vol. 39, no. 1

Volume XXXIX

The most successful event ever planned

by the American Civil Liberties Union

Foundation of Northern California was

held before a standing room only crowd at

San Francisco's Geary Theatre last

December 16th. Bill of Rights event

celebrated the 182nd anniversary of the

adoption of the first ten amendments of

the Constitution. ACLU took the op-

portunity to present the First Annual Earl -

Warren Civil Liberties Award for out-

TONY. AMSTERDAM received

the first annual award.

standing achievements in the protection of

individual and civil rights.

Stanford Law Professor and ACLU-NC

Board Member Anthony Amsterdam was

the first recipient of the award. Former

Chief Justice Earl Warren was on hand to

accept the first casting of the annual award

which has been named for him. Noted

journalist and political commentator I.F.

Stone was the guest speaker for the event,

addressing the topic of impeachment and

the constitutional crisis. Aileen Her-

nandez, a member of the ACLU National

Advisory Council and a former President

of the National Organization for Women

(NOW) chaired the event.

As the more than 1500 people who

attended the affair were being seated, they

were treated to the Dixieland sounds of the

Bourbon Street Irregulars, whom Chief

Justice Warren said he enjoyed im-

|. F. STONE, TONY AMSTERDAM AND EARL WARREN listen to

aclu

mensely. All who attended seemed to find

the celebration a resounding success and

the excitement was evident from the more

than 300 people standing in line to get

tickets at the box office to the din of

conversation in the lobby.

A signal of the emotion of the event

came when the honored guests walked on

to the stage. Earl Warren and Anthony

Amsterdam each indicated that the other

should be seated. Each stood there wishing

to show respect for the other. At the same

time, the audience persisted in a standing

ovation. Finally Warren and Amsterdam

smiled at each other and sat down

together.

More than $20,000 was raised in

conjunction with the event which will go

towards support of the Foundation's Legal

Program. Fran Strauss, who practically

became a full-time staff person to coor-

dinate the event; Carmen Parker, who

worked on the contributions to the

program booklet which listed the sponsors

of the event; and, Tom Layton, ACLU-

NC Associate Director, deserve our

deepest appreciation for the success of the

Bill of Rights celebration.

Aileen Hernandez began the program

by recounting some of the ac-

complishments of the ACLU and its vital

- role in our society. She pointed out

however that these were times not to

simply praise the past achievements of

people like Earl Warren and Anthony

Amsterdam for their additions to civil

liberties but also to dedicate ourselves to

the work that still lies ahead. She said we

cannot rest until all people of all races,

sexes, creeds, and religions are secure in

their rights.

Ralph Atkinson, Chairman of the Board

of Governors of the Foundation, credited

the work of all those who supported and

helped work on the event. He also noted

with regret the absence of one whom we

all owe much to. Co-founder of the ACLU

in Northern California, Helen Saltz, was

unable to attend the celebration due to

illness but the get-well wishes voiced by

Ralph Atkinson were sent by all.

the opening remarks of Aileen Hernandez who chaired the event.

Photos: Alvan Meyerowiz

January 1974, San Francisco

Amsterdam, Warren, Stone highlight

-ACLU's Bill of Rights Celebration

No. 1

CHIEF JUSTICE EARL WARREN displays the award named for him

at the Foundation's Bill of Rights Celebration.

Atkinson then recounted some of the

brave and great decisions for which Earl

Warren was responsible- while Chief

Justice of the United States Supreme

Court. Chief among these of course were

the Brown desegregation decision, the

one-man-one-vote decision, and several

decisions establishing the due process of

indigent suspects in criminal proceedings.

Atkinson said that because of these

contributions and because Warren was a

native son of Northern California, the

Foundation was honored to name its civil

liberties award for him. He then presented

the first casting of the award to the Chief

Justice.

Warren congratulated Anthony

Amsterdam for being selected to receive

the award and recalled that the credit for

the great decisions which emanated from

the Warren Court should go to far-

sighted, brilliant attorneys like Am-

sterdam. He said these are the people who

are really the innovators in social reform

and he added that often as not, the at-

torneys were ACLU lawyers.

Atkinson next introduced Anthony

Amsterdam to present him with the first

annual Earl Warren Civil Liberties Award.

Atkinson cited Amsterdam's

achievements in the development of

constitutional law culminating in his two

successful challenges of capital punish-

ment.in the U.S. Supreme Court and the

California Supreme Court.

Continued on page 5

As you know, for the first time we are

doing our initial renewal mailing in

January instead of December. That means

we went an extra month last year with

virtually no money. We desperately need

your renewal right away.

Normally when we do our initial

billing, one-third of you respond. When

you do that, 99-44/100 percent of your

renewal goes for civil liberties work. When

you don't more and more of your money

goes to the Post Office, printers, and

Pacific Telephone for repeated billings and

phone calls, and an enormous amount of

staff and volunteer time is spent just to get

your membership renewal for another year

of ACLU survival. Our rough estimate is

that close to $10,000 was spent in this

way in 1973.

Because we know that you would much

prefer having your money work directly in

the tough fight to keep civil liberties alive,

we hope that you will take a minute to

read the renewal materials we have sent

you and respond immediately.

The fact of the matter is that, as

desperately as we need your membership

Membership renewals mailed

dues, we need your support as a member

of that small embattled group which

deeply cares about the survival of the Bill

of Rights. There is strength in numbers.

We need you, we need your voice and

commitment as well as your financial

contribution. :

Please free your money to do what you

want by sending your renewal now -

today if at all possible. The U.S. Post

Office, the printer, Pacific Telephone will

not be. grateful to you, but your money

will work directly for civil liberties...and

that's a good thing.

We thank those of you who have already

sent in your renewal; thanks to you all for

your past support; and best wishes to you

all for the New Year.

Note Bene: Through an error by the

mailing house, you received new member

envelopes instead of simple return en-

velopes in your renewal packet. Just

ignore the blanks on the envelope and only

fill in the renewal form (white with blue

ink). Then put the form in the envelope

and mail.

Jan. 1974

aclu NEWS

VICTIMLESS CRIMES

Hinkel aims victimless crime

efforts toward court action

With the Victimless Crimes Project moving in-

creasingly into litigation, an attorney has been named as

the Project Director. She is Deborah Hinkel who should

be known already to many ACLUer's. Debbie was ACLU

Staff Counsel for the Coalition to End the Death Penalty

in 1971-72 and a summer intern at ACLU in 1970.

Kathe Smeland, who got the Project underway has left

ACLU to serve as the Northern California Campaign

Coordinator for gubernatorial candidate William Roth.

Debbie will continue the organization and public

education programs begun by Kathe but will now focus

on litigation to decriminalize victimless crimes.

Debbie received her Bachelor degree in English at

Northwestern University and a Masters in English-

Linguistics at Illinois Tech. She attended Law School at -

Boalt Hall, U.C. Berkeley and earned her J.D. degree in

1971.

For three years, 1964-67, Debbie was a teacher at

Evanston Township High School in Illinois. She also

spent a year as an editorial consultant at Harper and Row

Publishers and a teaching assistant at Illinois Tech. In law

oe she was a research assistant in Constitutional

Ww.

Also, at law school, Debbie received a number of

honors. She was on the Judicial Council at the University

of California and was invited to join the Law Review. In

1969, she won second place in statewide Moot Court -

Competition and received honors on the Moot Court

Board. In 1970, she became the first woman ever to be

initiated to the Order of the Golden Bear.

Debbie has already distinguished herself in the field of

civil liberties litigation, her chief accomplishments being

the U.S. and California death penalty cases which she

~ worked on with Stanford Law Professor Anthony Am-

sterdam. People v. Anderson held the death penalty to be

unconstitutional in California and in Furman v. Georgia,

the U.S. Supreme Court found discretionary death penalty

statutes to violate the Eighth Amendment's prohibition

- against cruel and unusual punishment.

Another case she worked on was Keane v. Mihally in

which the court struck down one year residency

requirements for voting. In Astrugs v. National Im-

migration Service she fought for the right of aliens who

had not served in the U.S. armed services to become

naturalized citizens.

Last week, Debbie filed the prostitute quarantine case

and with the help of Staff Counsel Joseph Remcho, filed

the methadone patient suit. Also, last month, the Rock

VICTIMLESS CRIMES PROJECT DIRECTOR

DEBORAH HINKEL

case was filed challenging laws against private sexual

activity.

For the future, Debbie has volunteer attorney Katlyn

Thomas working with her on a broad challenge to drug

laws and several other projects. The three suits filed in the

last month are only the beginning of a whole series of

litigation aimed toward decriminalizing victimless crimes.

