vol. 34, no. 8
Primary tabs
American
- Civil Liberties
Union
Volume XXXIV
SAN FRANCISCO, AUGUST, 1969
Ernest Angell Retires
Edward J. Ennis
New National |
Board Chairman
New York attorney Edward J. Ennis has been elected
chairman of the American Civil Liberties Union by a vote
of the organization's Board of Directors, it was announced
recently. Ennis replaces Ernest Angell, who retired from
the post after 19 years service. The ACLU's Board is com-
posed of 30 at-large members and
representatives of its 47 affili-
ates.
No Backward March
Taking office as ACLU chair-
man at the same time as the Su-
preme Court receives new lead-
ership, Ennis predicted "the
Burger Court will at least sup-
port - and may extend - the
rights secured under the leader-
ship-of Ear] Warren. The Su-
preme Court will not march back-
wards, and neither will the na-
tion."
As ACLU general counsel since
1955 and Due Process Committee
chairman since 1964, Ennis par-
ticipated in many of the test
cases that shaped the course of
the Warren Court. In 1959 he
argued United States v. Baren-
blatt, in which the Supreme
Court set forth its basic positions
on the powers of Congressional
committees -in that case the
House Committee on Un-Ameri-
ean Activities-against rights of
witnesses under the First Amend-
ment, Two years ago he argued
Afroyim v. Rusk, which held that
the federal government could not
revoke United States citizenship
for voting in a foreign election.
Ennis participated last year in
Supreme Court tests of foreign
travel bans and film and book
censorship laws.
Increase In Oppression
~ Commenting on recent actions
by the federal government, Ennis
observed, "Instances of official
repression of individuals have in-
creased sharply in the late 1960's.
The right of dissent is seriously
challenged in such cases as the
anti-riot conspiracy indictments
Homosexuality
No Basis for
Civil Serv. Firing
In a 2 to 1 decision, the U:S.
Court of Appeals in Washington,
D.C. ruled that Federal civil
service employees may not be
fired solely on the ground they
are homosexuals.
The decision came in the case
of an employee of the National
Aeronautics and Space Adminis.
tration who was fired in 1963
after a rendezvous with another
man. The employee denied homo-
sexual conduct but the other man
pressed charges against him and
NASA was informed of the case.
The court's opinion, written by
Chief Judge David L. Bazelon
and joined by Judge J. Skelly
Wright, said the Civil Service
Commission could not justify its
dismissal of an employee "mere-
ly by turning its head and crying
`shame.' "
"The notion that it could be an
appropriate function of the Fed-
eral bureaucracy to enforce the
majority's conventional codes of
conduct in the private lives of its
employees is at war with elemen-
tary concepts of liberty, privacy
and diversity,' Judge Bazelon de-
clared.
The government will undoubt-
edly appeal the decision to the
U.S, Supreme Court,
in Chicago and the Spock case
convictions, But threats do not
make a constitutional crisis in-
evitable. How much worse things
get will depend on how much the
public, the courts and organiza-
tions such as the ACLU resist
official tendencies to seek un-
constitutional short-cuts to se-
curity. The Nixon administration,
like every other administration,
must respond to public disap-
proval."
Most Urgent Job
According to Ennis, the
ACLU's most urgent job will be
to "defend equality under the
law for all people regardless of
economic, educational, social or
political status." He emphasized,
however, that "the essential task
of asserting constitutional rights
in legal proceedings should not
be viewed as a solution to deep-
rooted inequities. The courts are
primarily arenas for defense. Be-
`yond this defense, fundamental
social reform can be achieved
only by positive programs of gov-
ernment and private organiza-
tions which press for excellence
in education, iob equality and
open access for all people to the
exercise of freedom and _ basic
rights."
Federal Service
Before joining the ACLU
Board of Directors in 1947, Ennis
served 14 years with the U. S.
Department of Justice, support-
ing the constitutionality of re-
form legislation during the New
Deal period. He was instrumen-
tal in legal defense of the Na-
tional] Recovery Act, the Agricul-
tural Adjustment Act, and the
regulation of gold hoarding.
Ennis was general counsel of
the U. S. Immigration and Nat-
uralization Service in 1941 and
director of the Justice Depart-
ment's Alien Enemy Control Unit
from 1941 to 1946. After World (c)
War II he was invited to join
the ACLU Board of Directors by
the organization's founder, Roger
Baldwin, who knew of Ennis' op-
position to many of the govern-
men's wartime policies, such as
the Japanese - American reloca-
tion.
Ennis continues to stress the
need to guard against "the use
of pretended threats to national
security" as an excuse for official
trampling of civil liberty.
National Security
"Defense of the national se-
curity by unlawful wiretapping
must not be extended from pro-
tection against foreign espionage
to alleged protection against our
own dissenting citizens - stu-
dents, Black Panthers, war re-
sisters," he said. "The positions
President Nixon and the Depart-
ment of Justice have taken on
preventive detention, wiretap-
ping and searches are ominous
signs of a disposition toward un-
constitutional repression, which
can be halted only by defending
the civil] liberties of those under
attack, by alerting the public to.
the real danger in any govern-
ment attempt to suspend free-
doms and by encouraging the
free exercise of legitimate civil
liberties,"
Challenge Loss
Of Credential
In Pot Case
In 1967 Arthur Cummings
pleaded guilty to a charge of
possessing marijuana. Because. of
that conviction, Max Rafferty
now proposes to revoke his teach-
ing credential. An administrative
hearing has been held on the
proposed revocation and _ the
matter is now under submission
to the hearing officer.
In resisting the revocation
staff counsel, Paul Halvonik,
argued that a marijuana convic-
tion could not possibly support a
charge of unprofessional conduct
or be considered an act of moral
turpitude, Cummings' conduct
was not unprofessional because
there is no evidence that it de-
stroyed or impaired discipline or
the teaching process.
It is not an act of moral turpi-
tude because it is not a "act of
baseness, vileness or depravity."
Halvonik pointed out that all
studies of the effects of mari-
juana, including the President's
Commission on Law Enforcement
and the Administration of Jus-
tice, have established that mari-
juana is not addictive, does not
alter the basic personality struc-
ture and, in the words of one
scholar, "is a mildly stimulating
and relaxing herb that is com-
pletely non-addictive and can be
used for social purposes without
appreciably reducing the effi-
ciency of one's physical and men-
tal faculties."
Equal Treatment
For Women
Last December, the ACLU
national board of directors adopt-.
ed the following resolution with
respect to equal treatment for
women: "The ACLU endorses the
principle that the Fifth and
Fourteenth Amendments to the
United States Constitution guar-
antee to all persons equal treat-
ment under the law without un-
reasonable differentiations based
on sex." The vote was 21-4. The
minority favored a stronger reso-
lution; one that eliminated the
word "unreasonable."
