vol. 41, no. 2

Volume XLI

ACLU-NC filed an amicus curiae

brief this month in the case of the

People v. Patricia Hearst after U.S.

District Judge Oliver Carter barred the

press and public from the jury selection.

stage of the trial. The defense had

asked for the order reasoning that

unquestioned, prospective jurors would

be prejudiced by hearing or reading the

remarks of venire members already

examined.

Carter granted the defense motion :

saying it was necessary to balance the

First Amendment right of the press to

report the trial with the Sixth Amend-

ment right to an impartial jury. He

said it was his duty to protect the rights

"under the Constitution, a of it, not'

just part of it."

-ACLU-NC Executive Director David

Fishlow reacted: "The public has an

overriding interest in learning whether

Patricia Hearst, or any other defendant

the subject of so much publicity, can get

a fair trial. The most important part of

that inquiry is whether. she will be

_ judged by an impartial jury. But with

the press and public excluded, no one

can be certain what is being said and

disclosed inside the court room.'

February 1976, San Francisco

In the ACLU's brief, Staff Counsel,

Joseph Remcho: urged Carter to

moderate his order so as "to ensure a

fair and impartial jury selection by

means less restrictive of First Amend--

ment rights." Remcho said the first

Amendment right of the press to report

and of the public to receive information

may `be abridged only in the face of

compelling state interests, and then

only by means that result in minimal

intrusion on First Amendment rights.

He added that one of the critical

problems with the order was that no one

who represented the interests of press or

public was permitted to present their

views before the exclusionary order was

_ imposed. For this reason, the ACLU.

asked Carter to set a hearing on the

matter in open court so that the court,

the defense and the prosecution, all of

whom agreed to the exclusion, might

consider the claims of other affected

parties.

Remcho agreed that the "Court has a

compelling interest in protecting and

preserving the right of a defendant to a

fair trial.'' He also conceded that large

numbers of reporters may intimidate

venire members, and that potential

ACLU challenges closed Hearst jury selection

jurors yet to be questioned could be

influenced by statements of those

already impaneled oor dismissed.

However, the ACLU argued that

alternatives less restrictive of fun-

damental rights were available which

would ensure the protection of the

defendant's right to a fair trial as well

as the press and public's right to ob-

_ serve the trial proceedings.

Remcho suggested that press

coverage of the voir dire be limited to a

small pool of reporters similar to that

covering certain activities of the

President. This would achieve the

objective of a calm and relatively

unintimidating atmosphere ~ without

completely banning the press. Another

alternative offered was that the

potential jurors be sequestered to in-

sulate them from press accounts of the

jury selection. At the time ACLU's brief

was filed, fewer than fifty potential .

jurors would have had to have been

sequestered and only for a. couple of

days to insulate them from the undue

influences of publicity.

"The Sixth Amendment right to a

public trial applies to the public as weil

as to the defendant and includes the

No. 2

said Remcho. Rather than

impermissible direct

voir dire,"'

1m posing

restraints on the press and public,

ACLU asked the Court to use per-

missible restraints on venire members,

noting that the press and public may be

excluded from trials only in the most

extraordinary circumstances.

Judge Carter denied ACLU's request,

saying he could see "no reason to

modify the order banning the public

and news media from the

proceedings." In his response, Carter

said that admitting a pool of reporters

would be no different than adenine

them all. He also denied that he had the

authority to sequester an entire jury and

noted that sequestration would be

expensive.

"Tf the court has fe power to exclude

press and public from this critical

phrase of a trial,'' Remcho responded,

"it certainly has the power to sequester

veniremen for a few days just as the

final jury is sequestered. A few

thousand dollars is a small price to _pay

to reach an accommodation between

the rights of the press and public on one

hand and those of the defendant on the

other."

General border searches challenged in U.S. Supreme Court

The ACLU, the Mexican-American

Legal Defense: and Educational Fund

and the Northern California Police

Practices Project filed an amici curiae

brief last month in the United States

Supreme Court in the case of United

States of America v. Amado Martinez -

Fuerte, et al.

In the criminal cases before the

Court, officials of the U.S. Border

Patrol were detaining moving vehicles

- searches,

at a fixed immigration traffic check-

point near San Clemente, California,

between San Diego and Los Angeles on

Interstate 5. Defendants in the case

were seized pursuant to a warrant of

inspection issued by a magistrate,

authorizing routine, random vehicle

stops at the checkpoint.

On the appeal, the Ninth Circuit

Court of Appeals found that the

as well as the warrants,.

violated the Fourth Amendment. The

government has appealed this ruling to

the Supreme Court.