Suit seeks to salvage S.F. Methadone SF. prostitute

Program and privacy of patients

Staff Counsel Joseph Remcho filed suit

last week in San Francisco Superior Court

on behalf of Dr. David Levine, San

Francisco's Methadone Program

Director, and the nearly 1000 patients

enrolled in the city's five methadone

maintenance clinics. The suit seeks an

injunction against the State Department of

Health and Welfare which ordered San

Francisco to discontinue its methadone

program last month.

The State's basis for the order to close

the clinics was the refusal of Dr. Levine

and S. F. Health Director Dr. Francis

Curry to provide the state with the names

and complete medical records of their

patients. Levine and Curry informed State

officials that they would be happy to

provide medical records with the names

deleted so that the state could monitor the

effectiveness of the program. The State

Health Department however has claimed

that all the information contained in San

Francisco's files must be turned over to

them because they provide much of the

funding for the methadone program.

When Dr. Curry sought approval of San

Francisco's Methadone Program from the

state health agency, he informed the state

officials that he would not be able to

violate the privacy of the doctor-patient

relationship. A state inspection team

visited the city's methadone clinics last

month and was given access to all patient

records but was denied the names of in-

dividual patients.

After a series of communications

between the state officials and Curry, State

Health Deputy Director Andrew

Robertson informed Curry that San

Francisco had been ``denied approval to

operate'' the five clinics. Drs. Curry and.

Levine have held fast to their original

position however that disclosure of their

patients' names along with the records

would violate the patients' rights to

privacy and the doctor-patient privilege.

San Francisco Mayor Joseph Alioto has

announced his support of the methadone

program and Dr. Levine announced that

they will continue to operate despite the

state order.

In his complaint, Remcho argues that

"*State_statutes forbid release of the in-

formation ; federal statutes and regulations

prohibit the release of the information;

the physician-patient privilege forbids the

release of the information; and federal and

state guarantees of privacy forbid the

release of the information.'' In view of

these restrictions, Remcho adds that Dr.

Levine would ``subject himself to criminal

penalties'' if he complied with the state

order to disclose the names of his patients.

Therefore, Remcho asks the Court to

declare that Levine's refusal to release

confidential patient records is lawful and

that the state's order to close the program

is unlawful. Remcho also asked the court

to issue an injunction which would

prohibit the state from cutting off the

funding of the San Francisco program on

the basis of the failure to provide the

records.

This suit may have wider importance

than just for San Francisco since the state

requires all methadone programs in

California to supply patient names and

records. At present, methadone treatment

is virtually the only legal alternative of-

fered by the state for heroin users. If these'

programs should be closed, thousands of

` people may be forced to return to heroin

addiction and the resultant criminal ac-

tivity usually necessary to support their

habits. a

The suit has been brought by the

Victimless Crimes Project of the ACLU

Foundation of Northern California.

quarantine

scheme called

unconstitutional

San Francisco health and `police

authorities -have- developed -a.scheme,-to

keep prostitutes off the. streets called..a

"`quarantine system.'' Disguised as a

health measure to control the spread of

venereal disease, the quarantine scheme ~

applies exclusively to a certain class of

people - those arrested for prostitution

and recommended for the quarantine by

the arresting officer. .

-Victimless Crimes Project Director -

Deborah Hinkel filed a taxpayer suit in

San Francisco Superior Court last week

challenging the consitutionality of the

quarantine system. The suit names S.F.

Police Chief, Donald Scott; Health

Department Director, Dr. Francis Curry;

and Chief of the Division of Venereal

Disease Control, Erwin Braff, as

defendants.

In 1972, Scott issued General Order

137 which provides that an arresting

officer should recommend for venereal

disease quarantine those persons meeting

Continued on page 8

`Consenting adult' sex

laws challenged in suit

Surveys reveal that far more than half of

the adult citizens of California have

engaged in oral or anal sex. Nevertheless

this same number of people are guilty of

crimes according to California law. Last

month, a lawsuit was filed in San Fran-

cisco Superior Court challenging Penal

Code Sections 286 and 288(a) which make

criminal these sexual acts between

consenting adults.

Emanating from the ACLU Foun-

dation's Victimless Crimes Project, the

suit was filed on behalf of Allan Rock, the

assistant manager of an electronics firm in

Mountain View which relies heavily on

defense contracts for its business. Rock

requires a security clearance of `"Top

`Secret'' to maintain his position. After

learning that Rock is a homosexual, the

Defense Department decided to revoke his

clearance. -

The two statutes which the ACLU

argues afe unconstitutional are Section

286 (prohibiting the `"`infamous crime

- against nature'') and Section 288(a)

(prohibiting oral-genital contact.) Staff

Counsel Joseph Remcho, who is

_ representing Rock, points out that these

are the same laws which San Francisco

Assemblyman Willie Brown has

repeatedly sought to have repealed by the

State Legislature without success.

The two sections have also been

challenged in the courts several times by

homosexual groups as well as the ACLU:

of Southern California. These challenges

have. all failed, however, because the

courts have refused to review the con-

stitutionality of a law without a showing

that the mere existence of the statute hurts

an individual.

It has been difficult to find a case where

the codes actually harm a person since the

laws are rarely enforced and when they

are, the charges are invariably levelled at

homosexuals or prostitutes. Remcho

believes the court will rule in Rock's case,

however , because it is clear that Rock will

be injured unless the laws are declared

unconstitutional.

Rock is an electronics engineer and has

held a security clearance of ``Secret'' or

higher for more than 17 years. Last year,

however, a hearing examiner of the

Defense Department's Industrial Security

Review Office concluded that Rock's

clearance should be revoked because he

has admitted to violations of Sections 286

and 288(a). In the course of the hearings,

Rock submitted a statement that says he

has engaged in conduct in private and with

consenting adults, both male and female,

which apparently violates those statutes.

Originally, the Pentagon argued that.

Rock's clearance should be revoked

because his homosexual activity might

subject him to ``coercion or pressure'' {.e.

blackmail). When Rock freely disclosed his .

sexual activities at an ACLU news con-

ference, the DOD hearing examiner

decided that he was not subject to black-

mail.

Nevertheless, the examiner then

proceeded to conclude that Rock's

clearance should be revoked because he

has broken California law. In his written

opinion, the Examiner stated that Rock's

``deliberate and intentional disdain for

abiding by clear and unequivocal mandates

Continued on page 3

LEGISLATIVE

Jan. 1974

aclu NEWS

Toby Sherwood named Legislative Counsel

TOBY SHERWOOD

Toby Sherwood, Legal Director of the

Forestry Project of the National Resources

Defense Council, has been named ACLU-

NC's new Legislative Representative and

Staff Counsel. After a search lasting over

two months, Toby was selected last

month to fill the new full-time position

authorized by the Board of Directors for

Sacramento.

Joseph Remcho, who has been spending

half of his time as Legislative Represen-

tative in Sacramento and the other half in

San Francisco as Staff Counsel, will now

devote full time efforts to the legal

program.

Toby will join Coleman Blease, the

legislative advocate for ACLU of Southern

`California, in Sacramento to work on -

legislation which affects civil liberties.

Approximately one-third of her time will

_ be spent on litigation in the central valley

and mountain areas of Northern

California. Her addition to the staff should

greatly strengthen both the legal and

legislative programs for ACLU-NC. |

Toby received her undergraduate

education at Pembroke College of Brown

University in Rhode Island where she

majored in Liberal Arts and American

Literature. She graduated Magna Cum

Laude from Pembroke and was admitted to

Phi Beta Kappa. Ih graduate studies, she

earned a Master of Arts in Teaching at

Duke University in North Carolina. At

the same time, she worked as an editorial

assistant on the Duke University Press.

Toby attended Duke Law School for two

years and was awarded her J.D. degree in

1969. She completed her third year of law

school as a special student at Harvard Law

School. While at Duke, she' had the

highest grade-point average in the first-

year class as well as the second-year class.

She was admitted to the Order of the Coif

and was elected to the Editorial Board of

the Duke Law Journal.

In Massachusetts, she worked for the

Boston Legal Assistance Project and then

became a staff attorney for the

Massachusetts Law Reform Institute. She

came to California in November 1972 to

join the Natural Resources Defense

Council. Toby has been admitted to both

the California and Massachusetts bars.

She will begin learning her new duties

this week by working with Remcho and

Marson in the Affiliate office and with

Cole Blease in Sacramento. With the new

legislative session getting underway

shortly, she will soon be in Sacramento

full-time.

State Senate to vote on exclusionary tule this month

After defeat of Proposition 1, his tax limitation

initiative last November, Governor Ronald Reagan

announced that one of his chief priorities for the final year

of his administration will be crime control. Californians

got a glimpse of what Reagan has in mind in the way of

reform when he issued the report of his Select Committee

on Law Enforcement Problems a few months ago.