Calif. Dist. Ct. of Appeal
Consensual
= 0x00A7$terilization
Declared Lawful
The California Third District Court of Appeal ruled last
month that "voluntary non-therapeutic surgical sterilization
operations are legal in the State of California." In so doing,
it not only upheld the ruling of Superior Court Judge
Richard Albee of Shasta County but rejected an opinion of
the Attorney General handed
down in 1950. |
In that opinion the Attorney
General had declared that ". . .
since the law forbids mayhem
and criminal abortions and spe-
cifically declares it to be a felony
for one to assist in the preven-
tion of conception, we are of the
opinion that non-thereapeutic
sterilization operations are con-
trary to the established policy of
this state in that they are viola-
tive of the state's social interest
in the maintenance of the birth
rate."
Court Test of
Mental Illness
Committment
The State Supreme Court has
agreed to grant a hearing in a
case that tests the constitutional.
ity of the Lanterman-Petris-
Short Act provisions for confin-
ing the mentally ill.
Three days after the law went
into effect, Superior Court Judge
Hugo Fisher of San Diego county
declared that the section relating
to involuntary detentions was un-
constitutional. The case involved
Eugene P. Callahan, 64, of El
Cajon.
Under the new law, Callahan,
an involuntary patient in a fa-
cility of the county health serv-
ices, may be detained 72 hours
for evaluation as to the need for
treatment. If there is a need for
treatment he may be detained
up to 14 days without a court
hearing and, of course, during
that period he would be required
to accept treatment. If he is in
danger of committing suicide he
may be detained another 14 days,
or 31 days in all.
The question to be decided by
the State Supreme Court is
whether an alleged mentally ill
person may be denied his free-
dom for 31 days without a court
hearing.
Appellate Department Ruling
Right To Jury
Trial In
Speeding Cases Upheld
The Appellate Department of the Superior Court of San
Mateo County decided last month that a person charged with
a violation of the Basic Speed Law is entitled to a trial by
jury. Consequently, the conviction was set aside.
The case involved Robert Wallace Beesley who received
a citation for speeding last Jan-
uary 21. He entered a plea of
not guilty and asked for a jury
trial. The jury was denied by the
judge of the Municipal Court and
the court on March 4 proceeded
to conduct a non-jury trial in
which Beesley was found guilty.
He then appealed to the ACLUNC
for assistance and Paul Halvonik,
ACLUNC staff counsel, vrepre-
sented him on his appeal.
Constitutional Right
Under the California Constitu-
tion "The right of trial by jury
shall be secured to all and re-
mains inviolate ... in cases of
misdemeanor, . . ." Since a speed-
ing violation is a misdemeanor,
the ACLU argued that Beesley
was entitled to a trial by jury.
"It is interesting to note," said
the court, "that during the 1968
session of the Legislature, As-
sembly Bill 1118 was introduced
which purported to amend Sec-
tion 40000 of the Vehicle Code
and provided that certain viola-
tions of the Vehicle Code would
be considered as infractions and
as neither felony nor misdemean-
or. This Assembly Bill was final-
ly adopted and approved, but not
until it had been amended so as
to sever Section 22350 from the
infraction category and to de-
clare a violation of it to be a mis-
demeanor."
Speeding a Misdemeanor
"This appears to be conclusive
proof," said the court, "that the
Legislature desires to have a vio-
lation of the Basic Speed Law re-
main as a misdemeanor and in
view of Article I, Section 7 of
the California Constitution [{ guar-
anteeing jury trials in misde-
meanor cases} it is readily ap-
parent that it was error for the
trial court to deny defendant his
right to a trial by jury."
The three judges of the appel-
late court concurred in reversing
the judgment of the lower court.
Because of the Attorney Gen-
eral's opinion, the Shasta County
Hospital refused to perform a
vasectomy on Oscar Jessin, a mar-
ried man of modest means who
had already fathered as many
children as he felt he could sup-
port, A suit for declaratory judg-
ment was filed by attorney Jere
Hurley, Jr., of Redding on be-
half of Jessin and his wife Mar-
ion. The County of Shasta ap-
pealed the lower court's decision
in favor of the Jessins and
ACLUNC staff counse] Paul Hal-
vonik filed a friend of the court
brief supporting the lower court
decision.
The brief noted that vasecto-
mies are "no more mayhem than
appendectomies or amputations."
It argued that vasectomies are
not against public policy and that
the liberalization of Califoznia's
anti-abortion law and the liber-
alization of the California law
dealing with the dissemination of
information about contraceptives
establishes that there is no pub-
lic policy against curtailing the
birth rate. The brief states: `"`The
only reason it was not further
liberalized or abolished outright
in 1967 was not a concern about
a reduced birth-rate (with Cali-
fornia's burgeoning population
such a concern would be fanci-
ful) but because of the belief in
some quarters that an abortion
involves the destruction of hu-
man life. That consideration has
no relevance where vasectomy is.
in issue."
Familial Privacy
The ACLU brief also argued
that the U. S. Supreme Court de-
cision in Griswold v. Connecticut,
holding that a law prohibiting
the use of contraceptives violates
the right of familial privacy, also
protected the Jessins. "Even the
most grudging reading of Gris-
wold leads to the conclusion that
the fundamental right to familial
privacy protected by the Four-
teenth Amendment to the Con-
stitution leaves decisions about
contraception to the husband and
wife in consultation with their
physician."
Court's Conclusions
The court declared "we do not
now need to decide the applica-
bility of Griswold to the instant
case, for we conclude that there
is no legislative policy or any
other overriding public policy
proscribing consensual vasecto- .
my in this state. Nor does there
appear to be any other good le-
gal reason why such a voluntary
operation, given competent con-
sent, should not be performed.
In fact, the few cases in this area
indicate that it is an acceptable
method of family planning, while
Griswold indicates that it may
fall within constitutional protec-
tion. We... hold that California
has no public policy prohibiting
consensual sterilization opera-
tions, and further hold that non-
therapeutic surgical sterilization
operations are legal in this state
where competent consent has
been given.
The opinion was written by
Judge Regan and concurred in
by Acting Presiding Judge Fried-
man and Judge Janes.
Other Briefs
Besides the friend of the court
brief filed by the ACLUNC, the
California Medical Association
filed a brief taking no- position
on the matter while the Associa-
tion for Voluntary Sterilization,
Inc., naturally supported volun-
tary sterilization,
No Protection From Sleuths
Security Case
Loses in U.S.
