vol. 44, no. 8
Primary tabs
Volume XLIV
November-December 1979
Inside Special Report - 1979 Legal Docket
"No. 8
- Inmate Abused, Sheriffs Sued _
to the ground."
Bill of Rights
Greystone barracks at Santa Rita. wage said it "should be razed
Photo: Valley Times
Royalties
- Finance Crucial Legal Work -
"The Bill of Rights Day Celebration
always faces last minute crises, but this
year, with Jules Feiffer as our keynote
speaker and Joan Baez as our award
winner, we've got a bigger problem than
usual - are we going to be able to fit
everybody in the hall?," said Fran
Strauss, ACLU Board Coordinator for
the Bill of Rights Day Celebration.
Feiffer's keynote promises to be a
stimulating analysis of the problems
facing civil libertarians today. As he
wrote in Civil Liberties Review, ``I don't
like civil liberties any better than the
average American. I would say that
more than half the people whose First
`and Fourth Amendment rights I've
G
- vigorously defended, I wouldn't care to
have to my house for dinner."'
The theme of this year's celebration
in ``Many a Mile to Freedom," the title
of a song by this year's Earl Warren
Civil Liberties Award winner, Joan
Baez. Baez was selected for the award
by the ACLU Foundation Board last
March because of her lifelong com-
mitment to civil liberties and her special
association with the ACLU of Northern
California.
-During the Vietnam War, Baez made
hundreds of speeches. encouraging
young men to resist the draft and was
herself imprisoned for
continued on page 4
Bill of A
Rights Day
C-1 Celebration
1979
civil -
"Santa Rita Rehabilitation Center
has been exposed as one of the hell-
holes of the Western world, and we're
going to sue the County until conditions
there are substantially improved," said
James J. Brosnahan, ACLU cooperating -
attorney, at a press conference an-
nouncing an ACLU lawsuit on behalf of
a former Santa Rita inmate.
The 28-year old former inmate who
was beaten and sexually assaulted by
`other prisoners while riding on a
Sheriff's Department bus from Santa
Rita, the Alameda County Jail, to the
Oakland Courthouse is _ being
represented by the ACLU-NC in a suit
to recover damages against the former
Sheriff, two Deputies, and Alameda
~ County.
The complaint charges a systematic
indifference to prisoners' rights by
officials at Santa Rita and the sub-
sequent endangerment of prisoners
there. The suit alleges that the two
- Alameda County Sheriff's Deputies on
the prison bus, W.J. Hillman and A. H.
Schalk, who were responsible by law for
the safety of all inmates in custody,
failed to protect the young man from
violent physical attack and rape.
The former inmate was sent to Santa
Rita in August, 1978, and was at first
segregated from violent inmates. But on
October 26, 1978, as he was being
transported on a prison vehicle to
Oakland for a court hearing, he was not
segregated or protected in any way by
the Deputies, the suit charges.
' The young man was seated only a few
feet behind the Deputies when he was
accosted by a known violent prisoner
nicknamed `Sick Man."
The prisoner was dragged to the back
of the bus where he was beaten and his
life threatened until he submitted to
sexual assaults by Sick Man and other
inmates. Though the prisoner screamed
for help, the two Deputies remained
seated, staring straight ahead, ignoring
his cries.
He was subjected to sexual abuse for
20 to 30 minutes and arrived at the
Courthouse in such a severe state of
shock that he could not function. The ~
Court modified his sentence and he was
released from Santa Rita that day.
The former inmate's mother took
him to the hospital where he was
treated for cuts, contusions, and other
injuries. He has also had to receive
psychiatric treatment for emotional
disturbances related to the attack. His
attackers were convicted of criminal
assault in a subsequent criminal trial _
and are still in jail at Santa Rita.
The suit for damages against
Alameda County and its employees was
filed on October 25 in Alameda County -
Superior Court by ACLU cooperating
attorneys James J. Brosnahan and
Harold McElhinny of the San Francisco
law firm of Morrison and Foerster and
. ACLU staff attorney Amitai Schwartz.
Schwartz explained, ``One purpose of
this suit is to remind prison officials
that constitutional rights, including the
prohibition of cruel and unusual
punishment, are not barred by jailhouse
walls."'
Charges of poor conditions at Santa
Rita are not new. In 1972, a federal
judge called the jail `deplorable' and
found the conditions there `shocking
and debasing." The judge recom-
mended that the Greystone section of
the jail "`should be razed `to the
"ground."