Quoting from an earlier decision by

the court, amici argue, "Nothing is

more clear than. that the Fourth

Amendment was meant to prevent

wholesale intrusions upon the personal

security of our citizenry, whether these

intrusions be termed `arrests' or `in-.

vestigatory detentions.' '' The Court of

ACLU-NC Board member

and

volunteer attorney Marshall Krause

filed' a class action in San Francisco

Superior Court this month on behalf of

palm readers and the _ potential

customers of palmists, who wish to

engage in this art in San Francisco. The

action challenges the constitutionality

of San Francisco Municipal Police Code |

Sections 162 and 163.

The city ordinances make it a crime,

punishable by a fine of up to $500 and

imprisonment of up to six months, "`to

advertise ... to tell fortunes ... to

locate oil wells, gold or silver ... to

restore lost love or friendship or af-

fection, for or without pay, by means of

palmistry, necromancy, or other crafty

science, cards, talismans, charms,

potions, - magnetism, oriental

mysteries or magic of any kind or.

nature ... or to engage in or carry on

any business the advertisement of which

is prohibited by this section."'

The ordinance adds that nothing in it |

shall not apply to any ordained or duly

accredited minister of any form of

religious belief, or to the faith, practice

or teaching of any religious body. __

Alister Barlow is a palm reader who

has been warned by San Francisco

police that he would be subject to arrest

if he practiced his profession in San

Francisco even if he does not charge

S.F. ordinance on palm readers called unconstitutional

newspapers which carry daily

horoscopes, psychologists, well-known

people who claim to predict the future

who have spoken here, or even. the

machines in many amusement halls

which tell fortunes for 25c.

Krause charges that the ordinance is

unconstitutionally overbroad and vague ~

because it leaves so much discretion

and interpretation to the police and

because it purportedly prohibits activity

which is clearly protected. He adds that

the ordinance violates First Amend-

ment rights to speech and association,

and is an improper establishment of

religion.

At the ACLU's request, Superior

Court Judge Robert Drewes signed an

occult or psychic powers, faculties or customers. The ACLU complaint order requiring the police to appear in

forces, clairvoyance, psychology, argues that Barlow is being his courtroom on March 9 to show

psychometry, spirits mediumship, discriminated against since the police cause why the ordinances should not be

seetship, prophecy, astrology, do not enforce the law against ruled unconstitutional.

Appeals defined the "issue here 3. (a5)

whether the warrant transforms

otherwise unreasonable seizures into

constitutional ones."

Amici urge, `"`a free society cannot

afford to relax the limitation of

`reasonable suspicion' for a forcible

stop in areas removed from an in-

ternational border. The Fourth

Amendment stands as a barrier to what

was done here. It unambiguously

prohibits general warrants, and

tequires that `warrants particularly

describe the place to be searched, and

the persons or things to be seized..' "'

Millions of cars pass through the San

- Clemente checkpoint every year and the

`overwhelming majority of the people

passing through are in this country

legally and indeed have not even

crossed the border. Who gets stopped

and diverted to the inspection area at (c)

the checkpoint is decided solely by the

Border Patrol officer on duty at the :

time.

Such unbridled discretion will

certainly disadvantage innocent persons

of Mexican appearance most. He can

refrain from having anything to do with

illegal aliens, he can drive carefully, he

can conform to all laws, and yet he is

still likely to be stopped. In the absence

of restraints on the Border Patrol's

discretion, its officials could stop all

Mexican Americans to ask if they are

aliens. Amici argue "that is a burden

continued on page 2

aclu news

Feb. 1976

Court reverses

charges against

midwives

The Court of Appeal for the State of

California overturned the convictions of

three women last month who had been

charged and found guilty of violations -

of Section 2141 of the Business and

Professions Code. Volunteer attorney

Alice Daniel represented the ACLU as

amicus curiae in the appeal.

Section 2141 provides: `Any person,

who practices or attempts to practice,

or who advertises or holds himself out

as practicing, any system or mode of

treating the sick or afflicted in this

state, or who diagnoses, treats, operates

for or prescribes for any ailment,

blemish, deformity, disease, dis-

figurement, disorder, injury, or other

mental or physical condition of any

person ... without a valid certificate

. is guilty of a misdemeanor."'

Alice Bowland, Linda Bennet and

Donna Walker were all charged with

violating this section when they assisted

a woman in Santa Cruz with childbirth

by providing midwife services.