Appeals
Court
The United States Court of Appeals has reversed a de-
cision by Federal District Judge Robert Peckham which held
invalid a Defense Department Security Procedure that had
resulted in Dexter Shoultz losing his security clearance.
Judge Peckham's order had restored the clearance. Unless
the United States Supreme Court
reverses the Court of Appeal's
decision Shoultz will lose his
clearance and, consequently, his
job,
`Interview' Sought -
Mr, Shoultz had held the se-
curity clearance for more than
-a decade when, in 1966, he was
informed that a screening board
of the Department of Defense
desired to ask him certain ques-
tions during an "interview."
Shoultz contacted ACLU Execu-
tive Director Ernest Besig who
demanded to know the authority
for a hearing where the accused
is not informed of the charges
against him, not confronted by
his accusers and not permitted
to cross-examine witnesses. The
Department of Defense replied
that a new regulation was being
prepared and that the "inter-
view" would be pursuant to its
provisions,
`Hearing' Held
The new regulation, containing
no due process guarantees, was
adopted in 1967; Shoultz attend-
ed a "hearing" pursuant to the
new regulation, but refused, on
due process grounds, to answer
the questions of his interrogator
(who also happened to be the
hearing officer),
District Court Injunction
On October 13, 1967, Shoultz
was informed that his security .
clearance had been suspended
because of his refusal to answer
"relevant" questions, Shoultz was
removed from his job at Lock-
heed and was scheduled to be
placed on a prolonged leave of
absence without salary. An -in-
junction was sought, by then
staff counsel Marshall Krause,
and Judge Peckham held that the
newly adopted Defense Depart-
ment Procedure was invalid be-
cause it "permits an indefinite,
if not effectively permanent, sus-
pension of.an individual's secu-
rity clearance, thereby nullifying
employment opportunity, without
any statement of charges or other
specific notice, without any op-
portunity to answer specific facts
alleged to jeopardize an individ-
ual's security clearance, without
any confrontation or cross-exami-
nation, and without any factual
basis given as the reason for the
suspension." |
Unauthorized Procedure
Judge Peckham, relying on the
authority of a 1959 Supreme
Court case, concluded that such
a security clearance procedure
could not be sustained in the ab-
sence of a specific authorization
for it from the President.
further found that the President
had not authorized the proced-
ure.
After Peckham's decision,
Shoultz regained his security
clearance and the government ap-
pealed the case to the United
States Court of Appeals.
No Due Process
On appeal staff counsel Paul
Halvonik stated that "If this
Court will imagine a hearing in
which some of the guarantees of
due process of law are present
it will imagine everything that
this regulation is not. There is
no requirement of written speci.
fication of charges; no opportu-
nity, consequently, to reply to
such charges in writing; no op:
-portunity to confront one's ac-
cusers; no right of cross-examina-
tion; no notice as to the burden
ACLU NEWS
AUGUST, 1969
Page 2
He
of proof; no review of the pro
ceedings."
`Preliminary Hearing'
The Court of Appeals, in its
opinion, quoted that statement
from Halvonik's brief and appar-
ently had no substantial disagree-
ment with its characterization of
the procedure; nevertheless it
held the regulation constitution-
al, The Court of Appeals held
that since the regulation provided
for a mere "preliminary hearing"'
it need not conform to the cus-
tomary requirements of due proc-
ess. Shoultz, if he will submit toa
hearing without due _ process
-Continued on Page 3
Secrecy of
Questionnaire
Secured by ACLU
The Carnegie Commission on
the Future of Higher Education
last month assured the ACLU
that the responses to a massive
questionnaire on the problems
of higher education which it and
the American Council on Educa-
tion sent to professors, graduate
students and researches has now
' been made absolutely confiden-
tial. The question arose when it
was discovered that the Founda-
tion kept a master. list of the re-
cipients of the questionnaire
identifying each respondent by a
number. A respondent could be
identified by checking his num-
ber against the master list.
Some Questions
The questionnaire contained
such questions as the following:
In what religion were you
raised? What is your present
religious preference? Do you
consider yourself basically op-
posed to religion? What was
your role in the most recent
(campus) demonstration? How
would you characterize yourself
politically at the present time?
Whom did you vote for in No-
vember? -
Witch Hunting Opportunity
The cover letter to the ques-
tionnaire stated that "your an-
swers will be held in strictest
confidence. We are interested
' only in statistical relationships
and will, under no _ circum-
stances, report responses on an
individual or departmental basis.
Any special markings on your
form are used solely for internal
data processing." This statement
led some people to believe that
their identity would be perma-
nently and totally detached from
their answers. But, as noted
above, the answers of respond-
ents could be identified. If the
records, had, for example, gotten
into the hands of the McClellan
Committee they would have pro-
vided the means for a witch hunt
in the colleges.
Linkage Erased
The ACLU expressed its con-
cern to the Commission the lat-
ter part of May and finally indi-
cated it would take legal action
unless a deadline were met.
Shortly afterward, the ACLU re-
ceived telephone assurances that
the identifying numbers would
be erased from the master list
and, on July 1, the ACLU was
informed by the Commission
that "We have now completed
severing any connection which
exists between the identification
number on questionnaires and
names and addresses."
Citizenship
Denial Appealed
The United States Federal
District Court has held that Ib
Otto Astrup, a native of Den-
mark, is forever ineligible for
United States citizenship because
he executed a request for exemp-
tion from military service almost
20 years ago. The exemption that
Astrup signed stated that he was
exchanging his right to citizen-
ship for relief from "liability"
for military training. Shortly
after Astrup executed the exemp-
tion, however, the law was
changed and he was in fact or-
dered to report for induction
into the military service. He was
rejected for service because of
a physical disability.
Intermediate Court
Astrup has appealed the denial
of citizenship to the United
States Court of Appeals. In the
appellate brief, prepared by staff
counsel Paul Halvonik, the
Court of Appeals is asked to re-
verse a prior decision holding
that an alien who applies for
exemption from military service
forever forfeits his right to be-
come a citizen even though he is
later ordered to report for induc-
tion and would have served in
the armed forces but for his phy-
sical disability.
Inconsistent Decision
That decision it is pointed out,
is inconsistent with another de-
cision which granted citizenship
to an alien who had applied for
exemption from service, had the
exemption removed and_ later.
served in the armed forces; the
relevant statute makes no dis-
tinction between persons who
have served in the armed forces
and persons who have no service
in the armed forces. The statute,
the brief urges, only forecloses
citizenship to persons who apply
for exemption from the armed
forces, and because of their
alienage, received a permanent
exemption from the armed
forces. Noting that if Astrup
had passed his physical exami-
nation and served in the armed
forces he would be a citizen to-
day, Halvonik maintains that As-
trup is really being denied citi-
zenship because of a physical
disability and contends that
denying a person citizenship be-
cause of his illness is crue] and
unusual punishment prohibited
by the Eighth Amendment to the
United States Constitution.
| Letters...