Mr. Michael Schuchardt, supervising
nurse of the Criminal Justice Medical
Facility at Santa Rita, has attested to
the constant victimization of prisoners
at the jail. Appearing before the Police
Community Relations Committee of the
Alameda Human Relations Com-
mission last year, Schuchardt estimated
continued on page 4
oan Baez
Recipient 1979 Earl Warren Civil Liberties Award
ules Feiffer
Keynote Speaker
"Music by a trio from the San Francisco Conservatory, of Music
Sheraton Palace Hotel, San Francisco, Sunday, Dec.16, No-host bar 3-4 p.m, Program 4-6 p.m.
Nov.-Dec. 1979
aclu news
- Death Penalty: `Legal' Contradiction -
By Dorothy Ehrlich
_ Executive Director, ACLU-NC
The 12-year moratorium on the use
of capital punishment in the United
States solemnly ended this year with the
execution of John - Spenkelink by the
state of Florida in May and the
execution of Jesse Bishop by the state of |
Nevada in October.
Five hundred and sixt) four other
inmates currently wait on death rows
throughout the nation, while individual.
appeals and challenges in the states
where capital punishment statutes have
been enacted slowly move up through |
the state and federal court appeal
process.
That ignoble process has been notably
quiet in California, where 22 people are
currently condemned to death and a
recent unexpected opinion issued by the
California Supreme Court on August 31
indicated that capital punishment may
be considered constitutional under
California law.
That recent California Supreme
Court opinion was an unusual at-
tachment to a decision unanimously
overturning the murder conviction of
Lavelle Frierson. Frierson had been
convicted under a former death penalty
statute, SB 155, which was passed by
the legislature in 1977 after the ACLU
lost a long battle, and was repealed
when the voters of California passed an
even broader death penalty statute,
_ Proposition 7, last November. _
Of the 22 inmates currently awaiting
appeals on San Quentin's death row, 21
_ of them were sentenced under the now
defunct SB 155. :
As the sentence was overturned on
the grounds that Frierson had lacked
adequate counsel during the original
~ trial, technically, the court was only
offering its observations as to whether it
might declare the death penalty con- |
stitutional in a future case, where a-
_ conviction was not overturned and the
decision on the death penalty would be
necessary to the actual outcome of the "
case. '
Nonetheless, those observations
ominously signalled an end to the
assumption that the death penalty
would be considered unconstitutional
by the state's highest court.
Court Opinion
In 1972, the California Supreme
Court majority ruled that any death
penalty was unconstitutional because it
violated the state constitution's
prohibition on cruel or unusual punish-
_ ment. =
In response to that court decision,
Proposition 17 was approved by the
voters in November of that year,
altering the state constitution by
declaring, "the death penalty shall-not
be construed as cruel or unusual
punishment."
The August court opinion was the
first time the court addressed itself to
the significance of the voter initiative of
1972.
In the Frierson opinions, which
totaled 90 pages, five of the Justices
indicated that it would be permissible
under California law to allow for the
death penalty; but four of the Justices
claimed that applying the specific
statute, SB 155, may not be con-
stitutional under federal law.
While it is reasuring for death
penalty opponents to recognize that the
legal battle against the death penalty in
California is by no means over, the
recent decision represents a stunning
retreat from the previously held opinion
of the court.
That retreat is vividly illustrated by |
the comments offered by Justice Mosk,
a member of the court's 1972 majority
who found the death- penalty un-
constitutional 7 years ago:
"With the utmost reluctance, I have
come full circle in my consideration of
the death penalty in California.
~..im 1972... 1joineda majority
of ne court in the well-reasoned and
movingly expressed opinion of Chief
Justice Wright, holding that capital
punishment was cruel or unusual
punishment under the California
Constitution.
The people of California responded
quickly and emphatically, both directly
and through their elected represen-
tatives, to callously declare that what-
ever the trends elsewhere in the nation
and the world, society in our state does
not deem the retributive extinction of a
human life to be either cruel or un-
usual.
`6
. This court, in Gecenaitine the
Peer abre limits of punishment, must
look in the first instance of those values
to which the people of our state sub-
scribe. That as one individual I prefer
values more lofty than those implicit in
the macabre process of deliberately
exterminating a human being does not
permit me to interpret in my image the
common values of the people of our
State.
"IT am therefore compelled to con-
clude that the 1977 death penalty
legislation does not violate the Cali-
fornia Constitution. Whether it
complies with the federal Constitution
is a different question that is much
more difficult to answer. The difficulty
of course, is that the U.S. Supreme
Court has both created the problem of
such compliance and failed to give the
states consistent and workable
guidance on how to solveit."" ~
While Justice Mosk eloquently
presents the argument for death penalty
8i issues a year, monthly ee bi- -monthly i in January-February, June-July,
August-September and November-December
Second Class Mail privileges authorized at San Francisco, California
Published by the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California -
Drucilla Ramey, Chairperson Dorothy Ehrlich, Executive Director
Elaine Elinson, Editor Michael Miller, Chapter Page
ACLU NEWS (USPS 018-040)
2
814 Mission St. -Ste. 301, San Francisco, California 94103-777-4545
Membership $20 and up, of which 50 cents is for a subscription to the aclu news :
| and 50 cents is for the national ACLU-bi-monthly publication, Civil Liberties.
issue
opponents to surrender the principles
which underlie the theory for abolishing
capital punishment, the bulk of the
recent court opinion wrestles with the
difficulty of applying the theory of a
constitutional death penalty to an
actual statute. Most simply put, if the
state is going to legally execute people,
how can it conceivably do that fairly?