The key proposal of the Governor's Committee is that

the "`exclusionary rule'' be abolished. The exclusionary

rule was developed by the courts as an enforcement tool to

be used against law enforcement agents who violate the

Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonalbe

earelyand--seeizure: If iri: a' `particular' case a defendant

`proves to the `court that he was: illegally searched by

police, the police vannot then use the illegally seized

evidence against him.

When the California State Senate reconvenes this

week, one of its first orders of business will be action on

this very proposal, abolishment of the exclusionary rule.

S.B. 1153 (Lagomarsino) has already been approved by

the Senate Judiciary and Finance Committees and will be

voted on by the full Senate this month. Under the new

rules of California's two-year legislative session, the bill

will be dead if it does not pass in the Senate by January

a1)

S.B. 1153 would do more harm than simply abolish the

exclusionary rule. It goes further by proposing limits on

the amount of damages a person who is illegally searched

can recover from the police. Except for medical costs or

out of pocket costs for destroyed property, the bill would

limit damages to $250. The Governor's Select Com-

mittee suggested this amount as a viable ``alternative'' to

the exclusionary rule. The Committee failed to point out,

however, that under current law, no such limit exists in

such damage suits.

The Governor's proposal would reduce the Fourth

Amendment guarantees against search and seizure to

sheer illusion. Even under current law, it is often a

hopeless proposition to win a damage case against law

enforcement officials. S. B. 1153 would take away any

incentive to try. The practical result of the passage of S.B.

1153 would be that police could break into your home,

search it, break up some of your furniture, beat you up,

seize some evidence against you and prosecute you. on

that evidence.

You would then have to defend yourself in criminal

proceedings as well as file a civil suit against the police in -

which you can only get your furniture and doctor bills

_ paid for and perhaps an extra $250. Of course your legal

expenses will be much more than that.

Ephraim Margolin, ACLU-NC General Counsel and

President of the California Attorneys for Criminal

Justice, commented on this situation in the C.A.C_/.

FORUM. "`There is no viable alternative to the Rule in

protection of persons damaged by improper police

practices. Arf informal survey of 200 trial attorneys in-

dicates that only two would consider. representing a

victim of improper police practices where the damages are

less than $100.''

He points out that almost any attorney will be deterred

from litigating against the police after estimating the

amount of time he or she will have toinvest` `in research,

interviewing clients, drafting pleadings, discovery,

_ preparation of witnesses, pre-trial motions, the actual

trial and pursuing appeals. The attorney must also be

concerned with the cost of depositions, travel, expert

witnesses, and trial transcrips. It must be kept in mind too

that this litigation would be against a large and well-

represented public agency.'' Few will find all of this

worth $250.

Margolin concludes that the State Senate would do well

to keep in mind the words-of Supreme Court Justice Louis

- Brandeis when voting on S.B. 1153: ``To declare that in

the administration of the criminal law the end justifies the

_ Means - to declare that the government may commit.

crimes in order to secure conviction of a private criminal

- would bring terrible retribution. Against that pernicious

doctrine this court should resolutely `set its face.''

It is imperative that all ACLU members write to their

State Senators immediately, urging them to vote ``no

on S.B. 1153. (State Capitol, Sacramento 95814.) This

first effort in Governor Reagan's year of ``crime control''

must be defeated.

Homosexual's job dependent on court action

level.''

mores and they deny freedom of

Continued from page 2

of the Penal Code of California . . . con-

`stitutes per se, a disqualification rendering

applicant ineligible for continued

authorization for access to classified

Department of Defense information at any

In other words, Rock should lose his

security clearance simply because the

Defense Department has decided that he is

a lawbreaker. This despite the fact that

Rock informed California Attorney

JOE REMCHO AND ALLAN ROCK Sspiain suit to challenge? California

sex codes at news conference held last month.

General Evelle Younger of his behavior

and received the response that he would

not be prosecuted for his acts. Still, Rock

will lose his security clearance. and

therefore his job solely because Penal Code

Sections 286 and 288(a) remain unused

on the California books and purport to

make private sexual activity between

consenting adults criminal.

Remcho is convinced that Rock's case

presents a unique set of facts which make

it clear that he will be harmed by the two

statutes. He also is convinced that the

codes are clearly unconstitutional. If the

courts agree, the Defense Department

will then have no basis on which to revoke

Rock's clearance.

Last November, Californians amended

their Constitution to include privacy as an

individual's inalienable right and Remcho

argues that 286 and 288(a) are un-

constitutional invasions of Rock's privacy.

' He adds that the laws violate the First

Amendment of the U.S. Constitution

because they attempt to establish religious

association.

Finally, Remcho charges that the laws

are discriminatory and vague because

when they are invoked at all, they are used

to prosecute homosexuals and prostitutes

exclusively and the police have wide

discretion as to when to enforce the laws.

At the same time, a majority of the

heterosexual population of California is

equally guilty of violating the express

mandate of Sections 286 and 288(a).

As reported in the September, 1973

issue of ACLU News, Remcho has also

appealed the hearing examiner's opinion

to the Security Clearance Appeals Board

in Washington, D.C. Rock retains his Top

Secret clearance until this appeal is

completed.

Should the suit in Superior Court

succeed, the result may be that private

sexual activity between consenting adults

will be effectively decriminalized in

California and `privacy of the bedroom will

be secure for both heterosexuals and

homosexuals.

Jan. 1974

aclu NEWS

by Harriet Katz Berman

In response to the mounting political

pressures brought by women throughout |

California, the state legislature in 1973

enacted many significant measures

changing women's place under California

law. But many laws which relegate

women to a separate - and second-class

- status are still on the books; further,

there are many areas of abuse where the

state legislature could legitimately step in

but instead has given tacit approval to

discriminatory practices by remaining

silent.

California law has long reflected

stereotyped assumptions about the tradi-

tional: American family - husband at

work, wife at home with the kids.

California's Civil Code had established

the husband as the family financier, with

almost all of the couple's community

property "`under the management and

control of the husband.''

Community Property Revision

Community property law has now

been thoroughly revised. Under legisla-

tion by Senator Mervyn Dymally that

takes effect in 1975, either spouse can

conduct the family finances. (Joint con-

sent of both spouses will continue to be

required for transactions involving com-

munity real property, e.g. the family

house.) There has been much debate over

whether community property law should

be revised to require joint consent of both

spouses for all financial matters; or

whether each spouse should be legally

entitled to make financial decisions sepa-

rately, without the consent of the other

spouse. With some exceptions, the new

law is basically a separate-and-equal ar-

rangement. Notwithstanding the debate -

Over joint or separate management and

control, the new law is a Significant

accomplishment in that it removes the

fundamental inequity of wifely sub-

servience.

Community property law was for-

giving her some stake in the family's as-

sets even if they all stemmed from the

husband's earnings. A wife's traditional

``woman's work'? - household duties

and child care - receives no earnings.

Even as now revised, community prop-

_ erty law is an accommodation with, not a

challenge to, the fact that some of the

most vital labor routinely performed by

women in this society receives no remun-

eration and none of the associated be-

nefits, e.g. pension or retirement funds,

available to many- people in the labor

force.

Business Practices

A corollary to the stereotype of

man-as-breadwinner, woman-as-

housewife, is the notion that women are

incompetent to handle financial matters.

This view has frequently been reflected in

business practices, suchas the difficulties

women have experienced in obtaining

credit. The discrimination in community

property law has often been used as an_

excuse for these practices; as long as a

husband had ultimate legal control of

community property, many institutions

refused to transact business with a mar- |

ried woman without her husband's con-

sent. This pattern is often carried over to

a reluctance to transact business with

unmarried women as well. And practices

derived from the assumption that women

do not work also have meant discriminat-

ory treatment of many women who do

work.

The revision of community property

law now enacted will remove the

rationalization for such discrimination,

but by itself it will not prohibit the prac-

tice. Another new law, authored by As-

semblyman Henry Waxman, prohibits

discrimination in the granting of credit on

the basis of sex or marital status. Simi-

larly, a newly enacted measure by As-

semblyman Waddie Deddeh prohibits

discrimination on the basis of sex for cer-

tain kinds of insurance. Still pending be-

fore the legislature is a bill by Senator

Nick Petris (S.B. 397) to prohibit requir-

ing a husband's consent for a married

woman's securities transactions. The

new credit law is quite far-reaching; the

new insurance measure is much more li-

mited in scope, and further legislation is

needed to ban discrimination on the basis

of sex in such areas as workmen's com-

pensation and automobile insurance. It

_ should be as unacceptable to consider

women a "`greater risk'' in any category,

which results in higher premiums as to

consider race a factor.