In the trial court, the defendants

argued that the charges should be

dismissed on the grounds that the law is .

vague and overbroad. They claimed

that the phrase ``or other mental or

physical condition" did not adequately

The ACLU Foundation and the

Freedom of Information Clearinghouse

are cosponsoring a conference on

"Litigation Under the Amended

Federal Freedom of Information Act"

-on April 26 and 27 at Hastings College

of the Law in San Francisco. The one-

day program will be the same on each

day.

a

_ describe the prohibited behavior.

Both the trial court and the court of

appeal rejected this argument however.

Nevertheless, the Appeals court did

overturn the convictions on other

grounds. The three-judge court held

that the law is quite specific and

narrowly drawn and does not prohibit

midwifing.

The court said that any proper ac-

cusation based on the statute must

allege that the accused treated an

"ailment, blemish, deformity, disease,

disfigurement, disorder or injury.'' The

court found pregnancy and childbirth

to be none of these.

neither a sickness nor a disability,"' they

wrote.

So; while the court of appeals did not

find the statute unconstitutional, they

did essentially exempt midwifery from

its provisions and since the three

women who had been charged had

accordingly violated no law, their cases

were dismissed.

OA. Cummings 1976

"HERES YOUR WARRANT, DON'T FORGET TO FILL IN THE NAMES'

High Court reviews border warrants

continued from page 1

which cannot be tolerated in a free

society."'

While the government concedes that

it does not have reasonable suspicion

when making stops at the checkpoint, it

argues that the stops are validated by

the general warrant of inspection.

Amici point out that their greatest

concern

warrants that would arise if a warrant

of the sort involved in this case, which

does not focus on particularized cir-

cumstances, should receive the court's

approval.

Since the sole premise on which this

watrant was issued was that the

magistrate agreed that there was

"probable cause to believe that mass

violations of the immigration laws have

been or are being committed'', amici

is the unlimited abuse of

fear the same rationale could authorize

general warrants for bus lines near the

Canadian Border, San _ Francisco's

Chinatown or New York's Little Italy.

"Moreover," the brief continues,

"under the principles urged by the

government to justify this warrant, local

law enforcement officials could get

areal warrants, or class warrants, or

road warrants, or neighborhood

warrants . . . in high crime areas."

Amici conclude that the Supreme

Court should affirm the decision of the

Court of Appeals finding both the

warrant and the seizures

constitutional. (c)

The amicus curiae brief was prepared

on behalf of the three organizations by

Police Practices Project Director Amitai

Schwartz

Member Jerome Falk, Jr.

"Pregnancy is

un-

and . ACLU-NC_ Board (c)

_ The amended FOIA has significantly

narrowed the exemptions the govern-

ment can claim to refuse disclosure.

Strict statutory time limits, chargeable

fees and judicial review have given the

law new usefulness. Furthermore, to

make litigation an affordable option for

a wide range of clients, the Act provides

that in cases where the plaintiff

"substantially prevails" the agency may

now be assessed court costs and at-

torney's fees.

With these and other changes, the

public now has an enforceable right to

government reports, regulations, policy

decisions and documents dealing with

the endless ways that the federal

government influences the public. The

FOIA is of great potential value to

clients as diverse as business, labor,

journalists, scholars, environmentalists,

consumer groups, and _ individuals

seeking the files the government has

kept on them.

Conference participants will get a

paperback handbook, approximately

150 pages in length, containing detailed

outlines. of all conference lectures as

well as source materials for the FOIA,

the Privacy Act, and the Federal

Advisory Committee Act. Materials will

also. be available on the California

Public Records Act. Conference

speakers will be Morton H. Halperin

and John H.F. Shattuck of the ACLU,

and Larry Ellsworth and Mark Lynch of

the FOI Clearinghouse.

Halperin. is a former Deputy

Assistant Secretary of: Defense "and

senior staff member of the National

Security Council. He is currently

Director of the National Security and

Civil Liberties Project. Shattuck is

_ National Staff Counsel for ACLU and

has wide experience in FOIA litigation

including the suits for the Hiss and

Rosenberg documents. He also handled

LEGAL

Lawyers conference on FOIA planned.

the Marchetti case contesting CIA

censorship of the book The CIA and the

Cult of Intelligence, and the Nixon

papers litigation.

Ellsworth has litigated more FOIA

cases than any attorney presently in

practice. Lynch is a former lobbyist

for Ralph Nader's Congress Watch who

was instrumental in the passage of the

FOIA amendments and who has

litigated a wide range of FOIA cases.

' The FOIA Litigation Conference will

follow the general format of PLI and

ELI/ABA conferences and will focus on

the specific interests of practicing

attorneys. The pre-registration fee is

$100 per person, $125 at the door. A

special rate of $20 per person. is

available to law students, law school

faculty, and people representing C-3

and C-4 tax exempt organizations. For

registration, contact Deborah Boyce at

ACLU, 814 Mission Street, San

Francisco, 94103 (415) 777-4880.