As lnstice Mosk decries, throughout :
the history of death penalty litigation
during the last ten years, the federal
courts have not issued any guidelines
which would establish the fair rules of
play for the taking of life by the state.
In 1972, the U.S. Supreme Court
held that the death penalty itself was
not unconstitutional, but at the same
time threw out all the death penalty
legislation existing in the states
throughout the nation when they found
that it was being applied unfairly.
The court found in 1972 that the
death penalty was applied
discriminatorily against racial
minorities and the poor, and that it was
applied arbitrarily when the punish-
ment did not necessarily fit the crime.
At that time, the court suggested that a
mandatory death sentence would not be
subject to arbitrary and capricious
judicial whims and ruled therefore that
if a defendant was convicted of a
specific crime, regardless of the
mitigating or aggravating
cumstances,
punishment of death.
In July, 1976,:the Supreme Court
reviewed vafious state schemes which
attempted to put that standard into
practice - and completely reversed
their 1972 decision. They found instead,
that a mandatory death sentence, which
did not guide the jury in using
discretion to weigh the mitigating and
`aggravating circumstances was, un-
constitutional.
Following the 1976 decision,
the California legislature moved quickly
to enact emergency legislation on the
death penalty. That statute was SB 155.
Defects in the 1977 Law
Although clear guidelines have still
not been issued by the U.S. Supreme
Court, various requirements for a
constitutional death - penalty law have
been established. SB 115 simply defies `
those requirements in at least two ways.
Those flaws in SB 155 are now at
in two appeals before the
California Supreme Court, the cases of
Maurice Thompson and Charles Alan
Green who are both represented by the
State Public Defenders Office. -
Ezra Hendon, Frierson's Public
Defender, explained that SB 155 does
not meet the two basic requirements
a established in 1972 and 1976 U.S.
penalty
_ defendant facing a.death' sentence. Jess
procedural: protection . than: that: af-
forded to a person accused . of drunk
cir--
he would recieve the .
"lofty values"'
Supreme Court decisions for the im-
position of the ultimate punishment:
"informed rationality and con-
sistency."
"Only by meeting these -
requirements, Hendon said, `"`can we
have any confidence that the death
penalty is not imposed in a freakish
manner and that there is a meaningful
basis for distinguishing the few cases in
which the death penalty is imposed
form the many cases in which it is not."
Hendon outlined four principal
procedural devices for accomplishing
these dual requirements.
1) Objective, clear.
guide the jury; _
2) A requirement | that a jury. in-
dicate in writing its basis for imposing
the death penalty;
3) Instructions to the jury on the
specific burden of proof to be applied in
resolving whether the sentence should
be life.or death; and (c)
4) A mechanism to review
"aberrant'' death sentences so as to
ensure that..the -death "penalty is
standards to |
proportionately applied: .:.
"It. is clear: that. the `death iy
which the: California Legislature
enacted in 1977 is seriously deficient in
providing these constitutional
protections."' Hendon said.
"The simple fact is that the death
penalty in California can still be im-
posed for reasons every bit as freakish
as before. In fact, California's. death
law affords .a_. criminal
driving."
Oral arguments in the two death
sentence appeals were heard by the
California Supreme Court in October
and the court is still deliberating. The
outcome of those deliberations could
have a tremendous impact on the fate of
the 19 other death row inmates.
Compromise of Values?
How, in the. short span. of. a dozen
years, did we move from a nation which
abandoned capital punishment to the
present era of state executions. and
judicial wrangling about how to apply
the death penalty?
Over the years, for somewhat suspect
reasons, politicians have created the
illusion that were it not for the tem-
porary abolition of the death penalty
there would have been `no crime on the
streets, no murders and rapes in the
back alleys, no `snipers on the rooftops
- perhaps all the ills of society could
have been cured were it not for the state
gas chamber being inoperable.
That message has reached the vast
majority of the citizens in this state and
in the nation. It has creeped its way
insidiously into the legislature, onto the
ballot, and has caught up with the
judiciary - the neutral interpreters of
the constitution.
