vol. 32, no. 3

American

Civil Liberties

Union

Volume XXXII

SAN FRANCISCO, MARCH, 1967

Paul N. Halvonik's Report |

After the decision of the United States Supreme Court in

Reynolds v. Simms, the California Supreme Court ordered

the California State Senate, perhaps the most mal-appor-

tioned legislative house in the United States, to re-district

according to population. That re-apportionment occurred

and today's California Senate is

its first product. The Senate is

composed of 40 members. As a

consequence of re-apportionment

there are 22 members. Of those

22, 15 are former assemblymen

and seven have no prior legisla-

tive experience.

Built-in Gerrymander

But it will be quite a while

before the `one man, one vote"

ideal is recognized in terms of

actual power because the senior-

ity rules of the Senate provide

their own built-in gerrymander.

In order for a bill to reach

the floor of the Senate it must,

except in rare circumstances, re-

' ceive a favorable vote of a ma-

jority of the committee to which

it has been assigned. Committee

assignments are made according

to seniority. Thus freshmen sen-

ators, those who are in the Sen-

ate as a result of re-apportion-

ment, do not have an oppor-

tunity to sit on the powerful com-

mittees and thus, in effect, have

neg vote on the `most important

matters,

The Case of Los Angeles

As an example, before re-ap-

portionment, Los Angeles had

one state senator, Now it has

14, and, in addition, shares sena-

tor Whetmore with Orange Coun-

ty. All are freshmen; the in-

cumbent Senator, Thomas Rees,

has become a Congressman. The

most powerful committees in the

Senate are the committees on

- Rules, Revenue and Taxation,

Governmental Efficiency, and Fi-

nance. The Rules Committee has

five members, only one of those

represents Los Angeles County.

Revenue and Taxation has 13

members, again only one is a rep-

resentative of Los Angeles Coun-

ty. Governmental Efficiency has

11 members and only one of them

is from Los Angeles County. The

Finance Committee, which deals

with budget, has 13 members,

none of whom are from Log An-

geles County.

Although committee assign-

Marin Theatre

Party in S.F.

On April 1

The Marin Chapter of ACL-

UNC has arranged a benefit

performance of Jack Aranson

in "The World of Dylan

Thomas" Saturday evening,

April 1, 8:30 p.m., at the San

Francisco City Theatre, 465

Post Street, San Francisco. A

champagne reception for hold-

held backstage after the per-

formance.

The proceeds of the benefit

will enable Marin ACLU to

meet its increased obligations,

especially Northern Califor-

nia's new legislative program.

`| Tickets are $3.50. Write to

Sidney Koalkin, 1025 Sir

Francis Drake Blvd., San An-

|) selmo, or telephone. 456- 1212

| for tickets.

`tribution is to strike the

ers of ACLU tickets will be |

ments have been made in both

Houses and the committees have

held their organizational meet-

ings, few committee meetings of

any importance have yet been

held or even scheduled.

Obscenity Bills

An exception are the three bills

thus far introduced in the Senate

dealing with obscenity; The Sen-

ate Judiciary Committee has `set

April 6 as the date for a hearing

on these measures. They include

SB 78 and 79, commented on in

the last edition of the News, and

SB 96, (Carrell). Carrell's con-

"re.

deeming social importance" test

from the present law. Since the

decision of the United States Su-

preme Court in Memoirs v. Mas-

sachusetts (Fanny Hill), there

can be no doubt that the removal

ot the "redeeming social impor-

tance" standard would make the

California law unconstitutional.

Hence it would seera Senator

Carrell's bill has little chance for

passage because if California's

law should become patently un-

constitutional there will be no

obscenity law at all, a result the

Senator probably does not have

in mind.

Rumford Act Changes

Neither AB1 nor AB9, the Rum-

ford repealers, have been set for

hearing, William Bagley (R-San

Rafael) has announced he will

introduce a bill to modify the

Rumford Act. As of this writing,

no precise bill has yet been

drafted but, according to Assem-

blyman Earle Crandall (R.-San

Jose), who has been working on

the bill, it would change Rumford

Act coverage of multi-unit apart-

ment houses from houses with

four or more units to houses

with five or more units and it

would remove from Rumford Act

coverage publicly financed single

family dwellings.

"Crime Package"

Governor Reagan has an-

nounced that he will submit a

"erime package" to the Legisla-

ture. Two of the areas included

within his as yet nebulous. pack-

age are of import to the ACLU.

They are the prohibition of distri-

bution of allegedly obscene ma-

terial to juveniles and the ex-

punging of arrest records where

no conviction results. As to the

former, the Governor will prob-

ably join the Lieutenant Gov-

ernor and Attorney General in

supporting Senator Lagomar-

sino's SB 78 (see February edi-

tion of the ACLU News). As to

the latter, the Governor's notion

of a good reform in the arrest

records field may not entirely

comport with that of the ACLU.

Reports. indicate that the Gov-

ernor will propose that a person

who has been arrested will have

to establish his innocence before

the arrest record is expunged and

he receives his (c)

exoneration." Moreover, it has

' been proposed by some members

of the District Attorney's Asso-

ciation that such a bill include

- -Continued on Page 4

"certificate of .

Number 3

May 20

Privacy

Conference

Plans are proceeding apace

for the major conference on

"Privacy in a Crowding World,"

to be held on Saturday, May 20,

under the joint sponsorship of

ACLUNC and San _ Francisco

State College.

The all-day conference on the

State College campus will begin

promptly at 9 a.m. with a key-

note speech by Prof. Alan Westin

of Columbia University, A variety

of panels under several broad

headings will occupy the morn-

ing and the afternoon,

Annual Meeting

The dinner meeting, which will

also double as the ACLUNC an-

nual meeting, will feature Justice

William O. Douglas, who will

speak on "Computerized Man."

The panels will deal with as-

pects of Privacy and the Indi-

vidual; Privacy and Law Enforce-

ment and Press Coverage; Pri-

vacy and Government, Industry

and Commerce; Privacy and In-

stitutions; and Privacy and Re-

search,

Admission Charge

General admission charge is

$12, which includes the dinner.

Student admission is $6, not in-

cluding the dinner; however, Jus-

tice Douglas will speak in an

auditorium that will accommo-

date all those attending the con-

ference.

The next issue of the NEWS

will detail the program and list

the many -distinguished partici-

pants. Prior to the conference,

all ACLU members will receive

announcements and registration

forms.

"The Love Book"

Cor

it Denies |

In a surprise action last month San Francisco Mucscipal

Court Judge Joseph Kennedy refused to hear any more wit-

nesses in a proceeding to determine whether three persons

who sold Lenore Kandel's slim volume of poems, "The Love

Book,'? must stand trial on an obscenity charge. The ACLU,

representing the defendants, at

first persuaded Judge Kennedy

to hear a motion to dismiss the

charges on the ground that "The

Love Book" was not obscene as

a matter of law because it has

"redeeming social value.' The

hearing was first scheduled be-

fore three municipal court

judges but Presiding Judge El-

ton Lawless refused to assign

two other judges to sit with

Judge Kennedy so the latter had

to hear the matter himself. The

reason Kennedy wanted two

other judges to join him in hear-

ing the case is that there might

be political repercussions if he

_ dismissed the case after the San

Francisco Police Department had

made such a big fuss about the

ACLU Seeks to

Correct Errors

In Billing

The ACLU regrets the numer-

ous errors that occurred in the

last several months in processing

membership renewals. Unfortu-

nately, one of the ACLU's clerks

was inattentive to her duties

and undertook to hide her un-

finished work. The situation has

now been corrected but we're

not certain that all of the errors

of omission have been caught.