Nuclear Power

An informal debate on the civil

liberties issues of nuclear power

development will be held 8:00 p.m.,

Thursday March 4, at Gresham Hall,

Grace Cathedral, 1051 Taylor Street,

San Francisco.

The debate is being Sponsoted by

ACLU-NC at the suggestion of the

Nuclear Power Committee which was

established last November by the Board

of Directors to`determifie'what ACLU~

NC's policy on this subject should be.

By this debate, the committee hopes to

educate the membership to both sides

of the nuclear power question and to

provide the Board of Directors with

some guidance necessary to any

discussion on the civil liberties aspects

of nuclear power.

`Probable cause necessary for detention'

The ACLU of Northern California,

joined by the Southern California

affiliate, won a partial victory before the

Supreme Court of California in the case

of In re Walters last December. ACLU

appeared as amicus curiae in the case

and ACLU-NC volunteer attorney

Ephraim Margolin argued the case

before the Supreme Court.

In In re Walters, a prisoner who had

been jailed following a warrantless

arrest for a misdemeanor, sought a writ

of habeas corpus claiming that since

there was no judicial determination of

probable cause for his detention, the

_ -imprisonment was unconstitutional.

Chief Justice Donald Wright spoke

for the Supreme Court, holding that a

judicial. determination of probable

cause must be made before an arrestee

can be held for trial on a misdemeanor

charge, unless he is released on his own

recognizance pending trial. Finding

present pre-trial procedures

inadequate, the Court went on to set

guidelines which in its view satisfied the

constitutional requirement of probable

cause to hold someone for trial.

In the Walters case, a misdemeanor

complaint reciting the charges against

him was filed four days after his arrest.

There was no affidavit stating the facts

which supported the complaint and the

complaint itself was signed by someone

who had no personal knowledge of the

allegations. As a result, a significant

pretrial restraint of liberty took place

with no reliable determination of

whether there was probable cause for

that restraint.

Following the Supreme Court's

decision, probable cause for deten-

tioned must be made a matter of record

at the time of arraignment or bail

setting within two days of the arrest. As

suggested in the ACLU: brief, the

defendant may obtain a continuance if

he so requests for the purpose of ob-

taining an attorney to advise him

during the probable cause hearing.

The Walters decision is likely to force

dismissals of petty offense and

misdemeanor charges where the

prosecution does not have a police

complaint ready or where such com-

plaints are not properly specific. In that

light, the decision is a significant step

toward the protection of due process

rights of the defendant.

The ACLU's brief argued for a

broader right to counsel and adversary

hearing but the Supreme Court was not

_persuaded to these points. Nevertheless,

the case is a significant victory, albeit

limited.

LEGISLATIVE

aclu news

Feb. 1976

Legislators reform court system, bar rules

By Brent Barnhart

Legislative Representative

INTRODUCTION

Each month in the ACLU News,

ACLU-NC's legislative staff presents

specific legislative matters then current

in order to keep the membership ad-

vised of what civil liberties issues are

before the California Legislature. In

past months, such topics as mandatory

sentences, privacy, and public cam-

paign financing have been discussed.

_ This month ACLU News begins a

series that attempts to focus more

comprehensively on the general areas of

legislation that concern ACLU-NC, and

with which the legislative staff is in- -

volved on an ongoing basis. A full

discussion of all legislation watched

would be impossible in the space

available, but watched measures which

passed through both houses of the

Legislature and which reached the

Governor's desk in 1975 provide a good

sample of the kinds of issues that are of

ongoing concern.

In this issue, we present legislation

affecting attorneys and courts, and

discuss the relationship of such

legislation to civil liberties concerns. In.

following issues we will present

discussions of legislation affecting

women's rights and equal protection;

privacy, public records and government

power; rights of the accused, prisoners

and sentencing, and definition of

`crimes; ..patients,-srights; - _. juveniles,

`education and student rights; and

elections and first amendment

questions.

I. ATTORNEYS:

Because of the key importance that

litigation plays in the work of the

ACLU, and because the right to ef-

fective assistance of counsel is one of

the fundamental rights protected by the (c)

Bill of Rights, the legislative staff in-

- cludes bills affecting attorneys - their

availability and their freedom of

practice - among "`Watch"' legislation.

A) SB' 1018 (SONG) - STATE

PUBLIC DEFENDER:

One of the most sweeping pieces of

legislation to successfully pass the

legislature this past year, and one which

received remarkably little attention

given its sweeping nature, was the State

Public Defender bill carried by Senate

Judiciary Chairman, Alfred Song (Los

Angeles). Comparable legislation which

was enacted by the Legislature in 1971

was vetoed by Governor Reagan.