Can we be satisfied to eee the
which Justice Mosk
describes, and to which all civil
libertarians must aspire? Or will that.
compromise only be offered as long as
the death penalty remains only an
abstract principle, and outlive its
usefulness as the nation watches more
and more inmates move from death row
-to the gas | chamber.
Landlord Needled
In Rent Suit.
Two Berkeley tenants, being sued by
their landlord for libel and slander as a
result of their efforts to inform and |
organize their fellow tenants concerning
illegal rent increases, evictions, and
poor maintenance of their buildings,
are being supported in their defense by
the ACLU-NC. . -
_ The tenants, Patrick Lee McKloskey,
a legal assistant, and John Riasonovsky,
-a U.C. student, are alleged to have
circulated two letters accusing the
landlord, Arnold Laub, of violating
Berkeley's rent control ordinance.
The landlord is suing McKloskey and
Riasonovsky for $120,000 in damages,
claiming that their organizing actions
have defamed him and interfered with _
his business. The landlord's suit also
seeks a preliminary injunction against
the tenants which would prohibit them
66
from interfering with his business "in -
any way."
ACLU `staff counsel Alan Schlosser
filed a friend of the court brief -in |
Alameda `County Superior Court: in-
opposition to the issuance of the
preliminary injunction, claiming that
an injunction would pose a serious
threat to the constitutional rights of
freedom of speech and association of
the tenants.
"This case is reminiscent of the ways
in which employers attempted to use
the courts to squelch organizing and
publicity about labor disputes before
there were " labor. laws. protecting em- |
ployees' tights. But for over 40 years,
the courts have clearly established that
First Amendment guarantees are in-
tended to promote open and _far-
reaching discussion and dissemination
of information about the issues involved
in disputes between employers and
employees," Schlosser said.
"Similar constitutional protection. is
afforded to informational activities in.
non- -labor |
organizations protesting a_ business'
unfair practices, or - as in this case -
a dispute. between tenants and a land-
lord."
The request for a preliminary in-
junction was originally scheduled to be
heard on November 5. However, after
the ACLU filed its amicus brief, the
case was postponed at the landlord's
request until December.
In the meantime, the two tenants, the
Measure I Compliance Committee and
the Berkeley Tenants Union to which
they belong, are continuing their
organizing actions.
isputes, such as consumer _
Nov.-Dec. 1979
~ aclu news:
Anti-busing Measure Will Be Fought
The ACLU-NC Board of Directors,
meeting two days after the passage of
Proposition 1 in the state-wide election,
committed the organization to
challenging the constitutionality of the
anti-school desegregation amendment
and to `"`vigorously pursue litigation
which seeks to remove the Robbins
Amendment from the state con-
stitution."
Utilizing scare tactics and
exaggerated claims against `forced
busing". the Robbins campaign secured
the passage of Proposition 1 on
November 6 by a 2-1 margin.
ACLU _ Vice-chairperson Eva
Jefferson Paterson who co-chaired the
Californians Against Prop. 1 campaign
said, "We are deeply disappointed that
the voters of California did not realise
that Proposition 1 was a referendum on
racism, a misunderstanding which led
to the massive victory for such a
reactionary measure. -
"The implications are somber: the
intention of the Prop. 1 supporters was
to turn the clock back on - in-
_ tegration 25 years."'
Prior to the passage of Proposition 1,
the California Constitution and state
courts held that segregation must be
_ eliminated whether it is intentional (de
jure) or unintentional (de facto).
Proposition 1 now replaces the state
constitution's equal protection clause
with the federal standard which
requires broad scale integration plans
only when segregation is found to have
- been. caused by intentional govern-'-
mental or school board action.
Dorothy Ehrlich, executive director,
said at the Board meeting, "The very
passage of Prop. 1 constitutes an act of
intentional discrimination against
racial minorities in the public school
system.'
Speaking of the projected litigation ;
_ staff counsel Alan Schlosser explained,
"We will have a great deal of evidence
to draw upon to prove that the ob-
jectives and the effect of the new
constitutional amendment are to
maintain segregated schools by denying
. the courts the necessary tools to cerrect
the fundamental evil in our system."'
A very recent case in the State of
Washington also supports the view that
Proposition 1 would be found un-
constitutional by federal standards. The
Washington voters passed an initiative
which `established the right of students
to attend their neighborhood schools.
The federal court found the initiative
unconstitutional in that the overriding
objective of the. electorate was to
"terminate the efforts which had been
taken by school boards to balance
schools racially through mandatory
busing of students. The termination of
these efforts could only result in racially
imbalanced schools in those districts
and a disporportionate impact on
minority students."'