Death and Taxes

The view of women as financially

incompetent is reflected in Probate Code

Sections 202 ff. Upon the death of a

spouse, a Surviving wife is required to go

through legal proceedings in connection

with the community property in circums-

tances where this is not required for a

surviving husband. Legislation is pending

(S.B. 570 - Dymally) to revise the Prob-

ate Code in accord with the new revisions

of community property law.

Favored status has been given to the

`traditional' family in state tax regula-

tions which placed a much higher rate on

unmarried, widowed or divorced people

who head households than on couples fil-

ing joint returns. Newly enacted legisla-

tion by Assemblyman Bob Cline will

greatly reduce this disparity by lowering

the state income tax rate for single per-

sons with dependants.

Working Women

Despite the widespread assumption

that woman's place is in the home, the

standard-model American family is be-

coming a myth. In California, according

to the 1970 census, more than 3 million, or

42.2% of all woman in this state over 16

years old, work. More than 1 million

women in California's labor force have

pre-school or school-age children; and

nearly 900,000 of the working women

with children are married and live with

their husbands.

Working women have had special

protections under California's Labor

Code. Some of these provisions em-

bodied a stereotyped view of womes as

the `"`weaker sex,'' and have been struck

down by the courts. But most of them

' amount to minimal standards of decency

in working conditions, e.g. rest breaks;

drinking fountains; good lighting, ventila-

tion, and clean toilets. Under a new law

by Assemblyman Willie Brown, the au-

thority of the Industrial. Welfare Com-

mission, which is responsible for such

regulations against exploitative labor

practices, has finally been extended to

male employees where previously only

women and minors had been covered.

Pregnancy and Work

Even though so many working

women have children, the assumption is

still pervasive that if a woman is working,

_it is only a temporary status, not her ulti-

mate role in life. Many employment pro-

visions and practices reflect the assump-

tion that a woman who is going to have a

child is going to stop working. Mother-

hood may be as American as apple pie,

but for a working woman, pregnancy

doesn't pay; rather, it can be fraught with

economic disadvantages.

Many employers, both public and

private, require expectant mothers to

stop working at a fixed time in their preg-

nancy, e.g. after the sixth month, re-

gardless of an individual woman's physi-

cal fitness to remain on the job. These

mandatory maternity leaves often require _

that a woman remain away from work

without pay for a specified time after giv-

ing birth.

The pregnant woman, who is forced

to be unemployed, is also ineligible for

state disability benefits. By California

law, pregnancy is the only kind of tem-

porary disability excluded from coverage

(Unemployment Insurance Code Section

2626). That exclusion has now been mod-

ified somewhat; under new legislation by

Senator George Moscone, abnormal and

involuntary complications of pregnancy

are now covered by disability. And a fed-

eral court has ruled (Aiello v Hansen) that

California's exclusion of pregnancy disa-

bility from coverage is unconstitutional.

However, no universal provisions have

yet been enacted.

Childbirth, with the usually brief

period of hospitalization, is routinely exc-

luded from sick-leave policies. A bill by

Assemblyman Howard Berman to allow

teachers to use accumulated sick-leave

during childbirth won legislative approval

this year but was vetoed by the Gover-

nor.

Many policies for days-off-with-pay

are also unfair to expectant fathers; an

employee may be allowed a personal

necessity leave to attend a funeral, but

not to be present at the birth of his own

child.

State law authorizes school districts

(Education Code Sections 13456, 13593,

136151.3) and state agencies (Govern-

ment Code Section 19384) to establish

leaves of absence for child-rearing for

female employees; anew mother can thus

stop working for some period of time and

still know she has a job to come back to.

But there is great, variation as to how Jong

an absence is allowed, and whether it is |

voluntary or mandatory. Also, many em-

ployers do not have such policies at all,

and many that do exist do not afford ade-

quate protection on such issues as senior-

ity and promotion.

The option of stopping work for a

while to raise a baby does not exist for

fathers; where child-rearing leave is of-

fered, it is only available for females, on

the assumption that it will be the mother

_EDUCATION

Update: Women under California law

4

who will take care of the young child.

This may be the norm in our society, but

it should not be a pattern embodied in the

law with disincentives to alternatives.

Job Discrimination

Employment practices which treat

pregnancy differently from other tempor-

ary disabilities, or which exempt preg-

nancy from other benefits, are in viola-

tion of the federal Equal Employment

Opportunities Commission guidelines on

discrimination because of sex. California

need not wait for case-by-case testing and

enforcing of these guidelines in the

courts; the legislature could adopt the

EEOC guidelines as state law. California

law already prohibits job discrimination

on the basis of sex, as well as race, relig-

ion, etc. (Labor Code Section 1412).

Enactment of the EEOC guidelines,

(which address many aspects of sex dis-

crimination in addition to pregnancy),

could give added clout to that law.

Enforcement Needed

Enforcement of California's provi-

sions against job discrimination rests with

the Fair Employment Practices Commis-

sion. The legislature and the Governor

could demonstrate a commitment to

combatting job Gisc fetes by increas-

ing the FEPC's budget.

FEPC also needs greater procedural

authority. Legislation to~enable the

agency to initiate investigations and

complaints, instead of waiting for persons -

to come forward and file complaints, has

- been repeatedly vetoed by the Governor.

Legislation is also needed to overturn an

attorney general's opinion that bars

FEPC from using individual complaints

in which the agency has successfully

negotiated compliance as data in class ac- |

tion litigation.

`Despite California's Ban on job dis-

crimination, a law authorizing the State

Personnel Board and agency heads to de-

cide that some jobs should be reserved for

one sex (Government Code Section

19702) is still on the books.

Day-Care

The issue of day-care for children is

vitally important for working mothers,

for recipients of Aid to Families with De-

pendent Children, and indeed for all par-

ents. Through action spearheaded by As-

sembly Speaker Bob Moretti, the legisla-

ture has augmented existing day-care

programs under the state Department of

Education to make up for federal cut-

backs. The legislature's approach has not

reached the question of employer in-

volvement in day-care funding, but gives

recognition to the need to establish more

widely available day-care by broadening

eligibility for existing public programs.

While the issues addressed here

especially need attention because of their

fundamental economic implications,

provisions affecting the status of women

run throughout state law. The legislature

has now provided the means for a sweep-

ing overhaul of California's codes by es-

tablishing a Joint Committee on Legal

Equality. Hopefully, the systematic work

of that committee, coupled with the con-

tinued, organized pressure on the legisla-

ture from advocates of women's rights,

will lead to even greater changes than

those accomplished in 1973.

aclu NEWS

9 issues a year, monthly except bi-monthly in March - April, July - August,

_ and November-December

Published by the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California

Second Class Mail privileges authorized at San Francisco, California

Howard Jewel, Chairman of the Board

Jay Miller, Executive Director

Mike Callahan , Editor and Public Information Director-

593 Market Street, San Francisco, California 94105-433-2750

Membership $15 and up of which $2.50 is the annual subscription fee for aclu News.

IMPEACHMENT

Jan. 1974

aclu NEWS

Impeachment action at crucial stage

The House Judiciary Committee has

now begun impeachment proceedings in

earnest. Congress will reconvene on

January 21. During holiday break, every

representative has been sounding out the (c)

people back home in the district on im-

peachment. If they learned the same

things that pollsters have been learning

from their constituents, we may begin

seeing some fairly rapid action on im-

Seca ecu

Republican politicians -are growing

increasingly jittery about the prospect of

impeachment proceedings that might span

into last summer when they are all seeking

reelection. Already, many have an-

nounced they won't even bother. Nearly

all of them are saying that impeachment

should be voted on as soon as possible.

Democrats on the other hand must

guard against relishing the agony of their

opponents. For them to delay or prolong

the impeachment process for partisan gain

would be inexcusable. All politicians must

be encouraged to set aside all thoughts of

their personal gains or losses so that they

might best serve the American' people.

The only thing required of them is that

they perform their constitutional duty.

Minor scandals continue to appear in

the daily newspapers and further major

scandals may erupt any day. Though we

all wish it would, the crisis will not

subside if nothing is done.

Impeachment is the only constitutional

remedy for curbing Presidential abuse of

power. If impeachment is not passed by

the House of Representatives, the chaos

and disillusion will continue and the

people shall be denied a resolution of the

issues. If President Nixon is not im-

peached for the acts he himself has

publicly acknowledged, any successor

- Might feel free to engage in the same

assaults on the constitution. Future

presidents must be warned that the

constitutional check on executive power

can be invoked.

The only question now is whether the

American people will realize what is at

stake and whether they will transmit their

alarm and commitment to Congress.

Otherwise, we run the danger of our

constitutional crisis being resolved un-

satisfactorily or not resolved at all for years

to come. The country can ill-afford that.

We can't escape it. The indictments and

trials haven't even begun yet. Im-

peachment hearings are only now starting.