The State Public Defender will be

empowered to provide counsel to in-

digents throughout the State in all of

those situations where existing county

public defender programs do not

provide service. This includes not only

appeals and extraordinary writs, but

also trial appearances where no public

defender service exists, or where

existing county public defender

programs cannot provide service

because of insufficient personnel or

conflict of interest (e.g., where there are

multiple co-defendants, and the same

attorney. cannot represent each of

them).

The civil liberties potential of the new

office is enhanced by Governor Brown's

appointment of ACLU former staff

counsel, Paul Halvonik, to the Acting

"State Public Defender position. The

office will begin operations at the

beginning of the new fiscal year on July

Ist.

(B) AB 590 (BERMAN) - PUBLIC

"MEMBERS TO THE STATE BAR

BOARD OF GOVERNORS:

In what may prove to be an historical

move, the Legislature enacted a

measure backed by Governor Brown

placing six non-attorney "`public''

members on the State Bar's Board of

Governors.

The bill also directs that Board

meetings be open to the public except

for certain specified subjects which

arguably require that the Board

_ proceed with confidentiality because of

the subject-matter, e.g., prospective

litigation, 0x00A7 qualifications and

disciplinary matters. However, the bill

insures that the public members shall

be placed on the most sensitive of

committees regardless of the con-

fidentiality of the subject matter

discussed...

The bill's success was a victory for

consumer groups and for attorneys such

as those represented by the National

Lawyers Guild, who insist that the Bar

should not be a priesthood removed in

its actions and mode of operation from

the public at large.

From a civil liberties perspective, the

addition of public members to the

Board of Governors may serve as a

: helpful reminder.that the fundamental

rights accorded to all citizens before the

law are insured only so long as those

who practice the law as a profession, -

and who directly affect its conduct,

direction and growth, remain cognizant

of the needs and concerns of all people.

C) AB 1170 (BERMAN) - AT-

TORNEY CONTEMPT:

In recent years - _ particularly

following the Chicago 7 trial in 1969 -

much has been written, and much

organized-bar handwringing has taken

place, over what has been termed

"disorder in the court" and ``attorney

misconduct." Curiously, the focus of

such concern has always been the

conduct of defense attorneys, there

being no cited cases where prosecuting

attorneys have been held in contempt of

court for the manner in which they have

conducted themselves in criminal trials.

In the Los Angeles area particularly,

bench harassment of defense attorneys

by use of the contempt tool has been

excessive, and this past session -

largely due to efforts of attorneys from

the L.A. Public Defenders office -

some legislative relief was obtained. -

AB 1170 authored by Assemblyman

Howard Berman (Los Angeles) and now

in effect, allows defense attorneys an

automatic stay of three days in which to

seek extraordinary relief (i.e., habeas

corpus) before having to serve contempt

sentences. Under present practice,

defense attorneys have often been lifted

from trial in the midst of the proceeding

and placed in jail on the pique of a |

judge offended by that attorney's

conduct of a case. The new law will

allow them to finish (in most cases) the

trial in progress, and simultaneously

seek a writ overruling the contempt

order. The law does not affect conduct

relating to ``an attorney's duty to

maintain respect due to courts and

judicial officers,' but will nevertheless

affect a wide range of unjustified

contempt rulings that have plagued

defense attorneys.

II. COURTS:

Just as the ACLU must be concerned

with legislation affecting Attorneys,

right to fair trial, and rights of due

process compel attention to legislation

affecting the manner in which courts

operate and their structure and

procedures. Few bills in this area are

"blockbusters'' which draw wide public.

attention, and their conduct through

the Legislature tends to be relatively

quiet with the judicial and attorney

lobbying groups stating carefully-

worded positions in modulated tones.

But their ultimate effect on civil

liberties demands careful attention.

A) CIVIL APPEALS - ACCESS

Bills by Senator James Mills (San

Diego) and Senator Alfred Song (Los

Angeles) may make civil appeals more

available to individuals who do not fare

well in lower courts. SB 212 by Senator

Mills repeals provisions requiring a

defendant to post an appeal bond to

stay the enforcement of a small claims .

court judgment. In retail installment

contract cases, for example, consumers

will have a chance to appeal in many

situations where previously they could

not have because things moved too fast

for them to know where and how to

respond. Under the new law, the small -

claims judgment will be automatically

stayed, and no attachments or gar-

nishments can proceed, until the time

for appeal has expired, or if an appeal is

taken, until the appeal is decided.