According to Schlosser, the manner
of the ACLU challenge to Proposition 1
may take a variety of forms. `""We are
already working closely with attorneys
in the most significant de-segregation
case in northern California, Tinsley v.
Palo Alto Unified School District (ed.
note: see ACLU News, May, 1979)..-The
state Court of Appeal agreed with the -
ACLU view (stated in our amicus brief)
of the constitutional necessity of using
an inter-district desegregation plan in
this case and sent the case back to trial
court.
"We are prepared to participate in
this case again, to challenge the con-
stitutionality of Proposition 1,"
Schlosser added.
There is already a precedent for
challenging a _ state constitutional
amendment as a violation of the U.S.
Constitution. In 1964, California voters
adopted Proposition 14, which
amended the state constitution to
prohibit local anti-discrimination fair
housing laws. Both the California and
U.S. Supreme Courts ruled (in Reitman
v. Mulkey) that Proposition 14 was
constitutionally invalid under the
Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S.
Constitution because its "immediate
objective' and "ultimate effect" were to
encourage and promote discrimination,
thereby constituting an illegal and
intentionally discriminatory act by the
state.
The ACLU position is that a similar
context surrounds the passage of,
Proposition 1, and that it too is
therefore invalid under the Fourteenth
Amendment.
The ACLU-SC will probably be
challenging Proposition 1 in the current
L.A. school desegregation case, and (c)
there may soon. be other suits
throughout the state in which the
constitutionality of the new amendment
will be examined.
Letters
I have been a member of ACLU so
long that I've stopped counting. I lived
through the McCarthy Era, the Skokie
Incident, and blips in between with
continuing respect for the organization.
But ":. .
But lately, various ACLU members
have tended to use the ACLU for non-
related purposes - namely, to promote
their own trendy causes by accusing
those who disagree with them of
somehow subverting civil liberties by
having a contrary opinion.
At the moment, it's Valentino,
Thomas-Glass, and Shattuck at the
Chapter Conference, as reported in the
October issue of the ACLU News. Their |
attempt was to smear nuclear power
proponents with accusations of being
plotters for: 1) police spying, 2) a
Pentagon takeover (always a good
`phrase to stir liberal emotions), and
3) Watergate Two. Their "`evidence''
was never revealed. I can just see old Joe
McCarthy now, waving his list of.
names.
If we want to play that game, I can
say that there is evidence that anti-
nuclear groups are the greatest danger
of all to civil liberties. They are violating
the civil liberties of the Blacks, the
poor, and the underdeveloped world by
engaging in activities that can keep
those unfortunates from ever rising to
Marin County style living. They are
`violating all of our liberties by
promoting an energy shortage that very
likely can lead the U.S. into a stupid
war to conquer the petroleum supply of
the Middle East.
The very specific point, however, is
that the ACLU is not a forum for this
issue - and certainly it should not be
used by limousine liberals to maintain
their comfortable lifestyle.
Sincerely,
Charles J. Maisel, Jr.
San Rafael.
Exercise your freedom of speech.
The ACLU News encourages mem-
bers to help create a civil liberties
forum through the letters column.
All letters must be signed and may
be edited for length. - Ed.
John S$ hattuck replies:
There is nothing "trendy" about the
secrecy, official deception, and political
spying that have emerged as major by-
products of nuclear development.
Several examples cited at the Chapter
Conference supply the evidence that
Mr. Maisel seeks about the impact of
nuclear development on civil liberties.
- The Nuclear Regulatory Com-
mission is
requiring all nuclear industry em-
ployees to submit to intrusive in-
vestigations of their personal lives and
political associations as a condition of
employment;
- The Eisenhower Administration
and its successors systematically
deceived the public for a quarter of a
century about the effects of nuclear
testing in Nevada and Utah on the
health of soldiers, and residents of the
- area:
- The Nuclear Regulatory Com-
mission is currently pressing for the
`enactment of legislation exempting
from the Freedom of Information Act
"any information about transportation
routes for nuclear waste and other
nuclear materials.
These and other recent developments
indicate that civil liberties are coming
under increasing pressure from nuclear
power. This does not mean that civil
libertarians must take a position in the
. debate over energy sources.
On the other hand, as the national
ACLU Board: of Directors declared in
April, 1976, the ACLU must "`oppose
. any facility designed to convert and
deliver energy to consumers where
governmental suppression of in-
formation or the infringement of any
constitutional guarantee accompanies
the licensing and/or operation of the
facility."
This is what the defence oe civil :
From the (c)
liberties is all about.
McCarthy era to the Skokie incident to
nuclear power the ACLU must stand up
for the Bill of Rights whenever it comes
under attack, no matter how com-
pelling the reasons may appear to be for
setting it aside.
John Shattuck.
John Shattuck is the Director of
ACLU's Washington office
promulgating a rule.