A large variety of other Congressional

committees are conducting separate in-

vestigations. And we are embarking on an

election year. We must pursue the only

possible rational end to it all.

Only sustained and overwhelming

pressure from the people can guarantee

that Nixon's transgressions on our form of

government will be judged by the only

tribunal possible, operating the process

provided by the Constitution - an im-

peachment trial by the Senate of the

United States.

Mark February 12 on your calendar. On

that day, Lincoln's Birthday, ACLU and

other organizations will sponsor a national

| "Write Your Representative Day'' on

impeachment. Thousands of Americans,

ACLU members and other concerned

citizens, will deluge the capital with

letters to their representatives and the

| House Judiciary Committee.

The theme for the campaign is aptly

stated by President Lincoln -

""Government for the people, by the

people and of the people.'' The letter

writing campaign has just that as its goal.

The letters will beseech Congress to

restore constitutional government to our

nation by voting to impeach Nixon,

`Write your Representative ' Day

thereby invoking the only procedure

provided in the Constitution to judge the

propriety of presidential actions.

ACLU and other organizations working

for impeachment will run newspaper ads

on that day and it is hoped that individuals

will send their letters to Congress three or

four days before February 12 so that the

bulk of them arrive on that day.

If all those who support impeachment

write Congress on Lincoln's Birthday, the

unprecedented expression of the public's

will cannot. be ignored by those in

Washington who will vote on im-

peachment, and who in turn must be

voted on by us this year.

1. F. ST E, the gues

peake

his conclusion that Nixon must be impeached.

Stone speaks at celebration

Continued from page 1

With typical Amsterdam humility, he

claimed that the real struggle for civil

liberties is won or lost by the people in the

audience who commit their time, money

and support to the effort. He said that his

only fortune was the luck to be doing his

job in the right place at the right time. For

him to claim all the credit, he submitted,

would be a mistake. He- thanked all of

those that had put the celebration together

and offered profound gratitude to Earl

Warren for the great things he has done

for this country.

Finally, the audience was treated to the

observations of I.F. Stone, the evening's

guest speaker, on the Presidency . He

concluded that the evidence against

President Nixon which is now known

makes any solution but impeachment pure

- folly. He sketched his belief. that the

`""Watergate affair'? is more than the

work of a few but the result of a

devastating crisis of leadership in the

federal government. He said it is time for

the constitutional balances in the

government to be reasserted by the people.

The alternative, he stressed, is worse than

simply the denial of justice or the missed

opportunity to reform the Presidency. The

alternative will be the irreversible

corruption of American political life. We

will be doomed to cynical politicians and a

disillusioned public and a decline of

democracy and civil liberties if faith in the

system is not restored through es

peachment.

This Bill of Rights Celebration was a

_ fitting close for the year of 1973 and

promised renewed vitality for the ACLU

for the new year. If the spirit and success

that was evident that evening spans this

year, it may well be an incredible year in

ACLU history.

National poll shows

Nixon in deep trouble

Those supporting impeachment are not

alone. In fact, they are almost a majority

according to a recent poll conducted by the

Roper organization for ACLU and other

organizations.

A very slim majority of 45 percent

opposes impeachment but 44 percent are

in favor of it. The survey of public reaction

also showed that 79 percent of those polled

believe one or more of the charges of

impeachable offenses against the President

is justified.

Most of those who indicated opposition

to impeachment did so not out of belief in

Nixon's innocence but rather out of fear

that impeachment proceedings would be

destructive. Only 11 percent of those

opposed to impeachment said they took

that position because they believe the

charges unjustified.

The Roper Poll is a public opinion

research organization which conducts

surveys ten times a year. Roper analysts

concluded from the latest figures that

*`the President would seem to have a thin

hold indeed on his office in the court of

public opinion.'' The pollsters in-

terviewed a scientifically selected sample

of 2020 persons in early November,

before the disclosure by White House

attorneys that one of the key subpoenaed

. tapes had an 18 minute gap.

National ACLU's Washington, D.C.

Director Charles Morgan said that ``the

_poll was the most complete and in-depth

study on attitudes toward impeachment

and it does not have the inherent bias of

other polls that simply ask for a yes or no

answer on the impeachment question.''

_ The poll shows that four in every five

persons believe that one or more of the 13

charges made by ACLU against Nixon are

probably true. More than 50 percent

believe that the President was involved in

covering up the Watergate break-in and

that he is witholding evidence from

Congress and the Special Prosecutor.

If this same message is getting through

to our Representatives, impeachment may

be very near.

outlines

Impeachment petition blues

By John Maybury

Pounding the pavement in El Cerrito

Plaza, a middle American shopping center

in the East Bay, in search of signers of the

ACLU impeachment petition.

It is November and December, 1973,

_ cold windblowing down my clipboard arm.

A heavy set white woman, dressed

sloppily with several ditto kids in tow.

They all glare. She says over her shoulder ,

going away; `They ought to. throw you

out of the country.'

Two well dressed prosperoiis-looking

women march by. "`Not until after

Christmas,'' calls out one of them. ``Do

you promise?'' I shouted after her. She

smiled affirmative. More people than I can

count respond "`not today'' with very thin

smiles. I don't understand what this

response signifies, but I am too polite to

ask. I am tempted to say ``What about

tomorrow???

And for the dozens of ``good citizens''

who say that they haven't made up their

minds yet, I am on cue with: "`"What are

you waiting for him to do next? How

much worse does it have to get?''

A sourpuss skulks by. ``Would you like

to sign a petition to impeach Nixon?'' I

try anyway. `"Naaah, I'm too tired,' ' I

hear.

A little old man whose toupee is

slipping down his forehead wanted to

know if lam Jewish. I am wearing yellow,

red, and blue knit wool cap which he

apparently takes for a yarmulke, which it

isn't. , you look Jewish,'' he says

backing away. Then from a distance:

"`This whole Watergate thing is a Jewish

trick.' He kept this up for a while. Two

gays strolling up arm-in-arm, signed the

petition and listened to the old man's

harangue. Finally one of them shouts in

the old man's direction : ``Oh shut up,

you're just a Nazi.'

A black woman is trying to sign. Her

little boy keeps tugging at her sleeve

wanting to know who Nixon is. She gives

him a big smile and says "`That's the one

on TV you call Old Blue Face.''

Continued on page 7

IMPEACH NIXON

Jan. 1974

aclu NEWS

LEGAL

The final step in the Bank Secrecy

Case will be completed on January 16

_ | when ACLU Legal Director Charles

Marson presents oral argument

before the U. S. Supreme Court. The

Justices will also hear from attorneys

for the California Bankers

Association and the government on

that date.

The case, Stark v. Schultz, has

been working its way through the

federal courts since it was filed in

June, 1972. The Bank Secrecy Act

was passed in 1970 and required

banks and other financial institutions

to keep records of nearly all banking

transactions conducted by their

customers down to and including the

copying of nearly every check written

and the recording of all deposits and

withdrawals.

The '.Act also required the banks to

report all domestic transactions over

$10,000 and all foreign transactions

over $5,000 to the U. S. Treasury

Department automatically. The

customer did not even have to be

informed of this procedure.

Use of these records was virtually

unrestricted by the Act. It provided

thatthe Secretary of the Treasury

could establish regulations for

utilization and dissemination of the

records received through the Act's

provisions. When those regulations

were established, all they said was

that almost any government agency

could acquire the financial records of

any person in the country simply by

requesting such records from the

Treasury Department.

ACLU Foundation challenged the

Act in Federal District Court on

behalf of Fortney H. (Pete) Stark who

was at that time a bank owner in the

East Bay. The California Bankers

Association then joined the ACLU in

its challenge of the Act.

A three-judge panel heard the case

in San Francisco and granted a partial

injunction against the Act. They

decided that the portion of the law

which requires the reporting of

domestic transactions to the

government was unconstitutional but

they upheld the reporting of foreign

transactions and the record-keeping

portions of the Act.

The government appealed the

injunction and ACLU and the CBA

cross-appealed the decision to the

U.S. Supreme Court. The Solicitor-

Bank Secrecy case to be argued

in U.S. Supreme Court

General is arguing that the federal

court improperly knocked out the

portion of the Act which they found

unconstitutional. The cross-appeal

contends that the remainder of the

Act which was upheld by the three-

judge court should also be struck

down as invalid.

By accepting the appeals last

November, the Supreme Court set

the stage for a major showdown on

citizens' rights to financial privacy.