Therefore, if you renewed your

membership in recent months

and are still being billed won't

you please notify the office. We

are eager to make a correction.

Right To Privacy

U.S. Supreme Court Fears

Health Inspector Case

ACLUNC Staff Counsel Marshall W. Krause last month

argued the Roland Camara case in the U.S. Supreme Court,

The case raises the question whether a San Francisco health

inspector may enter a private home on a "routine inspec-

tion" without the benefit of a search warrant. The ACLU -

has contended that there must

be probable cause to believe

that the health code. is being

violated and then a search war-

rant can always be procured.

Right of Privacy

During the course of the argu-

ment Chief Justice Ear] Warren

is quoted as saying, "In an age

when so many things are happen-

ing to women,' it may become

necessary to require inspectors

to get warrants from ~magis-

trates. A woman at home with

her children "is afraid, both for

her children and herself," the

Chief Justice said. This, he add-

ed, "is the real question of the

right of privacy" at issue before

the court, And this, he went on,

is a "right of privacy which peo-

ple have a right to protect-par-

ticularly a woman."

Camara is proprietor of the

House of Records at 223 Jones

St., San Francisco. His residence,

to which he refused health in-

spectors entrance, is on a mez-

zanine floor behind the shop.

Case Arose in 1963

Camara refused to admit in-

spectors to his residence in 1963.

He was prosecuted under a sec-

tion of the Housing Code which

authorizes' health inspectors to

make occupancy checks once a

year. For refusing to permit an

inspection,- a--person-. may be

sentenced to six months in jail

or $500 fine or both.

Albert W. Harris Jr., a state

assistant attorney general de-

fending the San Francisco code,

suggested that it would be un-

reasonable to require warrants

for health inspections because

as many as 50,000 per year are

made in 16,000 San Francisco

buildings.

_ " Companion Case

In a companion case originat-

ing in Seattle the high court is

also considering the right of

firemen to inspect, without a

judge's permission, a warehouse

owned by Norman See.

No decision is expected in

these cases until April 1 at the

earliest,

Rabbi Fine

Honored

Rabbi Alvin I, Fine, Vice-

Chairman of the ACLUNC board

of directors,

with the first Adlai E. Stevenson

award by the United World

. Federalists on Saturday evening,

March 18, at the Fairmont Ho-

tel in San Francisco.

The award recognizes Rabbi

Fine's services in northern Cali-

fornia. to world peace through

- world law, -

is being presented |

alleged "hard core pornography"

`contained in the volume.

At the outset, Judge Kennedy

heard the testimony of two wit-

nesses and of Lenore Kandel

about her poems and the reasons

which prompted her choice of

words in describing love rela-

tionships, and also the testimony

of John B. Streager, Pastor of

the First Baptist Church in San

Francisco, offered by the Peo-

ple to show the "depraved" na-

ture of the poems. Time ran out

after these two witnesses were

heard and a further hearing was

scheduled for February 3. On

that date, however, Judge Ken-

nedy unexpectedly announced

that he would not hear any fur-

ther witnesses and would have to

deny the motion to dismiss for

the reasons explained below.

Ginzburg Decision

Judge Kennedy relied upon the

latest U.S. Supreme Court de-

cision in Ginzburg v. United

States where the majority of the

U.S. Supreme Court held that

`even if material': were not "ob-

scene" in the abstract, a person

could be punished for sending it

through the mails if it were "pan-

dered" as if it were obscene. Mr.

Ginzberg's reliance on a "money-

back guaranty if this material

should be stopped in the US.

mails" and "Now, because of re-

cent U.S. Supreme Court deci-

sions, this material can be sent

to you," caused the U.S. Supreme

Court to say that if a person

wanted to treat materia] as ob-_

scene, a federal court could take.

his word for it. Judge Kennedy

used this holding to say that

since he did not know how "The

Love Book" was sold by the de-

fendants, there was no point in

making a decision on whether

or not it was "obscene" in the

abstract. He ruled that the ques-

tion of how it was sold would

have to be determined in a trial

and that therefore the motion to

dismiss would be denied. Judge

-Continued on Page 3

ACLU Intervenes

In Berkeley |

Contempt Case

The ACLUNC board of diree-

tors last month voted, 9 to 6, to

authorize intervention in the

case of four persons arrested

on the University of California

campus in Berkeley who violated

Municipal Judge George Brunn's

order not to discuss their cases

in public. The defendants held a

press conference about their

case on the City Hall steps and

- were thereafter charged with

contempt of court,

The issue is a tough one he"

cause of conflicting civil rights-

free press and fair trial. The

board's majority felt that a de-

fendant may never be silenced;

that at any time he should be

permitted to protest his inno-

cense, Such an issue does not

ordinarily arise because attorneys

usually instruct their clients not

to make any statements until

the case is decided. Of course,

whether or not attorneys in a cas@

and the police can be silenced is

another' matter and was not

reached in the board's debate.

Volunteer ACLU attorney Hen

ry Elson of Berkeley will repre:

sent the ACLU in the case. -

, 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

oS 151

Ralph B. Atkinson

Dr. Alfred Azevedo

Mrs. Judith Balderston

Albert M. Bendich

Leo Borregard

Albert Culhane

Mrs. Natalie Dukes

Prof. John Edwards

Howard A. Friedman

Robert Greensfelder

Rey. Aron. S. Gilmartin

Evelio Grilto

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 Union

of Northern California

CHAIRMAN: Prof. Van D. Kennedy

VICE-CHAIRMEN: Rabbi Alvin I. Fine

Helen Salz

SEC'Y-TREAS.: Jehn 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 (c)

Committee of Sponsors

Mrs. Paul Holmer

Mrs. Mary Hutchinson Prof. Wallace Stegner

Morse Erskine

Prof. Wilson Record

Bean Robert A. Keller

Prof. David Levin

Gerald D. Marcus

Ephraim Margolin

Prof. John Henry Merryman

Robert L. Nolan, M.D.

Prof. Rebert M. O'Neil

Frederick S$. Reinheimer

Clarence E. Rust

John Brisbin Rutherford

Mrs. Alec Skolnick

Stanley D. Stevens

Stephen Thiermann

Cecil Thomas

Donald Vial

Richard J. Werthimer

@r. Marvin J. Naman

Mrs. Theodosia Stewart

Rt. Rev. Sumner Walters

Richard Johnston

Roger Kent

Mrs. Ruth Kingman

Prof. Theodore Kreps

Rev. Robert W. Moon

Dr. Norman Reider

Prof Hubert Phillips

Norman Lezin

Proposed Decision in Tel.