Nov.-Dec. 1979
aclu news
Bill of Rights-Day chair Fran Strauss
shares fundraising progress with
Tribute Committee co-chair Ephraim
Margolin Photo: Michael Miller
_ the program itself this year,'
~ said.
Inmate Abused
continued from page I
that as many as 14 reported and
unreported sexual assaults were oc-
curing within the barracks of Santa
Rita each night.
ACLU cooperating attorney Bros-
nahan, who Aas litigated matters
concerning Santa Rita before, stated
that the client was willing to bring the
lawsuit because he hopes to show that
inmates and former inmates will no
longer silently tolerate the brutality and
violence that is part of everyday life at
Santa Rita.
- Schwartz added, "This damage suit
is being filed not only for the plaintiff to
enforce his own rights, but also to put
the county on notice that the serious
conditions at Santa Rita will result in
money judgments against the county
itself in order to deter such neglect in
the future."
ACLU Leaflet Win
Mid-Peninsula Chapter members
have overturned a Stanford Shopping
Center ordinance restricting First
Amendment activities by testing the
ban themselves.
Armed with the recent Caftcraic
Supreme Court decision overturning a .
Santa Clara shopping center's
leafletting restrictions,
members went to the Stanford center to
hand out "No on Prop. 1" information.
`Shopping center officials, seeing
themselves outgunned, not only did not
try to have the ACLU members
arrested, but agreed to meet with
chapter attorneys to rewrite the
regulations.
the Chapter -
continued `from page |
responded
and. have given _ their
disobedience during the draft resistance tremendous practical support to our
" campaign. She volunteered a concert to
support the ACLU-NC campaign to
defeat the death penalty initiative in
1972 and participated in ACLU-NC
demonstrations against the death
penalty.
The award will be-presented to Joan
Baez by ACLUBoard member and 1977
Earl Warren Civil Liberties Award
winner, Francis Heisler, a longtime
friend of the veteran activist and singer.
"We are planning some changes in
" Strauss
"The Celebration will be held
from 4 to 6 in the afternoon, allowing
those who could not make an evening
event to come.
The two months prior to the
Celebration have traditionally been
devoted to the one major fundraising
"all-out effort" to underwrite and
support the ACLU-NC Foundation's
legal program." Strauss explained.
"As an example of the kind of
financial pressure we face, just take one
hard look at the massive list of ACLU
Foundation legal cases (ed. note; See
special insert ACLU 1979 Legal
Docket). There are cases affecting
school desegregation, the rights of
mental patients to refuse mind-altering
drugs, prisoners' right to privacy,
women's right to choose abortions -
cases which will affect the lives of
hundreds of thousands of people.
"It is incumbent upon us now to raise
the funds to ensure that we can carry
through with our commitment in these
cases, to see the litigation through every
lengthy and complicated stage."
Strauss, who has coordinated the Bill
of Rights Day since its inception in
1973, explained how the fundraising |
`program has been expanded this year.
The most important addition is the
establishment of the Tribute Com-
`mittee. Chaired by ACLU-NC General
Counsel Howard H. Jewel and Ephraim
Margolin and former Board member
Dorothy Patterson, the Tribute
Commiteee is made up of civic and
community leaders who have offered to
help solicit funds for the Foundation.
"We are marvellously heartened by
the number of people who have joined
the Tribute Committee, over 100 people
to date.
`"Many have been active supporters
of the ACLU for many years, others
have never before been involved with
our work. However, all, in their deep
concern for civil liberties, have
=
Please send me
Bill of Rights Celebration
______-itickets at $5 each. I am enclosing an
ae reral: tax- deductible contribution to the ACLU Foundation
of $ . Enclosed is my check for $
Name
Address
City : Zip Tel.
1
SERGE EAE CR) GEE ee DE
r
: (R)
: ea
TG DE MR Oe EN ee Ee ee
Please make chenks payable to ACLU- Foundation, NC, and mail
to 814 Mission Street, Suite 301, San Francisco, CA 94103. Elease I
enclose a self-addressed, stamped envelope. |
`Booklet.
*honoring Joan Baez, celebrating the
fund-raising efforts," Strauss said.
The major fundraising vehicle is the
Bill of Rights Day Commemorative
Supporters can join. in
188th anniversary of the Bill of Rights
and supporting ACLU litigation by
making a tax-deductible donation to
the ACLU Foundation. All gifts of $100
or more will be listed in the Booklet.
The backbone of the Bill of Rights
After many month- _. persistent
effort, the ACLU Marin Chapter has
finally persuaded the trustees of the
Marin Community College District to
rewrite a number of unconstitutional
campus regulations.