... to the Editor
People's Park March
While I think the ACLU one
of the most necessary and im-
portant organizations in the coun-
try, I am not always in agree-
ment with all actions by all units
thereof. I think it is very impor-
tant to avoid getting out of its
field and taking political stands,
however intrinsically right, on
which its members cannot agree
or which violate its stand in
favor of civil and constitutional
liberties for all.
I am very glad the national
ACLU has disassociated itself
from proponents or perpetrators
of campus violence, who to my
knowledge often violate every
principle of civil liberties. And
I was a good deal disturbed by
the Berkeley chapter's decision
to participate in the People's
Park march.
This was emotionally under-
standable as a part of a reaction
to atrocious actions by the police.
Nevertheless, the march was
clearly in support of the People's
Park program of actual occupa-
tion and extra-legal use of pri-
vate property, which cannot pos-
sibly be made part of the pro-
gram of the ACLU, backed by all
its members.
Further actions of this sort
will reduce the ACLU to its
radical constituency alone, which
will lower its effectiveness, re-
duce its numbers, and change its
nature.-H.F.M., Berkeley.
Max Scheer Case
Berkeley Barb
ObscenityVictory
Scored By ACLU
Berkeley Municipal Court Judge George Brunn has held
that the Alameda District Attorney may not, constitution: .
ally, prosecute Berkeley Barb editor, Max Scheer, for pub-
lishing "obscenity" unless it is prepared to charge that the
entire newspaper, in which a picture offensive to the Dis-
trict Attorney appeared, is ob-
scene. On July 17, the District
Attorney did file such an amend-
ed complaint.
Naughty Picture
The District Attorney had com-
plained that a picture, entitled
"Kickin' Out the Jambs," which
appeared in the March 21 issue
of the Barb was "obscene" be-
cause it seemed to depict a cou-
ple engaged in sexual inter-
course. ACLUNC staff counsel
Paul Halvonik demurred to the
complaint on the grounds that
under the state obscenity law
and under the terms of the First
Amendment "matter" alleged to
be obscene had to be "taken as a
whole." That is to say, no story
or photograph can be constitu-
tionally isolated from the rest of
a publication and condemned as
obscene. Judge Brunn sustained
that demurrer.
Court's Opinion
In hig opinion Judge Brunn
stated: "The issue of obscenity is
to be determined by viewing the
product as a whole and not by
examining any isolated sections
of it. The people here contend
that a newspaper is not like a
novel or a film-that a news-
paper is `nonunitary,' i.e., `made
up of separate and unconnected
components.' . . . It would be
astonishing to apply the First
Amendment more restrictively to
newspapers than to movies, Yet
that is the truth of the people's
argument here."
`Grapes of Roth'
"Perhaps somewhere in the
vineyards of the grapes of Roth
{Judge Brunn is referring to
Roth v. United States (1957) in
which the U. S. Supreme Court
announced the "taken as a
whole" standard] lurks support
for Plaintiff's theory. No one can
be wholly sure what lurks there
but to the best of my limited
vision I did not detect a `unitary'
- and `nonunitary' set of notions.
In a field as complex as obscenity
law, and as inextricably entwined
with constitutional problems, de- _
ference to the legislature and to
higher courts preeminently re-
quires trial courts to be cautious
in introducing novel theories,
particularly theories with such
high potential for adding confu-
sion."
Slight Gain in
Membership
Enrollment
Only a slight gain has been -
made in the ACLUNC member-
ship during the current fiscal
year. Membership' enrollment
reached 6985 as this issue of the
NEWS goes to press. That figure
compares with an enrollment of
6959. on July. 31, 1968.: At the':
end of the last fiscal year on
October 31, 1968 the member-
ship stood at 7929.
Mrs. La Verda O. Allen
Alfred J. Azevedo
Albert M. Bendich
Leo Borregard
Rev. Hamilton Boswell
Price M. Cobbs, M.D.
Prof. John Edwards
Jerome B. Falk, Jr.
Prof. Mare Franklin
Robert Greensfelder
Rev. Aron S. Gilmartin
Evelio Grillo
Francis Heisler
Neil F. Horton
Daniel N. Loeb
Ephraim Margolin
Dr. John N. Marquis
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
Board of Directors of the American Civil Liberties Union
of Northern California
CHAIRMAN: Howard H. Jewel
VICE-CHAIRMAN: Prof. Van D. Kennedy
Helen Salz
SEC'Y-TREAS.: Howard A. Friedman
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: Ernest Besig
GENERAL COUNSEL: Wayne M. Collins
STAFF COUNSEL: Paul N. Halvonik
ASS`T STAFF COUNSEL and LEGIS. REP.: Charles C. Marson
ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT: Mrs. Pamela S. Ford
CHAPTER DIRECTOR: Carol R. Weintraub
Committee of Sponsors
Mrs. Paul Holmer
Mrs. Mary Hutchinson Prof. Wallace Stegner
Prof. Wilson Record
Prof. Ernest Hilgard Dr. Norman Reider
John R. May
Richard L. Mayers
Martin Mills, M.D.
Robert L. Nolan, M.D.
Richard Patsey =
Mrs. Esther Pike
Henry J. Rodriquez
Eugene N. Rosenberg
Mrs. Muriel Roy
John Brisbin Rutherford
Prof. John Searle
Warren H. Saltzman
Mrs. Alee Skolnick
Stanley D. Stevens
Jerry Tucker
Justin Vanderlaan
Don Vial
Joe J. Yasaki
Dr. Marvin J. Naman
Mrs. Theodosia Stewart
Re. Rev. Sumner Walters:
Richard Johnston
Roger Kent
Mes. Ruth Kingman
Prof. Theodore Kreps
Seaton W. Manning
Rev. Robert W. Moon
Clarence E. Rust
Prof. Hubert Phillips
Norman Lezin
0 eV
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
$03 Market Street, San Francisco, California 94105, 433-2750
Subcription Rates -- Two Dollars and Fifty Cents a Year __
Twenty-Five Cents Per Copy a 151
Ban on Statements
Highest Court
Asked To Strike
Down Gag Rule'
A petition has been filed in the United States Supreme
Court asking it to review and reverse a decision of the Cali-
fornia Court of Appeal upholding a judicial gag-rule against
a First Amendment challenge. The challenged order pre-
vented defendants in a criminal prosecution from issuing
public statements about their
~ case, a
The case arose out of an arrest
-Mmade on November 30, 1966, at
the Student Union of the Berke-
ley campus of the University of
California during a protest dem-
onstration against the presence
of military recruiters. These ar-
rests triggered a subsequent stu-
dent strike and the demonstra-
tion received extensive publicity
in Bay Area newspapers.