Identification Case

The American Civil Liberties Union is participating in

the hearing before the Public Utilities Commission of the

State of California in which the Pacific Telephone and Tele-

graph Company is attempting to require persons who spon-

sor recorded telephone messages to include the name and

address of the sponsor in the

message. The ACLU opposes this

requirement on the basis that

anonymity in the communication

of speech is a part of the pro-

tection of free speech and press

under the First Amendment and

has strong historical antecedents |

such as the anonymous publica-

tion of the Federalist papers.

ACLU also takes the position"

that to require a person to state

his name and address in a brief

recorded announcement is an at-

tempt to influence the content of

that announcement. ACLU has no

objection to the present practice

of the telephone company of re-

taining in its file the name and

address of persons responsible

for recorded messages for relief

if there is a showing of some

necessity to contact that person.

Proposed Report

A PUC examiner has issued a

proposed report to the Commis-

sion recommending that Pacific

Telephone be allowed to go

ahead with its requirement and

finding no free speech matter at

issue. Last month the ACLU,

through volunteer attorney Reed

Bement and staff counsel Mar-

shall W. Krause, strongly .at-

tacked the proposed report,

stating: "We find it shocking and

sad that the Examiner has ridden

reughshod over constitutional

arguments of the first signifi-

eance, never stopping to under-

stand those arguments or deal

with them in a lawyer-like man-

ner."

The ACLU exceptions point

out that the proposed report fails

te find any state interest or rea-

son in support of the identifi-

cation requirement. Should there

be any defamatory or libellous

material in the recorded an-

nouncements (which are a meth-

od of communication used most

ACLU NEWS

Paqe 2

generally by right-wing political

groups), the address and name

of the sponsor is available from

the telephone company. The AC-

LU memorandum points out that

any "public concern" which has

arisen from these recorded an-

nouncements has arisen solely

from disagreement with the po-

litical content of the announce-

ments and the requirement of

identification is merely an at-

tempt to intimidate the spon-

sors of the announcements.

Compelling State Interest

The ACLU memorandum also

points out that decisions of the

U.S. Supreme Court and of the

California Supreme Court have

required a "compelling state in-

terest" before regulation touch-

ing on First Amendment con-

cerns can be validated. The only

state interest the Examiner finds

in the identification requirement

is his speculative concern that

some persons might think that

the Pacific Telephone and Tele-

graph Company was responsible

for the announcement if the ac-

tual sponsor was not identified

_ by name and address. There is

no evidence that anyone has ever

blamed the telephone company

for these announcements.

Court Action Possible

Within the next several months

the Public Utilities Commission

should make a decision on wheth-

er or not the Examiner's pro-

posed report will be adopted. If

it is adopted, the ACLU will car-

ry the matter to the courts.

Reprints

Available

A limited number of reprints of

"Police Questioning of Law

Abiding Citizens" by Charles A.

Reich, which appeared in the

Yale Law Journal, Vol, 75, No.

7, June 1966, is available from

the ACLUNC office, 503 Market

St., San Francisco, Calif. 94105.

MARCH, 1967 Cost of the reprints is 50cent each.

Docket of Cases Being Handled by

Attorneys for the ACLUNC

The following cases are being handled by the ACLUNC's staff atterneys with the as-

sistance of volunteer attorneys where noted. ACLU attorneys are directly representing the

people involved in these cases except where an amicus curiae appearance is specifically

noted,

FREE SPEECH AND

ASSOCIATION

1. Rita Mack and William

Mack v. State Board of Educa-

tion. The State Board of Educa-

tion claims the Macks, fermer

teachers, signed false loyalty

`oaths and for this reason is at-

tempting to take their creden-

tials away from them. After sev-

eral appeals in the matter, the

San Francisco County Superior

Court recently ruled that the

State Board acted improperly in

revoking the Macks' credentials

because the State Board had not

shown that in failing to disclose

their former membership in the

Communist Party the Macks fal-

sified the oath that they had not

been members of organizations

advocating violent overthrow of

the government. The Superior

Court also stated that it had

grave doubts as to the constitu-

tionality of the entire California

loyalty oath program. The State

Board of Education may appeal

the decision.

2. Rosenfield v. Malcolm. In

this case the California Supreme

Court has just ruled that Dr.

Rosenfield was improperly fired

from his position as assistant

County health officer for refus-

ing to resign from a political or-

ganization on the orders of a

superior. The County has main-

tained that since Dr. Rosenfield

had not attained any civil service

status he could be fired for any

reason. The Supreme Court re-

jected this concept and now the

County will have to decide

whether it wants to show that

there is another reason or wheth-

er it is willing to settle the case

with Dr. Rosenfield.

3. Re Anonymous Telephone

Messages. The Pacific Telephone

and Telegraph Company is try-

ing to get the California PUC to

adopt a rule requiring persons

using recorded telephone mes-

sages to identify themselves by

name and address. The ACLU

has told the Commission such a

rule would violate the First

Amendment and the case is now

before the Commission after an

examiner's tentative report that

there would be no First Amend-

ment violation.

4. Dixon, Bright and McClure

v. Municipal Court. This case in-

volves the attempt by the San

Francisco Police Department to

stop the play "The Beard" on the

ground that its treatment of cer-

tain types of sexual activity on

the stage is "lewd and indecent

conduct" forbidden by the Penal

Code. Prosecution of criminal

charges against the actors have

now been prohibited under a

writ issued by the San Francisco

Superior Court holding that such

a criminal action was never in-

tended to be applied to the per-

formance of a play and that to

bring such criminal charges

would be unconstitutional. The

District Attorney will appeal the

ruling.

5. People v. Bright and Dixon.

This is the criminal case de-

scribed in the preceding para-

graph pending in the San Fran-

cisco Municipal Court which has

now been prohibited by order

of the Superior Court. This mat-

ter will remain pending until

the decision on the City's appeal

is final.

6. People v. Daniel Brown,

pending in the Sacramento Munic-

ipal Court. Volunteer attorney

Lawrence Kariton. In this case

a criminal charge was brought

against an evangelist on the

ground that his loudspeaker vio-

lated an ordinance prohibiting

amplification of speech beyond

100 feet, The evangelist was hold-

ing meetings in a tent, erected

on private property, whose di-

mensions exceeded 100 feet.

7. People v. Cenrad Chance.

This is an obscenity prosecution

wherein a conviction was _ ob-

tained on one count of an 1I1-

count complaint charging sale of

"obscene" material. There was

an acquittal on the other counts.

The conviction is now pending

- on appeal before the Appellate

Department of the Superior

Court of San Mateo County

where the ACLU has raised the

question of the trial judge's rul-

ing that "girlie' magazines cir-

culating in the community could

not be used to establish contem-

porary standards as to sex and

nudity. The ACLU also objects

to improper instructions given by

the trial court. -

8. Nick Cipy v. Teamsters Un-

ion. This case is pending in the

United States District Court for

the Northern District of Cali-

fornia, filed with the assistance

of volunteer attorney Jerrold Le-

vitin. Cipy was expelled from

the Teamsters Union because he

persistently raised questions at

union meetings concerning the

propriety of the actions of the

officers. The union claims that

his charges were stale and that

therefore he was merely being

obstructionist and could be ex-

pelled.