The offending policies, which have
existed for at least 15 years, included
prior restraint of campus newspapers,
strictures against offensive charac-
terization of racial and religious groups,
and a loyalty oath that was required of
groups using college facilities.
Members of the Marin Chapter
initially discovered some of these ar-
chaic regulations in late 1978, when
they were asked for help by a young
man who had been denied the right to
distribute Zionist material outside the
theater at the College of Marin
(C.O.M.) on the occasion of a
production of The Diary 2 Anne
Frank.
Chapter
officers persuaded
Day is the Program Committee. This
Committee has been working since
February. to prepare for the
Celebration.
Members of the 1979 Program
Committee are: Irving Cohen, Marlene
DeLancie, Virginia Fabian, Lola
Hanzel, Meta Kauffman, Doris Holmes
Lowe, Nancy McDermid, Paul Newton,
Emily Skolnick and Carolyn Symonds.
For tickets to the celebration fill out
coupon below or call Marlene DeLancie
Behind The Scenes With Rights Day Celebration
at 777-4880.
Chapter Persuades College.
To Rewrite Rights Regs.
the |
president of C.O.M. to issue a safe-
conduct pass to the young leafletter, but
in the course of the negotiations they
procured a copy of the college
regulations and discovered pages full of
doubtful prohibitions. C.O.M. ad-
`ministrators insisted that their
regulations were supported by the
California Educational Code (which
indeed they were, in some instances, but
that is another story).
Chapter chair Lawrence Grauman
and Legal Committee chair Gerald
Ellersdorfer appeared before a meeting
of the Trustees of the Marin Com-
munity College District and urged them
to delete or rewrite all regulations which
were in violation of constitutional
rights. Then Grauman and Ellersdorfer
requested the Marin County Counsel
`(attorney for the trustees) to deliver an
advisory. opinion on the con-
stitutionality of the various offending
regulations. Finally, they produced an
advisory opinion from former
California. Attorney General Evelle
Younger, to the effect that college
students (and others using campus |
facilities) have certain rights of free
expression.
In the summer of 1979, following the
advice of the County Counsel, the
trustees of the Marin Community
College District voted to revise their
regulations in accordance with recent ~
(and not-so-recent) eee of |
the constitution.
Calendar
i B-A-K ao
WINE and CHEESE PARTY. Sunday,
Dec. 2, 4-6 p.m., 879 Indian Rock |
(off The Arlington), Berkeley; $3.
donation. :
Gay Rights
| PUBLIC FORUM. Thursday, Dec.
6, 7:30 p.m., Metropolitan Com-
munity Church, 150 Eureka (btwn.
18th and 19th), San Francisco;
Parking is limited, take Muni buses
8, 24, 35, 37 to Castro and 18th, 3
blocks east. Don Knutson, Gay
Rights Advocates, speaks on the
Immigration and Naturalization Ser-
| a Coffee hour to follow.
)
Give a friend 12 mouths of conocesy |
| Give a friend 12 months of controversy |
and contention... Yule never be sorry. :
I Enroll a friend in the ACLU as a Gift card should read: j
| special gift for those who care about |
i the Bill of Rights. An attractive gift From. |
card will be sent from the ACLU of |
I Northern California announcing the Address I
Ll. recipient's new membership in the. Cit i
| ACLU. Members will of course ~"? (c) i
throughout 660 ACLU publications state. Zip :
: Phone: 7
; Gift of ACLU Membership to: :
J Name(s) : Basic Membership $20. |
i Joint Membership $30. j
Address
Enclosed is my check for $
ity
i = Please clip and return to: ACLU, I
i State Zip : 814 Mission St., Suite 301, S.F. 94103. |
ror Cer of Pen Se
arate cota
1979 marks a most distinguished year of litigation in
the ACLU Foundation's 45-year history. It is
distinguished not only by the extraordinary number of
cases being litigated by the Foundation, but also by the
remarkable number of victories secured from the
courts which extended constitutional rights.
In the majority of the cases on the docket, 63%, the
ACLU is directly representing clients throughout the
legal process. In the rest of the cases the ACLU has
entered significant lawsuits as amicus curiae (friend of
the court).
A major goal of the Foundation has been realized this
year by the notable expansion of the Cooperating
Attorney Program utilizing the services of volunteer
attorneys. No less than 60% of this year's legal cases
have been handled through this volunteer attorney
program, and more than 75 attorneys have volun-
teered to participate in the future.
The fact that the ACLU has received favorable
decisions in 80% of the cases that were decided by the
courts this year is particularly meaningful for several
reasons. This proud:legal score-card indicates that the
- Foundation is entering cases where its special ex-
pertise is particularly valuable, either in directly
representing a client or as a friend of the court. It also
reflects the fact that the ACLU can provide a unique
background of experience and knowledge in cases
concerning constitutional issues.