Defendants Silenced
Judge George Brunn of the
Berkeley-Albany Municipal Court
issued an order in the criminal
case arising from the arrests. It
prohibited the parties to the case,
their counsel, all] law enforce-
ment agencies, the Regents of the
University of California, other
employees of the University, the
`Associated Students of the Uni-
versity and its membership and
affiliated organizations from "di-
rectly or indirectly releasing to
any news media information or
opinion concerning the trial of
any issue likely to be involved
therein Specifically, and
without limitation, there shall be
Housing Units
Must Be Built
In White Areas
Last month, Federal District
Court Judge' Richard B. Austin
of Chicago implemented an earli-
er order in which he held that
the Chicago Housing Authority
acted intentionally to maintain
existing patterns of segregated
housing by selecting project sites
in almost exclusively black ghet-
to areas.
The judge's decree provides:
1. That three housing units
must be constructed or leased in
white areas for every one unit.
in a black area of the city. Black
areas, and a one-mile buffer zone
surrounding them, are described
as "limited public housing areas;"
2. That all new family projects
must be small in size, no more
than three stories high and ac-
commodating no more than 120
persons, except in unusual cir-
cumstances when 240 persons
may be allowed; |
3. That special efforts must be
made to attract low-income white
families into the new housing
since more white than black city
residents qualify for the subsi-
dized housing. Fifty per cent of
the units in the new develop-
ments may be reserved for resi-
dents of the neighborhood in
which the housing is built;
4. That four public housing
projects that are presently most-
ly white must be desegregated
according to a plan to be pre-
-sented to the court within 30
days.
The ACLU initiated the suit in
_ 1965 on behalf of six tenants and
' applicants for apartments. At
this: writing it is not known
whether the Housing Authority
will appeal this unprecedented
decision.
More than 99 per cent of the
Chicago Housing Authority's fam-
ily units are in areas that are
or soon will be substantially all-
Negro. "It is incredible,' said
Judge Austin, "that this dismal
prospect of an all-Negro public
housing system in all-Negro areas
came about without the persist-
ent application of a deliberate
policy to confine public housing
to all-Negro or immediately ad-
jacent areas."
no public statements or releases
concerning the merits of `the
complaint, the evidence or argu-
ments to be adduced by either
side, or trial tactics or strategy."
Order Defied
Four defendants in the case,
Steve Hamilton, Michael Smith,
Stewart Alpert, and Jerry Rubin,
defied the court order by stating,
on the courthouse steps, that
they were arrested as scapegoats
to appease Governor Ronald Rea-
gan. In their statement they also
pointed out that many prominent
persons had already commented
adversely on their arrests, that
the public was already preju-
diced against them and that they
were simply attempting to re-
dress the balance. The defend-
ants also complained that their
freedom of speech was being cur-
tailed simply because they had
been charged with a crime,
California Appeals
The ACLU came into the case -
at this point and urged the Mu-
nicipal and Superior Courts to
throw out the charges. They re-
fused and, by a 2-1 vote, the
Court of Appeal upheld their de-
cision. The State Supreme Court,
Justice Peters dissenting, de-
clined to review the Court of Ap-
peal decision.
No Interference With Trial
In its petition, prepared by
Paul Halvonik and volunteer at-
torneys Lawrence Popofsky and
Richard Goff, ACLUNC pointed
out the dangers to freedom of
speech and press created by a
broad and. unrestricted restraint
on free speech imposed merely
because persons are charged with
crime. Judge Brunn's order, it is
emphasized, was issued without
' reference to any clear and pres-
ent danger of interference with
the right of fair trial and swept
anyone remotely interested in
the issues that generated the ar-
rest within its ban. If similar
bans are to proliferate, and every
indication is -that they will, a
District Attorney can abolish the
right of expression by the simple
expedient of charging someone
with a crime.
Limitation of Debate
Quoting de Toqueville's obser-
vation that "Scarcely any politi-
cal question arises in the United
States that is not resolved, soon-
er or later, into a judicial ques-
tion," the petition contends that
a rule requiring public debate to
cease when an issue leads to liti-
gation is profoundly subversive
of First Amendment rights.
Reservist's
Case Before
Federal Court
John Rickerts served six
months in the Army Reserve,
was placed on inactive duty, but
was eventually certified by the
Army to Selective Service. He
was in the processes of Selective
Service, and, in fact, had just
appealed its ruling, when the
Army suddenly called him to ac-
tive duty.
ACLU volunteer attorney Steve
Kipperman of San Francisco,
claiming that the Army, once it
has certified a reservist to Se-
lective Service, cannot strip him
of all his procedural rights by
the simple expedient of calling
`him up, obtained a_ temporary
restraining order from Judge
Sweigert of the Federal] District
Court. The case will be heard
and decided shortly.
Teachers May
Circulate
Petitions
The right of teachers to cir-
culate political petitions on their
lunch hours and free time was
upheld by the State Supreme
Court on June 30. The ruling re-
versed a lower court decision
supporting the Los Angeles
Board of Education,
The board refused to allow cir-
culation of a petition urging Gov.
Regan and the Department of
Public Instruction not to cut
state spending on public educa-
tion. The board refused, claiming
that such a petition would create
discord and disharmony which
is "foreign to the educational en-
vironment."
Justice Raymond E. Peters,
speaking for a unanimous court,
said the government may not cur-
tail free speech "simply in order
to avert the sort of disturbance,
argument or unreast which is in-
evitably generated by the ex-
pression of ideas which are con-
troversial and invite dispute."
He added, " . . . it is imperative
that the courts carefully diffe-
rentiate in treatment those who
are violent and heedless of the
rights of others ... and those...
who seek to express themselves
through peaceful, orderly
means."
SecuritylCase
Loses In U.S.
Appeals Court
Continued from Page 1-
guarantees, cannot have his se-
curity clearance finally revoked
until he has had a hearing with
due process guarantees,
Surrender Rights
The upshot of the Court of Ap:
peal's decision is that the holder
of a security clearance is entitled
to a hearing with due process
guarantees only if he is willing
first to submit to a hearing with:
out those guarantees; a hearing
in which, if he declines to an:
swer questions on constitutional
grounds, the Department of De.
fense may be prevented, in the
words of the regulation, "from
reaching the affirmative finding
required in which event any se
curity clearance should be sus-
pended."
The United States Supreme
Court will be asked to review the
Shoultz case.