Along the same lines, SB 614 by

Senator Song gives authority to the

California Judicial Council to create

guidelines for waiver or installment .

payment of appeal fees (currently

$50.00) in civil appeals to the California

Courts of Appeal. Currently there is no ~

charge for criminal appeals, but only

those with $50.00 immediately available

may take a civil appeal. The Song bill

alleviates that impediment

B) JUSTICE COURT eS

VERSY:

However, for all the gentility with

which most legislation affecting courts

_ proceeds, legislation affecting the

structure,

existing Justice Courts caused a great

stir in 1975. For many years, attempts

to require that Justice Court judges be

attorneys - presumably, therefore,

knowledgeable about the law and the

rights of litigants - have been rebuffed

by the considerable lobbying power of (c)

lay-judges throughout rural areas in the

state who do not wish to be deposed.

Furthermore, there is a lot of rural

resistance to consolidation of Justice

Courts, because in many large and

sparsely-populated counties _-_con-

solidation would mean litigants and

defendants, would have to travel much

further distances to get to court. The

plaint is made that in rural areas there

are too few attorneys available to staff

rural courts.

But in 1974, the California Supreme

Court in Gordon y. Justice Court

created a substantial gash in the dam

holding back attorney-judge

requirements, by ruling that in criminal

_ cases, defendants are entitled to be

heard by attorney-judges unless they

give a knowing and voluntary waiver to

their ent to be heard by a magistrate

continued on page 4

location' and staffing of.

Alternative to S.1 introduced,

Senate considers amendments

S.1, the Federal Criminal Code

Reform Act which was substantially

authored by the Mitchell-Kleindienst

Justice Department, remains a severe

threat to civil liberties. It is now before

the full Senate Judiciary Committee

which has 15 members and is chaired

by Senator Eastland.

While any bill is physically amen-

dable, a bill as complex as S.1 could be

favorably amended only in a committee

with a clear and well organized civil

liberties majority. Such a majority does

not exist and the ACLU believes S.1's

oppressive features will not be

eliminated, though they may be

modified by cosmetic changes.

Wholesale amendments on the floor of

the Senate would be virtually im-

. possible.

There are other factors now posing a

gloomy outlook on the Stop S.1

campaign. After the assassination of

CIA agent Richard Welch, the Ford

`Administration seems to sense that

public support for an "official secrets

act'' can be obtained. Also, the House

of Representatives 246-124 vote to

suppress publication of the Pike

Committee's report on the CIA suggests

strong Congressional support for of-

ficial secrecy.

- vironmental protection and makes non-

the running, every effort must be made

There now is an alternative to S.1,

however. Last November, Congressmen

Kastenmeier, Mikva and San Jose's

Don Edwards introduced a new bill,

H.R. 10850, the Federal Criminal Law

Revision and Constitutional Rights

Preservation Act. This 700 page bill is a

more thorough codification of the

criminal law than S.1, with none of the

repressive features.

H.R. 10850 eliminates the death

penalty, wiretapping and obscenity.

Most important, it defines espionage

narrowly and properly. It also provides

good sections on consumer and en-

elected- public officials _more ac-

countable to the people. A House~

Judiciary Subcommittee will begin

hearings on H.R. 10850 and on the

House version of S.1, H.R. 3907, after

the full Senate acts on S.1.

Letters to Senators and Represen-

tatives are critical. Ask Cranston and

Tunney to continue opposing S.1 and to

consider sponsoring H.R. 10850 in the

Senate. Write your representative

indicating your concern about H.R.

3907. Ask for a copy of H.R. 10850 and

urge her/him to consider cosponsoring

it in the House. As long as S.1 is still in

to stop it.

~

aclu news

Feb. 1976

San Francisco

RESERVE THE DATE: Community

Meeting. Tuesday, March 2, 8:00 p.m.

The topic "The Civil Liberties Issues in

the Patty Hearst Trial," will be

presented by Joseph Remcho, ACLU-

NC Staff Counsel. The Community

Meeting will be held at Francisco Junior

High School - Little Theater, Fran-

cisco and Powell Streets. Parking is

available in the school yard. Everyone is ~

welcome.

SENATE BILL NO. 1 - On

February 9, Chuck Ortmeyer, Jan

Nelson, Cheryl Boone, Roger Donely,

Ann Cavenaugh and Andy Moran

combined their energies to call ap-

proximately 100 San _ Francisco

_ Organizations encouraging them to take

a stand in opposition to Senate Bill No.

1. The results were gratifying. Several

already have done so as a result of our

plodding. Others have requested

literature or speakers.