Marson will argue the un-

constitutionality of the Act on a

variety of grounds but chiefly that it

violates First Amendment rights of

association because the government

can learn what organizations or

politicians an individual has con-

tributed to; Fourth Amendment

rights to be secure from unreasonable

searches and seizures of personal

property or papers; and, Fifth

Amendment rights against self-

incrimination. :

The way things stand now, the

government knows nearly everything

we do with our money. It is now up to

the nine justices of the Supreme

Court to determine whether we have

a right to privacy in our financial

affairs. :

High court hears challenge to

denial of Vet benefits to C.O.'s

Volunteer attorney Jack Petranker

appeared before the U. S. Supreme Court

last month for argument in Hernandez v.

Veterans' Administration, a challenge to

the denial of veterans' benefits to con-

Cientious objectors who have completed

alternative service. A companion case,

Johnson v. Robison, was argued at the

same time by Harvard Law Professor

David Rosenberg for the Massachusetts

ACLU.

Government attorneys told the. High

Court that C.O.'s should not receive

- benefits because they suffer a_ less

disruptive interruption of life than men

who serve in the military. The govern-

ment also contended that some C.O.'s

Activist Auburn cops disciplined;

may be paid more in their alternative

service than draftees are paid in military

service.

ACLU arguments maintained that the

denial of benefits to CO's violated their

right to free exercise of religion. They are

denied a government benefit chiefly

because they hold a minority `religious

conviction. -

If the Supreme Court accepts this

reasoning, conscientious objectors who

completed alternative service in lieu of

military service will be granted the same

benefits as other veterans. A decision is

expected from the court sometime this

Spring.

challenge Chief's retaliation

Two Auburn (Calif.) policemen who

suffered job reprisals for their out-

spokenness on wages will appeal their case

with the help of ACLU Employment

Rights Committee attorney Stephen

Koslow of San Francisco.

Koslow was notified in August that

officers Stafford Dennison and William

Cook had been disciplined for their vocal -

criticism of Chief of Police Hensley's

position on wage negotiations then going

on between the Police Department and the

Placer County Public Employees

Organization.

Hensley apparently wanted money for

equipment, while the two officers ad-

vocated higher pay to meet rising costs.

Subsequently, Dennison was demoted

from sergeant to patrolman and discharged

in November ; Cook was given a three-day

suspension.

Shortly after Koslow. and the ACLU

entered the case last November, Auburn

city attorney D.R. Robinson imposed a

strict gag rule on all police employees,

directing them not to discuss the Den-

nison-Cook disciplining with anyone.

Koslow joined with attorneys for the

Public Employees Organization in

protesting the gag rule on grounds that it

deprived Cook and Dennison of their right

to gather evidence for their appeal. A

month later, Robinson relented, saying:

``We certainly want all the relevant true

facts to come out at the hearing.''

The dropping of the gag rule was

""nominal,'' Koslow says, inasmuch as

the ``intimidatory and chilling effect''

remains. He will argue that the

policemen's First Amendment rights to

free speech and union association have

been denied by the Chief's disciplinary

action, but first he must obtain a hearing

date. ``Since the middle of September we

have been trying to get a hearing before

the Auburn Personnel Appeals Board,''

Koslow says. ``We still have no assurance

of a date.''

R

N

E,

Delancy Street

suit to block

eviction by

hostile neighbors

The Delancey Street Foundation is a communal-type_

organization for ex-convicts, drug users and other people

with a variety of problems. The Foundation's residents

live in two mansions in the well-to-do Pacific Heights

area of San Francisco. The problem is that some of their

wealthy and powerful neighbors don't want them there. -

Attorneys for Delancey Street and ACLU filed a

petition in San Francisco Superior Court last month to

halt eviction proceedings against the two houses. The

City Zoning Administrator has ordered the eviction

persuant to an ordinance which prohibits more than five

un-related adults from occupying an R-1 single family

zoned residence regardless of the size or location of the

residence. The Foundation was recently notified by the

City Attorney that he would enforce the eviction notice.

The successful . self-help residential program of ex-

offenders has maintained throughout year-long ad-

ministrative proceedings that the ordinance is un-

constitutional. The Foundation's two mansions have

more than twenty-five rooms each. Spokesmen for the

group point out that rent is not collected from the

residents, that they live as an extended family, and that

they have a two-year spotless record as neighbors.

Furthermore, they point out that the residences are too

large for any blood-related family to afford or maintain.

Though the Superior Court did not issue an order

against the eviction, an arrangement was worked out so

that all actions would be delayed until after the holidays.

The day after Christmas, the City Attorney filed a

counter-suit against Delancey Street. :

Meanwhile, a number of County Supervisors, lead by .

Dianne Feinstein, have attempted*to' achieve a tcdm- |

promise `conditional use permit'? which would allow the -

Foundation to continue its occupancy of the two man- -

sions under strict conditions.

John Maher, President of the Delancey Street

Foundation, explained that he was left with no choice but

to ask his attorneys and the ACLU to file the protective

lawsuit because the City Attorney refused to delay

eviction proceedings until after the Board of Supervisors

had acted and after the Christmas holidays. The Board

will meet on this matter again this month. Probably no |

action will be taken on the lawsuits until the Board's

soe

decision is known.

Two major court losses

cause liberties setback

ACLU-NC Legal Director Charles

Marson received two disappointing

decisions last week on the same day and as

aresult, civil liberties received two critical

blows.

The first case, Mezey v. Dumke, in-

volved the efforts of poet and English

Professor Robert Mezey to have his

teaching job reinstated at Fresno State

University. He was fired from that campus

after he said in a panel discussion that laws

against marijuana were stupid and stupid

laws should be broken. Ever since he was

fired in 1967, he has pursued appeals

through faculty and administration

committees and the state courts. Last

week, the California Supreme Court

notified Marson that a hearing on appeal

was denied, thereby allowing the lower

court decisions against Mezey to stand.

The second disappointment came from

the California Court of Appeal in Belmont

v. California State Personnel Board. In a

written opinion, the three-judge court

rejected a challenge to the con-

stitutionality of the firing of two

psychiatric social workers in the San

Francisco Community Services Division.

The two refused to supply sensitive in-

formation about their clients for the State

Welfare Department computer on the

grounds that the information would be

readily available to numerous public

agencies. They believed this violated their

clients' privacy and doctor-patient

privilege. The Court of Appeal decided

that the Personnel Board acted properly in

dismissing the two.

MEZEY and BELMONT are two of

Marson's most important cases and they

have consumed a congregate of over eight

years of litigation. There will still be

further appeals in each case but Marson

now believes chances of success are

minimal.

Judge orders new parole hearing for inmate

Last month, Solano County Superior Court Judge

Raymond Sherwin ordered the California. Adult

Authority to provide a new parole hearing for Albert

Mitchell, who has been incarcerated at the California

Men's Colony in San Luis Obispo or the Vacaville

Medical Facility for the past nine years on one conviction

for burglary.

In the September, 1973 ACLU News, the filing of a

writ of habeas corpus on behalf of Mitchell was reported.

Prison Rights Project Director Peter Sheehan and ACLU-

NC Board member Alice Daniel are attorneys in the case.

Mitchell was convicted of second degree burglary in

1964 and was sentenced to 6 months to 15 years im-

prisonment. His only offense was that he entered a

Sacramento dress shop after it had closed and committed

sexual acts with some of the garments. He took no

money, though it was there, he .was unarmed and no

one was hurt.

For this crime, Mitchell has now served over nine

years for an offense that usually merits an average of only

23 months. Virtually all persons convicted of the same

crime are released within 5 years but Mitchell remains in

prison. At his last parole hearing in March, 1973, he

spent 20 minutes with the Adult Authority and was then

informed that parole was denied again. Again there were

no reasons given for the denial.

Sheehan and Daniel argued that Mitchell was being

denied parole not because of his character or level of

rehabilitation but rather because he has refused to par-

ticipate in group therapy in the institution, where he

must discuss his crime with other inmates. They

presented evidence that the therapy sessions could be both

physically and psychologically dangerous to Mitchell.

They contend that this represents an arbitrary decision by

the parole board.

Furthermore, they allege that his sentence amounts to

cruel and unusual punishment because of its extreme

length, and that since the parole board has never advised

Mitchell of the factors relied upon to deny him parole, he

has been denied due process.

Judge Sherwin concluded that the purpose of a parole

system is to encourage reformation of an offender and to

reward such reforms with the incentive of release.

""However,'' the Judge states, ``the defects of the

proceedings as disclosed to this court are that they have

led to the petitioner's (Mitchell) being placed in a

hopeless status which is the very antithesis of the ob-

Ban on press - inmate interviews

challenged in federal court |

Federal regulations which bar press

interviews with federal prisoners

were challenged last month in a

lawsuit filed by the ACLU Foun-

dation and Public Advocates. The

case, Ronald Gong v. Robert' H.