9. People v. Davis. In this case

Ronald Davis, the director of the

S.F. Mime Troupe, was convicted

for giving a performance in a

public park without a permit.

The conviction now has been af-

firmed by the Appellate Depart-

ment of the Superior Court in

San Francisco on the basis that

whether or not a permit could

have been required, Davis should

have applied for one first before

going ahead with the perform-

ance. Further steps on this mat-

ter are now being contemplated.

10. People v. diTullio. In this

case Professor Edmund diTullio

was convicted for disturbing the

peace by the use of "vulgar, pro-

fane or indecent words in a loud

and boisterous manner in the

presence of women and chil-

dren." The ACLU has appealed

this conviction to the Butte

County Superior Court on the

basis that the disturbing the

peace section punishing this

speech is an unconstitutional

abridgement of freedom of

speech and is unconstitutionally

vague. Professor diTullio's

speech was given at a rally

against the United States policy

in Vietnam.

11. Fields v. The Housing Au-

thority. The Superior Court of

Sacramento County issued an in-

junction preventing the eviction

of Fields and others from their

public housing apartments after

the ACLU with the assistance of

volunteer attorney Lawrence

Karlton filed an injunction ac-

tion, The essence of the com-

plaint was that Fields was being

evicted solely for organizing a

tenant's committee to protest the

policies of the Housing Authori-

ty and speaking out on these

policies. The County claimed the

right to evict tenants for any

reason whatsoever but the Su-

perior Court denied it had such

a right.

12. Landau v. Ferding. This

ease is now pending in the Su-

preme Court of the United States

on a petition for a writ of certio-

rari. It involves the Genet film

"Un Chant d'Amour" which the

Superior Court of Alameda Coun-

ty found to be "obscene." The

District Court of Appeal in Cali-

fornia affirmed this decision and

the California Supreme Court

denied a hearing. The petition

for certiorari points out that the

social importance of the film is

established by the uncontradict-

ed testimony of expert witnesses

and, further, the California

eourts improperly applied the

ruling of Ginzburg v. United

States to a declaratory judgment

action which involves the gen-

eral nature. of the material and

not the way in which it was dis-

tributed.

13. Wirta v. Alameda-Contra

Costa County Transit District.

This case is pending in State

District Court of Appeal after a

decision of the Alameda County

Superior Court that the Transit

District could not prevent Women

for Peace from advertising their

opposition to the war in Vietnam.

The Superior Court had ruled

that the Transit District as a

public agency had no power to

pick and choose among paid ad-

vertisers on the basis of content

of the advertisements. The Tran-

sit District has appealed the de-

cision, claiming the right to re-

strict political advertising to the

occasion of and issues in regular-

_ly scheduled elections.

14. People v. Muzalski, Cehen

and Thielen. This is a criminal

action now pending in the San

Francisco Municipal Court in-

volving Lenore Kandel's poems,

"The Love Book.' The three de-

fendants were accused of selling

the poems, which are alleged to

be "obscene." A motion to dis-

miss was denied on the basis

that such a motion could not be

heard since the Ginzburg ruling

requires that the method of sale

be taken into account in determ-

ining whether something is or is

not obscene.

15. People v. Rubin, et al. In

this case four defendants in a

criminal action violated a judge's

order by making statements about

. the case to the press. They are

now charged with contempt of

court and the ACLU is defending

their right to comment about

their case as a part of their

freedom of speech.

16. In re State Bar Rules. In

this case the State Bar of Califor-

nia wishes to amend its rules of

professional ethics to prohibit

lawyers from writing "self-lauda-

tery" books and articles about

' themselves and their experiences

at the bar. The ACLU has filed a

brief with the Supreme Court of

California opposing the adoption

of these rules on the ground

that they are too vague and would

interfere with the free speech of

lawyers.

FREEDOM OF RELIGION

1. Christensen y. Hendrick.

This case is now pending in the

United States District Court for

_the Northern District of Califor-

nia before Judge Stanley Weigel.

Leo Richard Christensen filed a

writ of habeas corpus, claiming

that he is a conscientious objec-

tor and asserting that the United

States Navy refuses to give him

an administrative discharge on

this basis. After enlisting in the

United States Navy, Christensen

became a Quaker and a conscien-

tious objector, The Navy arbi-

trarily refuses to grant him an

administrative discharge as a con-

scientious objector despite the

fact that he would clearly qualify

as ac. 0. if he had been drafted.

The United States claims that

the right te an administrative dis-

charge is purely discretionary

with the Navy and that the

United States courts cannot ex-

amine into the exercise of this

discretion by the Navy.

2. Harris y. Fitzharris. This

case, now pending in the United

States District Court for the

Northern District of California

on a complaint under the Civil

Rights Act, is being handled with

the assistance of volunteer attor-

ney Richard Bryan. Harris is a

prisoner at Soledad State Prison

and is a member of the Muslim

religion. The prison officials re-

fuse to allow him to have any ~

religious books or have religious

counselling from Muslim minis- "

ters, or meet with fellow mem-

-Continued on Page 4

Remnants of Slavery

Miscegenation

Laws Attacked

- InUS Supreme Ct.

The American Civil Liberties Union last month urged the

United States Supreme Court to strike down "the last rem-

nants of legalized slavery in our country" by declaring un-

constitutional the ban on interracial marriage in Virginia

and 16 other states. "Legalized racial prejudice . . . should

not exist in a free society," the

Union stated.

Equal Protection

An ACLU brief filed with the

high court argued that the anti-

miscegenation laws violate the

Fourteenth Amendment's equal

protection clause. They also vio-

late due process of law by

"arbitrarily and eapriciously" in-

fringing on the constitutionally

protected right of marriage. The

civil liberties group stressed that

"the elaborate legal structure of

segregation has been virtually

obliterated with the exception of

the miscegenation laws."

The Facts

The ACLU challenge is on be-

half of Richard Loving, a 31-year-

old white construction worker

"and his part-Indian, part-Negro

wife, Mildred. Five weeks after

their Washington, D.C. marriage,

the Lovings were arrested on

July 11, 1958 in Caroline County,

Virginia, where they were living.

They were charged with attempt-

ing to evade the Virginia ban on

interracial marriages. One-year

prison terms were suspended for

the Lovings on condition that

they both leave Virginia "at once

and do not return together or at

the same time . . . for a period

of 25 years." The couple lived in

Washington for a few years, but

in 1963 they decided to fight the

conviction and the sentence of

banishment from their home

state. On March 7, 1966 the Su-

preme Court of Appeals of

Virginia upheld the state anti-

miscegenation statutes, and the

brief today filed with the United

States Supreme Court is an ap-

peal from that decision.