RESERVE ANOTHER DATE -

Garage Sale. April 4, 10-5. MONEY,

MONEY, MONEY, MONEY. We are

_ always in need of funds to keep the

community on the alert where civil

liberties are involved.

The Chapter will hold a GARAGE

SALE on SUNDAY, APRIL 4, from 10

a.m. to 5 p.m. at 1039 Cole Street. Your

"mistake"? may be someone else's

"treasure," and your "white elephant"'

may be someone else's "find of the

year."

Please call the Chapter office, 777-

4880 for when and where to bring your

merchandise to the garage sale which of

course will benefit the Chapter.

Chapter members are always

welcome to attend the monthly Board of

Director's meetings. If you wish to

attend the March meeting, please call

the Chapter office 777-4880, first.

Our thanks to all members who

helped make the recent film benefit,

"Hester Street'' a success.

ESSAY CONTEST WINNERS -

Two San Francisco high school students

have won top honors in the Chapter's

Second Annual Essay Contest. The first

`prize of $75.00 was won by Colleen

Wong of Mission High School and the

second prize of $25.00 was won by

Karen Pugay of St. Rose Academy. (c)

The topic was "Civil Liberties: The

Bill of Rights and Me."' The judges

were Kay Boyle, Belva Davis and Art

Hoppe. Presentation of the awards was

made by Ruth Jacobs, President of the

Chapter. The essays will be published in -

the next issue of the ACLU News.

3 Yolo ,

The Yolo County Chapter kicked off

the month with a very successful fund

raiser reception. Attending were

Assemblymen John Vasconcellos and

recently elected Vic Fazio. Also, at-

tending was field representative Sandy

McCubbin representing Senator John

Dunlap.

Fund raising chairperson Larry

Hoover reports that the reception was a

success in several respects. Not only did

the event supply the chapter with funds

to support its civil liberties efforts, but

publicity work also increased com-

munity awareness of ACLU activities

and goals. Many thanks to Mizi and

Dr. Ayala for the use of their beautiful

home for this event!

Planned for Wednesday, February

25th is an address by Dr. Phil Jacklin

entitled, `"The New Fairness Doctrine:

Access to the Media." Dr. Jacklin will

speak at 7:00 in King Hall, the U.C.

Davis Law school.

Jacklin, a philosophy professor, has

taught- at Stanford and at San Jose

State. He is recognized as an expert on

the Ist Amendment. and access to the

media; and has published widely,

including most recently

Magazine.

Professor Jacklin was a founder of

the Committee for Open Media and was

instrumental in establishing the Bay

Area Free Speech Message, providing

media spots for community groups.

All are invited to come hear Professor

Jacklin. Admission is free.

Santa Clara

Congressman Don Edwards will be ~

the speaker at the chapter's Annual

Membership Meeting on February 28.

S. 1, the Criminal Reform Act will be

the main topic of the congressman's

talk, but he will also be talking about

H.R. 10850, the new bill which used S. 1

as its basis but which made over one

thousand changes in the original.

Rep. Edwards is a long time member

of ACLU and is currently a member of

the House Judiciary Committee. He is

chairman of the Civil Rights and

Constitutional Rights Subcommittee of

that committee. He is a former FBI

agent and has served on the National

Commission on Reform of Federal

Criminal Laws.

Members and friends are urged to

turn out for this meeting. It is a good

opportunity to meet this civil libertarian

Legislation wine: ion ree;

trained in the subtleties of the law. and

constitution.

Currently, the letter of Gordon is

complied with by bringing attorneys

into Justice Courts specially to try

criminal cases where the presiding -

magistrate is a lay-judge. The open

question is whether defendants get no

more than a Hobson's choice - that

there is always the inescapable in-

ference that in refusing to waive his/her

right to an _ attorney/judge, the

defendant may have to wait (possibly in

jail) a long time for an attorney-judge.

AB 1414 by Assemblyman John

Miller (Alameda County), backed by

Judicial Council, sought to consolidate

Justice Courts into the Municipal Court

system where all judges must be at-

torneys. After a bitter fight through the

Assembly, and through the Senate

policy committee, AB 1414 was impaled

on the shoals of Senate Finance, never

getting to the Governor. _

Conversely, AB 2212 sponsored by

Assemblyman William Thomas, who

represents a largely rural area near

Bakersfield, sought to insure that

incumbent lay-judges serving on Justice

Courts be allowed to retain their

positions throughout their current

terms, and stand for re-election for as

long as they might desire - provided

there be no break in their terms of

office. AB 2212 successfully negotiated

the legislative rapids, but foundered

when meeting Governor Brown's veto.