State of Emergency
Non-Violent Demonstration
Appeal Filed |
For Pvt. Sood in
`Mutiny'
Case
The brief on appeal before the Army's Board of Review
on behalf of Private Nesrey Sood, who was convicted of |
mutiny for joining twenty-six other Presidio stockade prison-
ers in a nonviolent demonstration protesting the abysmal
conditions at the stockade, has now been filed. The brief
was prepared by staff counsel
Paul Halvonik and Army co-coun-
sel Capt. Paul Saunders at Wash-
ington, D.C, Capt. Emmet Yeary,
who assisted Halvonik in Sood's
defense at the court martiai, has,
not unreluctantly, been separated
from the Army.
The brief assigns as error a
number of limiting rulings made
by the law officer and, in addi-
tion, contends that the evidence
presented at the court martial
S.F. Schools Drop
Teacher Flag
Salute Issue
The San Francisco Unified
School District has decided not
to take any action against five
Teacher Corps Interns at the Bret
Harte School, Hunters Point,
who, as a matter of conscience,
refused to join in the Pledge of
Allegiance. The teachergs, who
were students at San Francisco
State College, believe that black
people have been denied justice,
and, therefore, they cannot in
good conscience assert that there
is "justice for all" in this
country.
The decision in the case came
from Irving G. Breyer, Legal
Adviser of the school system.
It was in response to a protest to
Supt. Robert E. Jenkins' decla-
ration that he expected employes
to salute the flag. In its letter
to Mr. Jenkins the ACLU de-
clared, "It would be strange in-
deed if the consciences of stu-
dents had to be respected while
those of teachers could be vio-
lated. We believe that no teacher
-as a condition of employment
can be required to surrender his
constitutional rights and we will
be happy, if necessary, to de-
fend that position in the courts."
Test Gov. Reagan's Ban on
Berkeley Loudspeakers -
During the crisis over the People Park in Berkeley
Governor Reagan, by means of "emergency regulations,"
made it a misdemeanor to use a loudspeaker or other sound
amplifying device in the city of Berkeley. Two members of
the University community, Ron Yank and Jeff Lustig, ignor-
ing the regulation, spoke to a
rally over a loudspeaker and now
face criminal charges because of
their exercise of their right to
freedom of speech.
Unconstitutional
Staff counsel, Paul Halvonik,
representing Yank and Lustig,
has entered a challenge to the
criminal charges on the grounds
that the regulations are unconsti-
tutional on their face.
Halvonik's brief begins with
the observation that:
"The regulation defendants are
charged with violating was pro-
mulgated by Governor Reagan on
May 15, 1969. This Francoesque
proclamation, according to its
terms, was adopted pursuant to
emergency powers. The Gover-
nor had declared a `state of emer-
gency' in Berkeley on February
5, 1969, and had left it hanging,
Damocles-like over the heads of
a community which has never
been. terribly popular with the
Governor.
Nakedly Repressive
"The Governor's regulations
are not outrageous simply be-
cause they are an infringement
on freedom of speech. It is, after
all, not unusual for a government
to attempt to stifle free expres-
sion; indeed it is the tendency
of government to infringe liberty
of expression-that is the reason
for the First Amendment. What
is outrageous about the Gover-
nor's regulations is their disarm-
ing simplicity, their directness,
their' naked repressive charac-
ter." `
No Suspension of Constitution
The brief goes on to point out
that similar bans on the use of
modes of expression have been
struck down by the courts as
- prior restraints on free speech
inconsistent with the First
Amendment. These cases, Halvo-
nik urges, are controlling even
in a state of emergency because,
as the United States Supreme
Court said in the Civil War case
of Ex Parte Milligan:
"No doctrine invoiving more
pernicious consequences was ever
invented by the wit of men than
that any of [the Constitution's|.
provisions can be suspended dur-
ing any of the great exigencies
of government."
does not support the mutiny con-
viction and that the mutiny stat-
ute is in conflict with the United
States Constitution. Ihe onsti-
tutional attack is on the grounds ~
that the statute is so vague that
no one can be sure what it
means, thus accounting for the
-absurd conviction in Sood's case,
and that by permitting the Army
to escalate a mere "disobedience
to. an order" to a capital offense
because of the political views of
the demonstrators, the statute
violates the First Amendment.
guarantees of free expression
and petition for redress of griev-
ances,
The brief concludes with the
observation that even if the
mutiny conviction could be up- .
held, the punishment imposed on
Sood was too severe. Sood was
originally sentenced to fifteen
years at hard labor, forfeiture of
pay and allowances and a dis-
honorable discharge. Lieutenant
General Stanley Larsen, Presidio
Commandant, reduced the sen-
tence to seven years and, within
two hours after Larsen's action,
the Secretary of the Army, exer-
cising clemency powers through
a subordinate, reduced the sen-
tence to two years, But two years
for, as Sood puts it, "sitting on
the Man's grass" is still an in-
tolerable sentence.
If Sood's conviction is not re-
versed by the Board of Review,
the Court of Military Appeals
will be asked to review his case.
If the Court of Military Appeals
does not reverse the decision the
case will be taken to the Federal
District Court. Achieving justice
in Sood's case will. it is obvious,
take a good deal of time. He may
well serve his sentence before
justice, if anv. is done. Anyone
feeling that Private Sood should
be home at least by Christmas
should communicate that view by
writing to Secretary of the Army
Stanley Resor. his congressman,
and Senators Cranston and Mur-
phy.
Drop Subversive
Charges Against
P.O. Employee
A Post Office employee who
was charged with advocating the
overthrow of the Government of
the United States by force and
violence, the killing of all police-
men and with supporting "the
views and program of Eldredge
Cleaver,' was informed by the
U.S. Civil Service Commission
last month that no further action
would be taken.
The issue arose because each
Federal employee takes his job
subject to a suitability investiga-
tion and persons who advocate
the violent overthrow of the gov-
ernment are regarded as unsuit-
able.
The employee denied such ad-
vocacy as well as the killing of
all policemen. She also denied
knowledge of Eldridge Cleaver's
"views" and program, "I can only
assume," said her answer, ``that
`the allegations against me are
based on my voter registration
as a member of the Peace and
Freedom Party in California and
the fact that Eldridge Cleaver
became its candidate for Presi-
dent."