An Open Affront

"So long as [anti-miscegenation

laws} stand, they will continue

to perpetuate racial bitterness

and constitute an open affront to

Negro Americans," said the Union

The group pointed out that the

Virginia laws "were originally

passed primarily for economic

and social reasons as a means

te foster and implement the in-

stitution of slavery ... [and]

were also the products of the

majority white group's racial

and religious prejudices and

fears of the Negro."

Arguing that "there can be no

doubt" that the conviction of the

Levings was based on race, the

ACLU brief maintained that

"when a Negro is denied the

right, solely because he is a

Negro, to marry a white woman

who wishes to marry him, the law |

discriminates against him and

denies him as well as the women

equal protection of the laws."

Racial Integrity Act

Earlier Virginia court deci-

sions have upheld anti-miscege-

nation laws which have two

purposes: "to preserve the racial

integrity of its citizens,' and to

prevent "corruption of the

blood" from racial intermixing

which would "weaken or destroy

the quality of { Virginia's] citizen-

ship." The ACLU brief points

out, however, that Virginia's 1924

Racial. Integrity Act "preserves.

only the integrity of one group:

members of the so-called `White'

or `Anglo-Saxon Race." "White

persons" may marry only "white

persons," but "colored persons"

may marry anyone except "white

persons." No laws are "more

symbolic of the Negro's relega-

tien to second-class citizenship," |

the brief declared.

No Scientific Evidence

Noting that states have the

power to regulate marriages, the

ACLU brief said that "the state

has. the burden to show an

overriding legislative purpose to

justify anti-miscegenation laws."

The brief pointed out: "Virginia

has not presented, and we submit

cannot present, reputable scien-

tific evidence to prove that a

person of mixed blood is some-

how `inferior' in quality to one -

of racial purity, assuming argu-

endo that a person of racial

purity such as a pure Caucasian

exists. Most serious students of

anthropology do not even con-

sider this question a present

problem for research, agreeing

`that the races of the world are

essentially equal in native ability

and capacity for civilization and

that group differences are for

the most part cultural and en-

vironmental, not hereditary."

The Civil Liberties Union brief

referred to some of "the outra-

geous civil effects" to which the

Lovings are exposed through the

Virginia laws: "they might not

be able to inherit from each

other, their three children would

be deemed illegitimate, they

would lose Social Security bene-

fits, the right to file joint in-

come tax returns and even rights

to workmen's compensation bene-

fits-all of which are contingent

upon a valid marital relation-

ship."

Case of Fired

Public Employee

o

Nears Trial

The case of William C. Madden

who was fired as veteran service

officer for San Joaquin County

will come to trial in the near

future because the County's legal

objections were overruled in a

Superior Court decision on

January 30, 1967. Mr. Madden

was fired from his position as

veteran service officer solely be-

cause he refused to testify

against his son in a criminal pro-

ceeding, claiming the privilege

not to be a witness against him-

self under the Fifth Amendment

to the United States Constitu- .

tion. The County claimed that it

had the right to fire Madden for

the refusa] to answer questions |

for this reason but in the Janu-

ary 30th proceeding Judge Bill

Dozier ruled that the County did

not have such power and that a

trial would be required to al-

low Madden to prove that this

indeed was the reason why he

was fired.

The matter is being handled

by volunteer attorneys Ruth F.

Rathke, Donald F. Rector and

Edwin R. Baltimore. They: point-

ed out to Judge Dozier that re-

cent decisions of the California

Supreme Court such as Rosen-

field v. Malcolm and Bagley v.

Washington Township Hospital

District have established the

principle that the government

may not remove employees for

exercise of constitutional rights

in the absence of circumstances

showing some direct interfer-

ence with the employee's ability

to perform his duties. No such

interference can be claimed in

the Madden case as the claim of

the privilege against self-incrimi-

nation was made in a proceeding

having nothing to do with the

duties of a veteran service of-

ficer.

| LETTERS...

'...to the Editor

Recorded Tel. Messages

Editor:

I would like to express my Sin-

cere appreciation to the Ameri-

ean Civil Liberties Union of

Northern California for their

legal work in P.U.C. Case No.

8335 involving telephone com-

pany proposals to restrict record-

ed public announcements.

The ACLU legal briefs on this

ease have been very admirable

and I agree with every stated

word. I recognize that the ACLU

has expended hundreds of dol-

lars worth of labor, time and

talent on this case which they

intervened in upon my solicita-

ion.

The Hearing Examiner's Pro-

posed Report is indeed shock-

ing. It appears to be little more

than an attempt to justify the

telephone company's contentions

in the case.

However, the ACLU Memor-

andum to Exceptions to the Ex-

aminer's Proposed Report is

very well done. I hope it saves

the day.

In any event, I want everyone

in the ACLU to know that I am

grateful to them for the great

amount of good work they have

done on this case and in the

cause of the constitutional right

of freedom of speech-Fred E.

Huntley, Berkeley.

"The Love Book"

Must Stand Trial

Continued from Page 1-

Kennedy agreed that "The Love

Book" had redeeming social im-

portance but claimed that this

did not end the case because of

the Ginzburg ruling. Consequent-

ly, many expert witnesses lined

up by ACLU to testify on be-

half of Miss Kandel's poems were

unable to testify at this point.

Misapplication of Decision

The application of the Ginz-

burg ruling in California is quite

unsatisfactory and- is. especially

so in this case. First, the Ginz-

burg ruling was only meant to

apply in "close cases" and it

would seem that Judge Kennedy

was required to hear testimony

to determine whether or not this

was a "close case." Second, the

California Legislature has de-

fined the word "obscene" with-

out including any of the matters

from the Ginzburg decision and,

in fact, new bills pending be-

fore the Legislature attempt to

include in the California defi-

nition the holding of the Ginz-

burg case. Therefore, it would

seem that the Ginzburg ruling

is not applicable in California.

It should be noted that the U-S.

Supreme Court in deciding the

Ginzburg case was dealing with

a federal statute which outlawed

the mailing of "obscene" ma-

terial without defining that term

and therefore was free to add a

definition.

New Action To Be Considered

It is expected that the criminal

trial for the three persons who

sold "The Love Book" wil] be

scheduled some time in May or

June of this year. ACLU is con-

sidering the possibility of bring-

ing a declaratory judgment ac-

tion or else a writ of prohibition

proceeding to get a determina-

tion on whether "The Love

Book" is "obscene" without it

being mixed up with the ques-

tion of how it was sold by par-

ticular individuals. We _ believe

that this kind of determination

is required under the First

Amendment since, when an ar-

rest is made on the ground of

"obscenity," circulation and sale

of the book is immediately cur-

tailed, whereas the problem

might not be the book but mere-

ly how it is sold. This is an im-

mediate injury to both the pub-

lisher and the author. In the par-

ticular case, there was no "pan-

dering" or advertising of any

sort and the books were sold

just as hundreds of other vol-

umes of modern poetry are sold,

directly from the shelves.

Failure to Cut

Hair Lands U.C.

Student in Jail

David W. Rees, an eighteen-

year-old student at the Univer-

sity of California at Davis, was

held in contempt of court last

month for failing to have his long

hair cut. He was sentenced to

spend a day in jail but he was

immediately released on a writ

of habeas corpus. After argu-

ment, the case is now under sub- -

mission to the Superior Court.