The standoff remains unresolved.

in Center -

congressman. Leona Egeland and some (c)

other state legislators are planning to be

present.

Another in a growing list a killings,

by police of Third World people has

outraged the Chicano community of

San Jose. Danny Trevino was killed by

two officers who say they believed that

Trevino was reaching for a gun as he sat

slumped in the front seat of his car.

The discrepancies between the stories

of witnesses and of the police have

heightened the sense of outrage in the

community. The San Jose City Council

has called for open grand jury hearings.

The Board of Directors of this chapter

has voted to support the requests of the

Concerned Citizens Committee. Murray

Whittaker, Chapter Police Complaint

Committee Chairman read a letter from

the board to the City Council on

February 3. The letter applauded the

council's call for open grand jury

hearings and also asked for an in-

dependent investigation by the grand

jury. The letter also urged that where

suspicion of manslaughter or murder

exists, that police officers be processed

in the criminal justice system in the

same fashion as ordinary citizens.

Berkeley-Albany-

Kensington

The Chapter's first public meeting of

the year was held on January 6, 1976.

Our guest. speakers were Frank

Wilkenson, Executive Director of the

National Committee Against Repressive

Legislation and David _ Fishlow,

Executive Director of the ACLU of

Northern California, both of whom

discussed Senate Bill 1, the Criminal

Justice Reform Act of 1975. They urged

members to work to defeat this

proposed legislation which constitutes a

grave assault on civil liberties. The

Chapter raised a substantial amount of

money which was used to buy and

distribute literature in Berkeley in-

forming people about the dangers of -

S.1. In. addiiton, several Chapter

members visited the offices of Senators

Cranston and Tunney to try to persuade

them to take more active positions in

opposition to this repressive legislation.

The Board of Directors elected new

officers at the January meeting. They

are Marjorie Gelb, chairperson; Gary

Bostwick, vicechairperson; Addie

Collins, secretary; and Rose Ann

Packard, treasurer. Gary Bostwick, in

addition to joining the Board this year,

has helped organize a student ACLU

group at the University of California at'

Berkeley. It is hoped that the students

group will work closely with the

Chapter on issues of joint concern.

. This year, in addition to our usual

activities in areas of public education

and legal work, the Chapter must make

special efforts to raise money to support

its activities. pay persons with special

skills or interests regarding fundraising,

- are urged to contact Marjorie Gelb,

843-5067.

Finally, we are attempting to add new

attorney names to our Lawyer Referral

Panel. These attorneys `answer

questions and give legal advice to

people who believe their civil rights

have been violated. Each lawyer is

asked to serve only two weeks a year,

and the attorneys on the Board are

always available to assist. We are

especially interested in having new

attorneys join us in this valuable ACLU

function. Interested persons should call

Eileen Keech, 848-0089.

Oakland

Regular monthly meetings are held in

the conference room of the Sumitomo

Bank at 20th and Franklin Streets in

downtown Oakland. These meetings

are at 7:30 p.m. the third Wednesday of |

each month and are open to anyone.

The chapter has an answering ser-

vice, telephone number 534-ACLU, and

the telephone committee has really been

busy! More volunteers are needed. If

you are interested in helping, please

contact Janice Lapides at 339-9781.

Oakland's Semi-Annual pot luck get-

together is coming up soon. Looks to be

a great evening with an interesting

speaker and a raffle for some of

California's finest. Watch this column

for further details.

Committee Notices

Privacy: Another meeting is

scheduled for March 7, 7:30 p.m. at

Phil Thomas' home located at 844

Northvale Road, Oakland. Does your

bank disclose your personal in-

formation? Come to this meeting for

some shocking answers.

Political Repression: PIZZA, BEER

S.1.

When: Wednesday, March 10th, . 30

p-m.

Where: 3450 38th Avenue, Oakland'

Why: Junking S.1

Info: Call Dar oe pe In 930-

1221 evenings.

Fresno

A good turn-out of members and

guests attended the Chapter's February -

9 program on Affirmative Action.

Panelists, including Mary Louise

Frampton, a Chapter Board member

and attorney, were most informative in

their presentations and responsive to

the many questions from the audience.

Many thanks to Ann Stanislawsky and

Jim Smith for putting the successful

program together, and to Ann

' Leavenworth for her help on publicity.

Anyone desiring to join or renew their

Fresno ACLU membership, or to help

out on upcoming important mem-

bership drives, should contact Ann at

224-4610.

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

Richard DeLancie, Chairman of the Board, David M. Fishlow. Executive Director

Mike Callahan, Editor and Assistant Executive Director

814 Mission Street, San Francisco, California 94103 - 777-4545

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