ACLU NEWS
AUGUST, 1969
Page 3
Adjournment Aug. 8
Legislature
Considers Many
Liberties Issues
In between tough battles over the budget and the financ-
ing of education, not to speak of the pressure of the anti-
cipated Aug. 8 adjournment, the State Legislature took the
following action with respect to civil liberties issues:
Death Penalty
Senator Richardson's S.B. 791,
which would make the death
penalty mandatory for anyone
convicted of first degree murder
of a peace officer, was heard in
the Assembly Procedure Commit- ~
_tee after having passed the Sen-
ate. The author produced as
witnesses one Father Lester
("Father Lester is here to an-
swer any moral questions that
may arise.), and Mrs, Brodnick,
wife of the recently slain officer
Joe Brodnik and crusader for
the death penalty. After a
lengthy hearing the bill was
killed and Senator Richardson
stormed out of the room saying
that the Committee was the poor-
est excuse for a committee the
Legislature had ever seen, and
that they might as well give the
ACLU a-seat on the Committee.
Would that it were true!
Marijuana
A.B. 199, by John Vasconcellos
(D.-San Jose), was truly a mod-
est measure: it removed mari-
juana from the statutory defini-
tion of "narcotic" and put it in
a separate section. It changed no
crimes and reduced no penalties;
its sole purpose was to reflect
the simple fact that pot is not a
narcotic, After weeks of strug-
gling, the bill was reported fa-
vorably from the Criminal Pro-
cedure Committee. With 78 or
80 members on the Assembly
floor, the bill received only 26
of the necessary 41 votes. Many
of the no-voters and non-voters
admitted privately that it was a
fine bill, but "How could I ex-
plain it to my district?" Those
who anticipate early revision of
the marijuana laws can learn
from this test.
`Disclosure of Informants
At present the law provides
that in a criminal] trial in a nar-
cotics case the prosecution is priv-
ileged to withhold the identity of
a confidential informant unless
the defendant can show a reason-
able possibility that non-disclo-
sure would deprive him of a fair
Public Works
Jobs Open
To Aliens
The State Supreme Court last
month declared unconstitutional
a State law forbidding the em-
ployment of aliens on public
works projects.
It held that the State was
wrong in withholding part of its
payment to a San Diego land-
scape contractor because he had
hired a Mexican national who
had resided in California for nine
years.
Writing for the court, Justice
Tobriner stated that the law is
discriminatory and rests "upon
a very questionable basis. The
citizen," he went on to say, `may
be a newcomer to the State who
has little stake in the commu-
nity; the alien may be a resident
who has lived in California for a
lengthy period, paid taxes, served
in our armed forces, demon-
strated his worth as a construc-
tive human being, and contrib-
uted much to the growth and de-
velopment of the State."
ACLU NEWS
AUGUST, 1969
Page 4
trial. S.B. 66, by Senator Lew
`Sherman (R.-Alameda County)
would change this rule in three
ways. The bill would (1) extend
the privilege to all types of prose-
eutions; (2) provide for the dis-
closure of the informant's iden-
tity to the judge in a secret hear-
ing outside the presence of the
defendant and his lawyer, and
seal the record of that hearing so
that the appellate courts, but not
the defendant, would have access
to it; and (3) provide a higher
burden of proof for the defend-
-ant seeking to overcome the priv-
ilege. After extensive hearings
the bill was amended to delete
the third provision but was re-
ported out favorably by the
Criminal Procedure Committee
with the first two provisions more
or less intact, notwithstanding the
ACLU argument that the secret
hearing would deprive defend-
ants .of a fair trial. The bill,
which is quite likely to pass, rep-
resents one of the session's more
serious intrusions into civil lib-
erties.
Search and Seizure
S. B. 736, by Senator Donald
Grunsky (R.-Watsonville), would
substantially expand the statuto-
ry power of the police to search
for dangerous weapons where
there is less than probable cause
for arrest. It would delete from
the present law the requirement
that the officer reasonably be-
lieve the subject to be armed,
and would permit not only the
search of his person but also the
search of any vehicle under his
possession or control at or imme-
diately prior to the search, All of
of this was qualified by the
phrase "where the circumstances
warrant." After ACLU opposition
the bill was defeated in the Crim-
inal Procedure Committee.
Truancy and Free Speech
S. B, 803, by Senator Sherman,
would prohibit any wilful act
which would tend to encourage
children not to obey the compul-
sory education laws. The author
produced before the Criminal
Procedure Committee several wit-
nesses from Berkeley and Oak-
land school dictricts who com-
plained that radicals were con-
stantly hovering near schools urg-
ing students to skip school in fa-
vor of activities such as marching
and rioting. The ACLU objected
on the grounds that the bill was
not only hopelessly vague but
prohibited many kinds of protect-
ed speech and other activity. The
bill was killed.
Right to Travel
At present, and without any le-
gal authority, California police
turn back from the Mexican bor-
der any person under 18 who
does not have written permission
from his parents to enter. A. B.
2323, by Pete Wilson (R.-San Di-
ego), would ratify this practice
by passing a statute which au-
thorizes it. The five-man Republi-
can majority of the Criminal Pro-
cedure Committee was not per-
suaded by ACLU arguments that
the bill violates the constitutional
right to travel, and reported the
bill favorably to the Assembly
floor. It will probably pass. -
Bail and O. R.
An astonishing proposal by
Senator Clark Bradley (R.-San
Jose), would have required that
someone arrested for trespassing
or disturbing the peace and await-
ing trial could not, if arrested
again for one of those offenses,
be released on his own recogni-
Appeal Court |
Martial Sentence
To Military Ct.
John C. Wells was a student
at the University of California
when he was arrested by C.I.D.
agents of the United States Army
and charged with desertion.
Wells was court -martialed,
challenged the jurisdiction of the
court-martial and, when his chal-
lenge was disallowed, pleaded
guilty to a charge of desertion
and a charge of refusal to obey
an order (he refused to don the
Army uniform). He received a
sentence of one year at hard la-
bor and a dishonorable discharge.
Reservist
The reason that Wells, a civil-
ian, was tried by a military court-
martial is that he was a Reserv-
ist who had completed two years
of honorable service in the mili-
tary and had failed to attend
summer camp. It was on that
basis that the Army claimed it
could call him to active duty,
charge him with desertion and
court-martia] him when he failed
to appear.
Jury Trial Denied
At his court-martial then
ACLU staff counsel Marshall W.
Krause contended that the fail-
ure to perform a duty under the
Universal-Military Training and
Service Act is subject to trial
in a federal district court, rather
than a court-martial, where civil-
ian protections, such as right to
trial by jury, are available. Even
though the federal statute could
be interpreted as also giving a
court-martial jurisdiction in such
a case, Krause argued that the
district court should have juris-
diction when the alleged violator
had civilian status as a member
of the Ready Reserve and had
not re-entered upon active Army
duty.
C. O. Position
Krause further argued that the
military had only forty-five days
after Wells was ordered into ac-
tive duty to take him into cus-
tody and press charges and that
that period had expired. Finally,
he argued that Wells clearly ex-
pressed his position as a consci-
entious objector and ought to
have been processed for an ad-
ministrative discharge even
though he declined to fill out the
official forms for such a dis-
charge on the basis that the
Army should not investigate into
the truth or sincerity of his be-
liefs.