Bork, is being handled by ACLU St

Counsel Joseph, Remcho... at

Ronald Gong is a federal: prisoner

sentenced to 15 years for armed

robbery. During his trial and while

awaiting transfer to a federal prison,

Gong has been incarcerated in the San

Francisco City Jail pursuant to an

agreement between federal and city

officials. =

Last November, David Goldstein,

a free-lance documentary film

reporter, asked Gong if he would

submit to an interview about

Chinatown. Goldstein has been

| working on a documentary on San

Francisco's Chinatown and Gong

wanted to comment on some aspects

permission for the

Peckham ordered federal officials to

of the report.

San Francisco Sheriff Richard

Hongisto granted permission for the

interview and informed Goldstein

that facilities at the jail were available.

Next, San Francisco City Jail

Commander Dermott Creedon was

contacted and he too assented to the

`trequest to interview Gong.

Shortly thereafter, however,

Goldstein was informed by Creedon

that no interview could be conducted

because Gong was under the

authority of federal marshalls who

refused to permit the interview.

Goldstein next went before U`S.

District Judge Robert Peckham, the

trial judge in Gong's case, to secure

interview.

keep Gong in the city jail until the

constitutionality of their actions could

be determined.

In his brief, Remcho argued that

refusal to permit the interview

violated Gong's First Amendment

rights to free expression and

association and to petition for redress

of grievances Also, Remcho points

out that the interview denial violates

Goldstein's and the media's rights to

disseminate information and the

public's right to receive information.

Normally, federal officials have

- been able to sustain their regulations

against prisoner-press interviews by

arguing that these would compromise

prison security. In this unique case,

however, Gong is in the actual

physical custody of city officials who

already granted permission because

they did not feel that security would

be compromised.

Therefore, there is a chance that

the regulations are vulnerable since

their most potent defense has been

erased.

_ Impeachment petition blues

Continued from page 5

On the back of my clipboard is taped an unflattering

portrait of Nixon, David Levine-styled, actually drawn by

Berkeley artist Bili Skelton, and printed on green card-

board with the words IMPEACH NIXON. I use this as a

prop in attracting signers for the petition. But a pack of

stray dogs saunters by. I flash the Nixon picture down at

the leader of the pack. It hesitates for a minute, lip curling

back over its yellow teeth, body going rigid, its eyes

riveted on the face of the President. Suddenly the beast

can't stand it; a deep snarl escapes its fangs, a dog-gut

reaction.

There are a number of people who react with silly,

nervous laughter, to the sign, and my pitch. They may be

the opposition but they don't look none too comfortable.

Some people as they walk by raise their arms, fist, hand

shoulders in some strange, involuntary gestures of what?

I suppose they are just reacting with displeasure to me,

but it also seems they are afraid and ill-at-east, just seeing

that Nixon face on the clipboard. It's easy to read all kinds

of emotions in people's faces.

The strangest, saddest but truest comeback is from an

old black lady. She raises her skinny arm in a gesture of

disgust and despair when I ask her to sign. ``Listen,'' she

says in a tight, angry voice. ``I worked against that man

and the people went and voted for him anyway.' ' I heard

a milder version of this from a Black man, ``No, that's

white folks business. They put him in there: They can

take him out."' ;

""You ought to be ashamed of yourself,'' a woman

scolds. Another woman comes over to sign and says the

same thing to my departing critic.

_ Equal numbers of people are afraid to sign for fear of

reprisals and for fear of having signed already. To the first

group, I have nothing to say, really. I joke with them

about paranoia, but let's face it, Nixon has already shown

how far he will go to repress dissent. So I can't exactly

assure anyone that their name on a petitionwon'twind up

on an enemy list - it's nice to say it's a free country, but

can I be sure? As to the second group, I tell them that

their votes were stolen in the last election (if they voted

Democrat) or wasted (if they voted Republican) so go

ahead and sign the petition twice to make upfor it.

My favorite all-time exchange was this: a little girl,

very serious non-giggling type, is signing the petition

when a man inred golf cap and alpaca sweater comes up,

sees the little girl and stormed at me about allowing

minors to sign. (Our petition is not restricted to registered

voters; anyone can sign. I pointed this out to the man).

The little girl stops writing a minute, looks back at the

departing heckler and pipes: `"I watched Watergate every

_ day on TV." .

Jan. 1974

aclu NEWS

jectives of the whole system of indeterminate sentences

and paroles. Though he has behaved himself, he has not

been considered seriously for parole for reasons never

disclosed to him by any findings of the Adult

Authority."' =

_ Therefore, Judge Sherwin ordered the Adult

Authority to reconsider Mitchell's parole one more time.

This time, however, Sherwin has ordered that Mitchell

and his counsel have access to all materials bearing on the

issue of parole prior to the hearing and, if the parole is

denied, Mitchell must be supplied a written statement of

the reasons and the evidence relied upon in the denial.

The government has already appealed the Judge's

order and has requested a stay on the new parole hearing

until the appeal is decided. In other words, they want to

be sure Mitchell stays in prison while they pursue time-

consuming appeals. .

Alice Daniel submitted a memorandum of opposition

to the government stay request on the grounds that such a

stay will do irreparable harm to Mitchell. She will appear

before Judge Sherwin this week to again argue the point.

So, at this writing, it is still a matter of speculation

whether Mitchell will finally receive a fair parole hearing.

Prison attorney

barred from Q

seeks injunction

in federal court

On December 28, Susan Kaplan, an attorney in the

Prison Law Collective of the National Lawyers Guild,

~ went to San Quentin to interview some inmates con-

nected to a case she is working on. ACLU is participating

in the same case, Bly v. Procunier, as amicus curiae.

_ When she arrived at the prison, she requested in-

terviews with four of her clients. She was given the four

passes and when she went through the metal detector, her

papers were searched for contraband. At the second

checkpoint, she went through the metal detector and

again her papers were searched. This time, however, the

officer began reading each of her papers.

Kaplan told the officer that he could not read the files

but he said he couldread anything he wanted to. Finally,

the officers said that unless she gave them some of the

papers, which were press releases from a Law Collective

news conference, she could not enter the prison. She

turned the papers over under protest and then was let in.

While in the visiting room waiting for her client,

another officer came in and told Kaplan she would have to

leave the prison and that she would not be allowed back in

until he `"`heard from Sacramento.'' She: was then

`escorted' back to her car. Later on, Kaplan was in-

formed that she would not be allowed to visit with

inmates at San Quentin until the ``lock-up'' has been

lifted. Four state prisons were placed under ``lock-up'' -

conditions last month because Department of Corrections

officials claimed it was necessary for security.

ACLU Prison Project Director Peter Sheehan filed an

application for a temporary restraining order last week in.

U.S. District' Court. The Prison Law Collective and

Attorney Charles Garry are co-counsel in the case. After

reading the application, Federal Judge Alfonso Zirpoli

granted the order against Corrections Department of-

ficials, barring them from denying Kaplan access to any

inmate with whom she must have contact. Also, prison

authorities may not read any papers in Kaplan's

possession unless the papers are to be left with the inmate.

Zirpoli also set a hearing for January 11 at which the

Department of Corrections must show why an injunction

barring any further harassment of Kaplan should not be

issued. When the temporary order was discussed before

Zirpoli, the attorney general argued that the Prison Law

Collective attorneys should be excluded from the prisons

berace they are security risks. Zirpoli was not con-

vinced.

Jan. 1974

aclu NEWS

CHAPTERS

Santa Clara

The Santa Clara Valley Chapter of the

ACLU has been focusing on the im-

peachment effort.

Chapter Board members personally

loaned money to the Chapter to help

purchase a full page ad in the San Jose

Mercury, one of the areas largest cir-

culated newspapers.

A petition committee has been cir-

culating petitions in shopping centers and

establishing cooperation from several of

the area's local churches and

organizations who have also been

distributing and circulating ACLU

petitions.

Televised free speech messages and

radio spots are one of the vehicles being

used in the impeachment effort.

cessful campaign under John Maybury,

to obtain signatures for impeachment

petitions among the membership and also

at shopping centers and on buses.

Mt. Diablo

The Chapter is planning a major public

educational program for Saturday,

February 23 at College Park High School

in Pleasant Hill. Speakers, films, panel

discussions and displays will present

various aspects of the ACLU's work and

attempt to achieve better understanding of

civil liberties issues. Possible topic areas

which are being contemplated for the

_ program include impeachment, women's

rights, prison rights and ACLU itself. Lots

of help is needed to make the program a

success. If you can volunteer on this

important project, call Chapter Chairman

Bob Boyle at 283-8685.

Berkeley/Albany Stockton

The following officers were elected at

the November Board meeting: Ann

Ginger, Chairperson; Ronald Coles,

Vice-Chairperson; Addie Collins,

Treasurer; Lee Markiewicz, Secretary,

and Stephen Cornet, Chapter

Representative to Branch.