Mr., Miss or Mrs.

The issue arose when Rees ap-

peared in traffic court in Davis

before C. S. Archer of Knights

Landing who was sitting Pro

Tem. The young man furnished

his name upon request and Judge

Archer then wanted to know -

whether it was Mr., Miss or Mrs.

Thereafter, he instructed the

bailiff to take the boy out and

have his hair cut. When they

returned, the boy's hair was

still uncut because it being a

Monday all the barber shops were

closed,

ACLU Help

Judge Archer continued the

matter until the next day and

instructed the boy to have his

hair cut or be held in contempt

of court. Instead, the boy turned

to the ACLU for assistance and

the following day Lawrence K.

Karlton, volunteer ACLU attor-

ney of Sacramento, appeared in

his behalf. The District Attorney

joined Karlton in arguing that

the Judge had exceeded his au-

thority but the judge refused to

be budged and sentenced the boy

for contempt of court. However,

he did disqualify himself from

sitting in the traffic case.

Public Employees

Editor: It is only fitting that

I express to you in writing my

appreciation for the support and

help your organization and, in

particular, Marshall Krause and

volunteer attorney Albert Ben-

dich gave to me in the recent

court case which challenged the

City of Berkeley on a freedom

of speech issue.

The manner in which you and

your associates handled and fi-

nally won this case was a credit

to your organization and a step

toward the insurance of freedom

of speech for all city employees

here and throughout the state -

`Claude T. Belshaw, Berkeley.

Why UROC

Found Aldrich

Unfit for Pres.

Recently, the Board of Gov-

ernors of UROC (United Re-

publicans of California), de-

seribed by the San Francisco

Chronicle as "hard rock Republi-

eans,' adopted a resolution

denouncing Dr, Danie] Aldrich,

Chancellor of the Irvine campus

of the University of California,

as unfit for the university's

presidency.

"Lester M. Andrew of Tustin,

Orange county," said the Chron-

icle, "led the clamor against the

chancellor at Irvine, Dr. Daniel

Aldrich. Mr. Andrew advised

UROC's governors that he knew

for a fact that the Irvine campus

library possessed a magazine

containing a four-letter word. He

also said he knew of women

students "practically living in the

same dormitory with men, and

he found Dr. Aldrich culpable for

having `openly sanctioned' the

formation of a faculty chapter of

the American Civil Liberties

Union.

"The Regents of the University

of California may or may not

intend to consider Dr. Aldrich

for president of the University,"

said the Chronicle. "We. don't

know him," they concluded, "but

after that testimonial of indict-

ment from UROC, we incline to

think him a good man worth

further evaluation."

Civil Liberties

Courses Set in

Chapter Areas

University of California Exten-

sion Courses on civi] liberties co-

sponsored with ACLUNC Chap-

ters will commence in two Bay

Area Chapters in March.

The course to be sponsored by

Sonoma County Counci] of ACL-

UNC, titled "Civil Rights and Lib-

erties: Recent Court Decisions"

will be held at Sonoma State Col-

lege, Rohnert Park, California,

beginning on Saturday, March

18, with successive sessions con-

ducted on April 1, April 8 and

April 22 at 3053 Stevenson Hall.

Each Saturday session will run

from 9:30 a.m. to 12:00 and 1:00

to 3:30 p.m. The course will carry

two quarter credits from U.C.

Extension, and the fee is set at

$40. :

The same Course sponsored by

Mt. Diablo Chapter will be con-

ducted at Diablo Valley Junior

College on March 31 and April 1,

4 14, 15, Friday evenings from

7 to 10 and Saturdays 9 a.m. to

12 noon and 1 to 5 p.m.

Prof William Booth of Santa

Rosa Junior College, and Mrs.

David Bortin of Walnut Creek

may be contacted for information

in their respective areas. These

courses may be taken by any in-

terested person with a college

degree or by arrangement with

the coordinator, Ephraim Margo-

lin, Esq. Students at colleges in

the Chapter areas may arrange

with their schools to have credits

recognized, if they wish.

The sponsoring Chapters and

the ACLUNC Education Commit-

tee through which the program

was initiated urge any member

active in Chapter affairs to take

the course, if possible, since it

will provide valuable background

in legal and judicial develop-

ments influencing civil liberties

in Northern California.

Faculty will include Ephraim

Margolin, Jerome Falk, Esq., AC-

LUNC cooperating attorney; Al-

bert Bendich, Esq., Associate

Prof. of Speech at the Univer-

sity of California, and member

of ACLUNC's Board of Direc-

tors; Marshall Krause, staff coun-

sel for ACLUNC, and Robert

O'Neil of Boalt Hall School of

Law. All members, as well as

teachers in the sponsoring Chap-

ter areas have been sent an-

nouncements and _ registration

forms for the courses from U.C.

Extension Division.

The same course will be co-

sponsored by the Monterey Coun-

ty Chapter and University of

California Extension's Santa Cruz

Division, with the dates and

place to be announced in the

next issue of the NEWS.

Navy Regrets

Netation on

Returned Letter

The U.S. Navy admitted error

last month in returning with a

derogatory notation a letter ad-

dressed to Bert Kanewske, a

Bay Area conscientious objector

at the U.S. Naval Disciplinary

Command in Portsmouth, New

Hampshire.

The writer of the undelivered

letter was Mrs. Shirley Lee of

Berkeley. The letter expressed

sympathy for the young man

whose conscience did not permit

him to serve in the Vietnam

conflict. The notation on the

letter read, "You support crimi-

nal activity."

Captain Robert J. Tribble, (c)

Director, Corrections Division of

the Navy's Bureau of Personnel,

informed the ACLU that Mrs.

Lee had been advised "that the

Navy regrets the personal tenor

- of the notation on her letter to

Seaman Kanewske." She was

also advised that "the individual

who returned her letter had

been appropriately corrected.

ACLU NEWS

MARCH, 1967

Page 3

|

Docket of Cases

Attorneys for the ACLUNG

Continued from Page 2-

`bers of his religion, all on the

basis that the religion preaches

black supremacy and therefore

`is too dangerous to be allowed to

exist in prisons,

3. Olen Hollon v. Board of

Trustees. This case is pending in

the Court of Appeal after an

-adverse ruling in the Superior

Court for Shasta County. Volun-

-teer attorneys are Robert Laws

and Henry Saunders. Hollon was

a bus driver for the school dis-

trict who was fired for his ex-

treme fundamentalist religious

views after a book expressing

`those views came to the attention

of the School Board. The School

Board contends that anyone hold-

ing such extreme religious views

must be mentally unbalanced and

unfit to drive a bus.

4, Re Paul Smith, Paul Smith

`was denied a conscientious ob-

jector classification by his draft

board solely on the ground that

the board did not believe that

his religious objection to war was

"sincere." Smith came forward

with a good deal of evidence

that his belief was sincere and

there was no evidence in the

record contradicting this testi-

mony except that Smith came

to his religious views some years

after he had registered with the

Selective Service System.

