP CODE.

TELEPHONE NUMBER....... =

oeaotee

2608 FSS THTHTHSHHHTHHTHHTHHHHHH HTH HO GSO OG OO B'S GH FF OO CBOSS

090 SF FHC HHH SHES O FSH SO OD BD @ BD OH (c) OH HHG:-O- OBI

-AMT. ENCLOSED... 2 oo cmeee

503 Market Street

Saw Francisco, 94105