The Chapter has an active and suc-

Phi jackin. Chamian of he Com:

mittee for Open Media and a teacher at

San Jose State University, will be the

guest speaker at the Chapter's annual

dinner. Jacklin will discuss the topic ``TV

and Free Speech in a Society of Millions."'

The event will be held on Friday,

February 8, beginning with no-host

S.F. prostitute quarantine

Continued from Page 2

the following criteria: ``a. Performing or

soliciting an act of vaginal or rectal in-

tercourse. The recommendation for

quarantine does not apply to the partner

in said act. b. Where a pattern of such

behavior can be established, such as

previous arrests.'" The order adds that no

quarantine shall be recommended for

"either solicitation or for the act of oral

copulation or masturbation.''

If quarantine is recommended, a

medical steward at the jail signs the order

and the person is compelled to submit to a

vaginal and rectal search and a seizure of

material from both orifices as well as the

taking of a blood sample. No warrant is

obtained and no judge or magistrate

reviews its legality. The person is then

injected with penicillin without waiting

`for the results of the blood test.

There are only two ways persons

arrested for prostitution can avoid this

process: either convince the arresting

officer that they engaged only in oral

copulation, which would be to admit a

felony; or, be imprisoned for three days

Moving?

When writing about change of address,

adjustments, complaint, renewal, etc.,

please attach mailing label to insure

prompt, efficient service. Correspondence

regarding these matters should be ad-

are ACLU Neste Call

Membership Dept.

593 Market St.,

San Francisco, Ca. 94105

ATTACH LABEL HERE

name (please print) phone no.

aadress apt. no.

city State zip code

For uninterrupted delivery please give us

eight weeks' notice to process change.

Aftach present label with old address and

enter new address above.

and be denied the right to bail.

In the suit, Hinkel alleges that even the

physicians who administer the program

see no need for the extended incarceration

or the immediate penicillin treatment. She

also relies on the fact that the incidence of

venereal disease in those persons who are

quarantined is no greater than that of the

rest of the San Francisco population

between ages 15 and 30.

Last year, Dr. Curry, recognizing some

of the infirmities of the quarantine

- program recommended some reforms to

Chief Scott. Curry suggested that rather

than hold those charged with prostitution

at the jail, they simply be required to go to

the Public Health. Clinic for an

examination. He said this would not rule

them ineligible for bail and there would be

no need to continue assigning extra

medical staff to the jail for the quarantine

program.

Dr. Curry said the quarantine program

should be discontinued because it was

medically unnecessary and it was not

equitably administered. ``Over the years,

improvements in diagnostic and treatment

techniques have resulted in less restrictive

quarantine requirements,'' he com-

Street musicians

Music-maker Scott Davis and his band

are back in court again, thanks to the San

Francisco Police Department's over-

zealous enforcement of noise ordinances.

The ACLU will defend the street

musicians in their latest run-in with the

law, arguing that the SFPD practiced

*"selective enforcement'' on Davis, while

right nearby was a bell-ringing Santa, a

Salvation Army Band and a construction

crew "`playing'' its pile-drivers and jack-

hammers.

ACLU staff counsel Joseph Remcho

scoffs at the vagueness of the new sound

ordinance enacted by the city. It merely

defines. excessive noise as that which a

person of "`normal sensitivity would find

annoying' (whatever that means). Armed

with this ambiguous language and a

decibel-testing machine, the police

appraoched Davis at Market and

Powell Streets, asking him and_ his

cocktails at 7 p.m. followed by dinner at

7:30. The place is the Prime Rib Inn in

Stockton and the price is $6.00 per person.

All are cordially invited to attend. For

more information, call Chapter Chairman

Norman Walker at 464-6048.

Monterey

The Chapter is very enthusiastic about

two projects which are just getting un-

derway. The first is a court monitoring

program which will involve ACLU

volunteers who are willing to attend court

proceedings in Monterey County as

observers. It is hoped that the effect of this

will be that judges will become more

sensitive to civil liberties concerns. More

importantly, the monitors will be con-

centrating on criminal arraignment

procedures in the courts to make a

statistical study of the use or non-use by

the various judges of release on Own

Recognizance (O.R.) releases according to

race, socio-economic background, quality

of counsel, etc. :

The other projectgrows out of a concern -

about the inability of the Chapter to

respond properly to pleas for legal help

from jail inmates. Currently, most of these

pleas go to the Chapter's Legal Director

Francis Heisler. To help him sort out and

screen the possible cases, Francis will be

training volunteers to serve as paralegal

mented, "`these same improvements give

added vitality to civil libertarian

arguments."'

While it is true that nearly 90 percent of

those arrested for sex-related offenses 50

years ago were found to be afflicted with

venereal disease, only 8 percent of those

quarantined in 1972 were found to have

V.D. Nevertheless, Chief Scott rejec-

ted Dr. Curry's proposals.

In her brief, Hinkel points out that

modern medical techniques have

destroyed the old rationales for the

quarantine program. ""Nothing can justify

a practice which violates rights to

privacy, equal protection, due process,

bail, freedom from unreasonable search

and seizure, from self-incrimination and

from cruel and unusual punishment.'' She

concluded that the program has

degenerated to a ``harassing technique

practiced on social undesirables.''

Therefore, Hinkel claims that the

program is an illegal and unconstitutional

expenditure of taxpayers' money. She asks

the Superior Court to declare the program

unconstitutional and to issue an in-

junction barring the city from con-

tinuation of this special treatment of

persons arrested for their sexual activity. .

The suit is a taxpayer action with Ruth

Jacobs and Austin Griggs representing the

San Francisco taxpayer-plaintiff class.

cited in S.F.

three fellow musicians to play. ""We want

to get a reading on you,'' said the

lawmen. The trusting artists cooperated,

and for their trouble were cited.

*"Normal procedures were not followed

in determining street noise levels,''

Remcho says. ``Furthermore, the ACLU

does not consider music in the same class

as ordinary, mechanical noise pollution.

Music is expression.'' The SFPD ap-

parently has chosen not to heed the

distinction between pneumatic drills and

acoustical instruments.

Davis and friends have won their last

two cases through. the efforts of ACLU

Associate Staff Counsel Larry Sleizer.

January 3 they appeared for a third

afraignment; it was

January 10. Remcho is _ representing

Davis, but expects a volunteer attorney to

take over the case after the arraignment.

continued until.

assistants who will go into the jails to

intervigw inmates and attempt to

determine which of the cases involve civil

liberties issues.

Anyone interested in volunteering for

either of these important projects should

contact Joan Lorenz, 251 Littleness

Avenue, Monterey, 375-1776.

San Francisco

The Chapter has been soliciting

signatures on impeachment petitions and

encouraging its members to write their

Congressmen. Under the leadership of

Board member Sally Pall, hundreds of

signatures have already been obtained.

The Chapter sponsored a_ benefit

preview of a new documentary film on I.F.

Stone, which was a complete sell-out days _

before the showing. The Chapter is

considering using money raised from the

benefit and other fund-raising activities to

hire a part-time Chapter Director.

The Chapter has committed itself to

Oppose current attempts to limit

unreasonably the distribution of the many

"`alternative'' newspapers which are

disbursed from vending machines at San

Francisco street corners and is in-

vestigating allegations of preferential

treatment being given to the major San

Francisco dailies in street distribution.

School girls can

wear pants

to school -

The five girls who were the subject of an

ACLU lawsuit because they wanted to

wear pants to school are now doing just

that due to an agreement worked out

between. ACLU. volunteer attorney

Michael Sorgen and the San Mateo

County District Attorney's office.

The suit had asked the Federal District

Court to declare regulations at Los

Cerritos Elementary School in South San

Francisco void on the grounds that barring

girls from wearing pants and not boys

constituted sex discriminization. It turns

out however that there is no valid

regulation requiring the girls to wear

dresses.

The dress code had been derived from a

resolution of the Parent-Teacher

Association, which only represents a _

recommendation of the parents in a group

but not binding school policy.

As agreed to in the settlement order

submitted to the court last week, the only

dress code for Los Cerritos School is that of

the school district which provides that

students, may wear any reasonable attire,

reflecting any individual student or parent _

style, as long as it meets other standards of

cleanliness and neatness. Pants on girls

pass the test so Deborah, Alicia, Tracie,

Gina and Jeannie went to school during

the last winter storm with warmer legs.

Rights class

Former ACLU-NC_ Legal Director

Marshall Krause is teaching a course at

San Francisco State University which

should be of interest to students at that

campus. ``International Protection of

Human Rights'' will discuss civil liberties .

on a world wide basis through in-

ternational law, United Nations treaties

and other sources. The course will meet

on Mondays and Fridays from 12-2 p.m.

this semester. For more information call

the Political Science Department at 469-

1178.