CRIMINAL LAW

AND PROCEDURE

1. Berg, et al, v. Cahill, et al.

U. S. District Court for the North-

ern District of California. This is

a suit to enjoin the enforcement

of California Penal Code sections

370 and 372, the public nuisance

sections. They are being used to

harass citizens of San Francisco

deemed undesirable by the San

Francisco police. The suit has

just been filed, we are awaiting

the answer of defendants, and we

intend to move for a temporary

restraining order and preliminary

-. injunction very shortly, Co-coun-

`sel on this case is Richard B,

Weinstein of San Francisco.

' yen People v. Leviton and Peo-

ple v. Watkins, San Francisco

Municipal Court, These defend-

ants are charged with violating

California Penal Code sec. 370.

Watkins is one of the plaintiffs i in

the federal action to enjoin the

enforcement of sec. 370, the pub-

lie nuisance section. The demur-

rer to the complaint was denied

and the matter is set for trial in

May of this year.

3. Cuddy v. Hillsman. This is a

false arrest case pending in San

Francisco Superior Court filed by

a City College student against

officials at San Francisco City

College for causing his arrest at

the college. Cuddy was arrested

for "trespassing" after he had

been suspended for organizing a

"orohibited" meeting on the cam-

pus,

4, People v. Menektos. This

case is pending in the Appellate

Department of the Superior Court

- of San Mateo County and involves

the question of when a waiver of

constitutional rights is effective

in a criminal case, Menektos was

' arrested for drunk driving and

`made admissions to the police

Page 4

officers after having been warned

that he did not have to make a

statement against himself, He ad-

mitted that he was very drunk.

The ACLU contends that the

police have a duty not to take

statements from a drunk because

he is not in any condition to

make a voluntary waiver of con-

stitutional rights. Constitutional

rights can only be intelligently

waived by a person competent to

understand the meaning of this

waiver. -

5. Budd v. Madigan. This is a

habeas corpus action pending in

United States District Court for

the Northern District of Califor-

nia under which Thomas Budd

attempts to obtain his freedom

from a judgment of conviction

for being drunk in a public place.

ACLU NEWS

MARCH, 1967. without -warrant or -

Budd's defense is that he is a

chronic alcoholic and cannot help

being drunk on occasion; there- -

fore, to punish him under any

penal law is punishment for an

illness and cruel and unusual

punishment under the Highth

Amendment. The case is pending

before Federal Judge Carter and

is being handled by volunteer

attorney George Duke.

SELF-INCRIMINATION

1. People y. Plagowski, This

case is now pending before the

Appellate Department of the Su-

perior Court of San Francisco

from the conviction of Dean Pla-

gowski for refusing to identify

himself to a police officer and

account for his presence when re-

quired to do.so. The ACLU claims

that the statute making this re-

quirement, Penal Code sec. 647

(e), is unconstitutional because

it requires a person either to

incriminate himself under the

Fifth Amendment and to waive

his constitutional rights to re-

main silent or to commit a sep-

arate crime, The case is being

handled by volunteer attorney

Richard Peritz.

2. Matter of John Allen John-

son, California State Board of

Education. Johnson invoked his

privilege against self-incrimina-

tion at a hearing of a sub-commit-

tee of the House Committee on

un-American Activities in San

Francisco in 1960. He is now seek-

ing a permanent teaching cre-

dential. After a hearing, a hear-

ing officer recommended against

granting a credential and the rec-

ommendation will now be con-

sidered by the State Board of

Education.

3. Madden v.

County, In this case a county

veteran service officer used the

privilege against self-incrimina-

tion in a criminal proceeding

having nothing whatsoever to do

with his employment. Neverthe-

less, he was fired by the County

Board of Supervisors who claim

the right to fire him for any

reason. A superior court action

challenging the firing is now

pending, Volunteer attorneys are

Ruth Rathke, Don Rector and

Edwin Baltimore.

Search and Seizure

1. People v. Quilon, District

Court of Appeal. This case in-

volves a search conducted by

federal narcotics officers without

warrant or probable cause, Quil-

on's parole officer accompanied

the federal agents on the search

and, according to the District

Court of Appeal, this was suffi-

cient to vitiate any constitutional

claims. A hearing was sought in

the California Supreme Court

and denied by a vote of 4-3. At

present no decision has been

reached as to whether to seek

certiorari in the United States

Supreme Court or to seek habeas

corpus relief in the federal dis-

trict court. We are amicus curiae

in this case.

2. Camara vy. Municipal Court.

This case is now pending before

the Supreme Court of the United

States on an appeal from deci-

sions of California courts uphoid-

- ing the validity of a San Fran- -

cisco ordinance requiring that a

person open his home or apart-

ment to health inspectors in the

performance of their duties. The

ACLU has attacked the validity

of this statute on the basis that it

allows forced entry into a per-

son's home without a warrant,

probable cause or emergency, in

violation of the Fourth and Four-

teenth Amendments to the United

States Constitution.

3. Parrish v. Alameda County.

In this case the American Civil

Liberties Union has filed an

amicus curiae brief before the

Supreme Court of California

contesting the dismissal of so-

cial worker Benny Parrish for

refusing to participate in a "bed

check" of welfare recipients in

Alameda County. Parrish con-

tends that the program was ille-

gal since it required the entry

into homes .by welfare -workers

probable

San Joaquin ,

Being Handled by

cause. The County claims that no

entry was made without "con-

sent" but the ACLU points. out

that persons on welfare are not

prone to refuse the request to

enter made by their welfare

workers, ACLU's brief was pre-

pared by volunteers Robert Laws

and Bonafacio Yturbide,

Genera] Due Process

1, Mulkey v. Reitman. In this

case ACLUNC is amicus curiae in

the U.S. Supreme Court on the

question of whether the decision

of the California Supreme

Court overturning Proposition 14

should be upheld. Proposition 14

provided that any person could

refuse to sell or rent his real

property to another person on

any basis whatsoever and thus

nullified existing fair housing

laws as well as prevented pas-

sage of future fair housing laws.

The ACLU contends that Propo-

sition 14 is illegal state action

under the Fourteenth Amend-

ment aS it is a state encourage-

ment of racial discrimination.

2. Culbertson v. Santa Clara

County. In this case the Superior

Court of Santa Clara County de-

cided that a person committed to

a mental hospital and held there

for some time without any legal

process may not sue for damages.

The ACLU, with the assistance

of volunteer attorney Peter Bull,

`is taking an appeal from this

ruling on the basis that when a

commitment is made without any

legal process there must be a

right of action for damages to

protect against such arbitrary

actions.

3. California v. Lande. This

case is pending on appeal to the

State District Court of Appeal

after a superior court decision

that an automobile belonging to

Mrs. Lande could be forfeited to

the State because it was used to -

"transport" a marijuana cigar-

ette. Mrs. Lande had no knowl-

- edge of this use of the car and

the ACLU contends that the

taking of her property under:

these circumstances is a viola-

tion of due process of law. Volun-

teer attorney is Socrates Mama-

kos.