The court-martial conviction
was appealed and the Military
Board of Review has upheld the
conviction and sentence.
Ct. of Military Appeals
The decision of the Board of
Review has now been appealed,
by Staff Counsel Paul Halvonik
and Military Counsel Major
James Yelton, Jr., to the United
States Court of Military Appeals,
the highest military court. If a
reversal is not obtained at this
level of military review Wells'
case will be taken to the Fed-
eral District Court in San Fran-
cisco.
zance, In addition, he would have
to post $750 bail, $2500 for the
third arrest, and $3500 for the
fourth. The Senator's announced
purpose is to "get" the campus
militants, The bill would also
have been a handy way to ex-
haust bail funds, and to punish
people before trial. The Senate
passed the bill but the Assembly
Criminal Procedure Committee,
persuaded that it was unconstitu-
tional, killed it,
Campus Unrest
The bills carrying the recom-
mendations of the Select Commit-
tee on Campus Disturbances have .-
passed the Assembly but are now
snarled in the Senate. Many Sena-
tors, aggrieved that their solu-
tions have died in the Assembly,
are attempting to amend the As-
sembly products "to tighten them
up." The outcome is wholly spec-
ulative-Charles Marson, ACLU-
NC Legislative Representative.
Another Joe Smith
Federal Habeas Corpus
Sought for "Lost Soldier'
Richard G. Beaty was drafted into the Army in February
of 1967. After his training he was sent to Nuremburg, Ger-
many and, while there, volunteered for service in Vietnam.
In November of 1967 he was given orders for assignment to
Fort Lewis, Washington with eventual further assignment
scheduled for Vietnam. The or-
ders gave him no reporting date
and told him that his. reporting
orders would be sent to him. -
Consequently Beaty returned to
his home in Porterville to await
orders..
Continue Waiting
When a month had passed and
Beaty had still received no or-
ders he went to visit his friendly
Army recruiter in Porterville to
find out what he should do. The
recruiter told him not to worry
and to continue waiting for his
orders at home. Another month
passed and Beaty had still re-
ceived no orders. Puzzled by
this chain of events he called
the Reassignment Classification
Center in Washington, D.C. and
asked when he might receive his
orders. He was told to continue
waiting.
Not AWOL
Three months later, in March
1968, Beaty was in an automobile
accident. The California High-
way Patrol contacted a nearby
Naval Air Station to find out
what Beaty's status was. Beaty
was then picked up by the Shore
Patrol which took him into cus-
tody while it made a status
check. The status check estab-
lished that Beaty was not absent
without leave and that he was to
remain at home for further
_ orders.
Short "Leave" Granted
Beaty's separation date from
the Army arrived in February
of 1969. He then went to Fort
Ord to inquire about his dis-
charge. The Army, instead of
granting Beaty his discharge,
suddenly developed an interest
in his activities and kept him
there for about a week. He was
then granted a 30-day "leave"
and those leaves were continued:
until he was ordered to report
to Fort Ord in July for another
year's service in the United
States Army. S
Court Action Filed
ACLUNC has filed a petition
for a writ of habeas corpus with
the United States District Court
in San Francisco asking that the
court relieve Beaty from further
service in the United States
Army on the grounds that he
has completed his two years of
service and hag never at any
time refused to obey orders or
violated any of his military ob-
ligations. Federal Judge Swei- .
gert, on motion of staff counsel
Paul Halvonik, on July 8 issued
an order requiring the Army to
show cause why Beaty should
not be relieved from the Army's
Custody. Such an order was ob-
tained in a similar case, that of
Joe A. Smith, in December, 1967.
Instead of answering the court's
writ the Army, in that case, de-
cided to grant Smith his dis-
charge. A hearing in Beaty's -
case is now scheduled for July
25, too late to be reported in
this issue of the "News."
Credential Revocation Case Hearing
In July of 1967 Louise Woelk- The application asked whether she
ers was told by a policeman to
"set off the sidewalk" near the
intersection of Haight and Ash-
bury Streets. She inquired about
the reason for the request, was
arrested, struck by a policeman
and sustained a broken jaw. Nat-
urally, she was arrested for as-
saulting a policeman, The assault
charges were dropped but Miss
Woelkers was forced to stand
trial on charges of disturbing the
peace, inciting a riot, and resist-
ing arrest.
Long Trial
At her trial, which lasted two
and a half weeks, Miss Woelkers
was represented by Al Bendich
and Richard Werthimer. The
trial resulted in an acquittal on
all but `the resisting arrest
charge, upon which she was
found guilty. Unfortunately for
Miss Woelkers her trial occurred
before a State Supreme Court de-
cision holding that the resisting
arrest law can only be applied
to cases in which the arrest is
lawful.
Child Care Credential
After her conviction Miss
Woelkers applied for a state
Child Care Center credential.
had ever been arrested and she
replied in the affirmative. Never-
theless, she was granted the cre-
dential. But now Miss Woelkers
has become a victim of Max Raf-
ferty's campaign to purge the
state of any -credential-holders
who have been arrested or con-
victed of a criminal offense.
No Misconduct
An administrative hearing has
been held on the proposed revo-
cation of the credential. At the
hearing, Paul Halvonik, repre-
senting Miss Woelkers, main-
tained that there was no evidence
to support any of the charges of
misconduct on Miss Woelkers'
part and that, on the contrary
the weight of the evidence sug-
gested that Miss Woelkers had
been the victim of a severe and |
unprovoked beating by the San
Francisco Police Department.
Halvonik further contended that
a resisting arrest conviction was
irrelevant to the question of
whether one can properly teach
at a Child Care Center and that
any revocation of Miss Woelkers'
credential would violate the due
process clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment,
The first right of a citizen
Is the right
To be responsible
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
-OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA
JOIN TODAY
B 151
Patron Membership ....... ee ..- $100
Sustaining Membership ............5-000+ oo. . = 50.
Business and Professional Membership ............. 25
Family Membership .............. Se Foe 15
Annual Membership ....... Sie Gurls Se eta ee oO
Student Membership ..... See wile earns 20
ACLU News Subscription ..... `ae .. $2.50
Contributions are deductible for income tax purposes
NAME
ADDRESS and ZIP CODE .........
TELEPHONE NUMBER ...........
$03 Market Street
ecooeeeeoeeeoeoeo eee oe ee eo eo
eoecceoeoe ee eee oe eee eee eooee eo (R)
Sb AMT. ENCLOSED..........
San Francisco, 94105
All contributions tax deductible.