- 4, Myers v. Arcata School Dis-

trict. In this case Superior Court

Judge Watson issued an order

requiring that "Greg Myers be

returned to his classes at Areata

High School despite the fact that

he refused to get his hair cut

as ordered by school officials.

Judge Watson pointed out that

the school regulations were un-

constitutionally vague and that

the school seemed to be insisting

on conformity without reason.

Greg Myers was returned to class

but now the School Board is at-

tempting to again expel him and

a new action may have to be

filed. The ACLU position on the

"haircut question" is that educa-

tion is too important to be for-

feited on the basis of someone's

ideas concerning good grooming.

Miscellaneous Issues

In addition to the foregoing

35. cases, the ACLU is handling

ten issues before administrative

agencies. Included are two na-

tionalization petitions with politi-

eal overtones, six deportation

cases, five of which involve Chi-

nese who have had difficulty se-

curing discretionary relief be-

cause of membership in the de-

funct Chinese American Youth

Club, which the Service claims

was sympathetic with Commu-

nism. The sixth case involves a

Roumanian who would suffer

physical persecution if he were

deported to his native land.

Also, during the past month,

chapters have intervened in two

long hair cases. In Davis, a Jus-

tice Court found a student in a

traffic case guilty of contempt of

court in failing to have his long

hair cut. He is represented by

volunteer attorney Lawrence

*Karlton. In the second case, a

Sonoma High School student was

suspended from school for vio-

lating a vague regulation govern-

ing the length of hair. The volun-

teer, ACLU. pa tey is Rex

Sater.

`Stockton

Annual

Meeting

The Stockton Chapter of

ACLUNC will hold its annual

meeting at the Hazelton Room

of the Stockton Public Library

on Thursday evening, March

30, 1967 at 8 p.m. Pau] N. Hal-

vonik, ACLUNC's legislative

representative in Sacramento,

is the featured speaker. The

Nominating Committee has

prepared a proposed slate of

board members and addition-

al nominations may be made |

from the floor.

Senate's Built-in

Gerrymander

Continued from Page 1-

a provision opening arrest rec-.

ords to the inspection of em-

ployers. Currently this.is not the .

law in theory, although it is, to

some extent, in practice. One po-

lice officer says that he will not

give arrest records to employers,

but if one should call and inquire

about somebody he will tell the

employer whether or not a record

exists.

The maintenance of arrest rec-

ords not only undermines the

presumption of innocence, it

places in the hands of any law

enforcement official the absolute

power to give one a record that

will permanently damage his cop-

portunities for employment and

can be used to prejudice judges,

probation and parole boards .

against him. Senator Carrell (D.

Los Angeles) has introduced. a

bill providing a much more satis-

factory answer to the problem.

SB71 provides for non-disclosure

of records of arrest where there

has been no conviction, and the

arrestee requests. such non-dis-

closure. After such a request the

arrest is "deemed not to have

occurred, and such person may

answer accordingly any questions (c)

relating thereto." The only excep-

tion to non-disclosure in SB 71 is

that records may be divulged "as

necessary for law enforcement

purposes." - Paul N. Halvonik.

ACLUNC Legislative coll Sees

tive,

Harassment

By Secret

Service Agents

Another case of harassment by

U.S. Secret Service agents came

to the attention of the ACLU

last month. A draft registrant in

expressing his objection to serv-

ice in Vietnam wrote his board

that President Johnson was a

murderer. No threats were made

against the President. Neverthe-

less, because of this political dis-

sent he has been subjected to sur-

veillance and efforts have been

made to learn his whereabouts at

all times. Whenever the agents

lose contact with him they com-

municate with his alarmed moth-

er. The ACLU is filing protests

with the Secret Service.

The first right of a citizen

Is the right

To be responsible

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION (c)

ing it.

Seek To Enjoin

Enforcement Of

Nuisance Law

Four residents of the Haight-

Ashbury district in San Fran-

cisco have filed a suit on behalf

of themselves, and. others simi-

larly situated, asking a Federal

three judge court to declare Cali-

fornia's Public Nuisance Law un-

- constitutional and to enjoin the

San Francisco police from enfore-

Mime Troupe Members "

Two of the plaintiffs, Mime

Troupe members Peter Berg and

Eugene Emmett Grogan, were ar-

rested as public nuisances for giv-

ing an.impromptu. puppet show

performance at the corner of

Haight and Ashbury on Hal-

lowe'en Eve. Brooks Bucher, an-

other of the plaintiffs, also is a

member of the Mime Troupe. He

was arrested as a public nuisance

on Hallowe'en Eve, even though -

he did not participate in, but only

observed the puppet show.

Fourth Plaintiff -

Robert L. Watkins, the fourth

plaintiff, was arrested on New

Year's Day after he stepped from

a Haight Street donut shop snd

leaned against a parked car.' Of-

ficer Arthur Garrens approached

him and asked him if he realized

he was violating the law. Watkins

asked Garrens to explain himself

further, Garrens replied, "Your

feet are touching the sidewalk,"

and took Watkins into custody. (c)

The complaint alleges that the

police department is using the

public nuisance law to arrest

"persons' who are guilty of no -

crime but who irritate defend--

ants because of such persons'

mode of dress and manner of

grooming."

The plaintiffs are represented

by Assistant Staff Counsel Paul

Halvonik and volunteer attorney

Richard B. Weinstein. of. eis

Francisco.

Move eels te

Replace Feb 5, |

1940, Resolution

The ACLUNC board of direc-

tors last month voted to support

a movement at-the March plenary

session of the national. board of

directors to eliminate the Resolu-

tion of February .5, 1940, and

to substitute in its place a pro-

vision that members of the. gov-

erning "boards and: staff of the

ACLU "shall be. unequivocally

committed: to the objectives of

the Union" as. set forth in. its

Constitution.

The Feb. 5, 1940, resolution as

been a subject of controversy

since its adoption. Many persons

have viewed it as kind of a loyal-

ty oath. It provides, in part,

that the ACLU holds it inappro-

priate "for any person to serve

on the governing committees of

the Union or on its staff, who is

a member of any political organi-

zation which supports totalitarian'

dictatorship in any country, or

who by his public declarations'

indicates his support of such a

principle."

JOIN

OF NORTHERN Cer Re

Patron Membership eo onocd oe ee Ie

Sustaining Membership

Business and Professional Membership .

Family Membership . .

Associate Membership cei er eee

Annual Membership

Student. Membership... ..........%-

ACLU News Subscription Vea

NAME...

ADDRESS and ae CODE...

coeoe eee

TELEPHONE NUMBER............

SO Sse sare obs sees cise

eevee eevee ee oe (c) 0 8 e266 HF OS OO

$e 07 8, Ar encloses epee ee eer (c) Cnt Oe See

50

25

15

00 ee(R) (c) 0 6 (c) (c) @ and 6 (R)

Ole eee eae 3

COSHCHCEOHHEOHHHOHEOHHHBEHHHHHHHHHTHHHHHHHHOOEM

SSP OG Selanne:

AMT. ENCLOSED.

ceeecoeed

503 ictker ae

San Francisco, 94105

TODAY

sGisssso 151

10.