At no time in the ACLU's history has the docket in-
cluded so many cases, particularly class-action
lawsuits, where the results of ACLU Foundation
litigation has directly affected the lives of so many
people. A glance through the docket will reveal many
such cases:
e The legal effort to provide for the right to in-
formed consent for voluntary and involuntary mental
patients in every peel' and public institution in the
state.
The results of the massive litigation undertaken
by the Foundation which has maintained Medi-Cal
funding for abortions, and which in 1978 and 1979
has allowed more than 120,000 women to exercise
their right ot reproductive freedom, despite legislative
cutbacks.
e The class action suit to stop unconstitutional
police practices in San Francisco, where ACLU legal
action stopped law enforcement officials from arresting
and jailing more than 250 people each month, people
who would never be formally charged with a crime.
FIRST AMENDMENT
This year marked a significant extension of First
Amendment rights in two areas: freedom of speech in
_ the private sector and the right of anonymous ex-
pression.
Freedom of Speech
@ On March 30, in the case of Robbins v. Pruncvard
Shopping Center, the California Supreme Court
_ agreed with the ACLU that the constitutional right of
free speech cannot be limited by bans on leafletting on
private property generally open to the public.
Private guards stopped two high school students and a
teacher from distributing a petition at a suburban
shopping center. The leafletters left without a fight but
later took their case to the Santa Clara Superior Court
which ruled against them.
In reversing the lower court decision, the Supreme
Court recognized the special and increasingly im-
One month after the lawsuit was filed, the number of
arrests decreased dramatically. Negotiations brought a
repeal of the former ordinance and new legislation was
finally approved by the Board of Supervisors.
The ACLU docket which follows is necessarily in-
complete. It is incomplete in that space does not
permit a description of the more than 100 cases which
are currently on the docket. Nor does it reflect the
hundreds of administrative battles which the ACLU
confronts every day. The ACLU "complaint desk,"
' staffed by volunteer lay counselors, handles more than
200 phone calls each week. The lay counselors,
assisted by a staff counsel, make appropriate referrals,
provide information on civil liberties issues, and can
' often directly provide the advocacy necessary to
resolve a particular grievance. Twelve ACLU
Chapters, from Stockton to Monterey, provide similar
services to their communities.
Often these administrative battles require additional
research and expertise. ACLU law interns, who
provide about 80 hours per week of research and
assistance to staff counsel, provide that back-up. They
draft letters to government officials questioning their
authority: to use lie detector tests, or to prohibit the
dissemination of literature at a nuclear weapons
research laboratory, or to suspend a child from school
for wearing a controversial T-shirt. Often their efforts
stop government officials from violating people's
rights without going to court.
This remarkable legal progarm is directed by three staff
counsel, Margaret C. Crosby, Alan L. Schlosser and
Amitai Schwartz, who have been assisted by Donna
Van Diepen (who this year marked her tenth year with
the legal department), Bonnie Cherrin and Evelyn
Baron.
A Legal Committee, chaired by Sanford Jay Rosen,
brought 45 lawyers to meetings held nearly every
month, to recommended cases and strategies to the
ACLU staff and cooperating attorneys.
The docket reflects a pronounced trend of litigating
cases in the state courts, and it also indicates that the
geographical purview of the legal problem has ex-
panded significantly to address the organization's civil
_ liberties interests throughout Northern California, and
not just in the immediate Bay Area.
Drucilla S. Ramey
Chairperson
Board of Governors
portant role that shopping centers play in the public
lives of Californians - the "town square" in today's
world is really a privately owned mall in a very public
suburban shopping center.
The justices relied in part on the free gecedii and
- petition provisions of the California Constitution which
are broader than the U.S. Constitution. The owners of
the private shopping center are taking the case to the
U.S. Supreme Court claiming that they have a-federai
constitutional right to control this private property. If
accepted, this challenge may be a landmark case, as
the decision on the previously unchallenged authority |
of the California courts could establish more protective
constitutional standards within the jurisdiction of the
state constitution.
e In another case challenging the abridgement of First
Amendment rights in private businesses (Weintraub v.
The Legal Clinic) , the ACLU has filed a lawsuit on
behalf of an attorney who was fired from a private law
firm on the basis of his being a member of
the National Lawyers Guild. The ACLU is
challenging his dismissal on the grounds that em-
ployees should not be forced to leave fundamental
rights at home each day when they report for work.
o
aclu
Anonymous Expression
e Another extension of the right of free speech, that
of anonymous expression, is particularly critical for
dissident and controversial individuals and
organizations, because they have the most fear of
expressing their views.
e When two Iranian students were convicted for
~ demonstrating at the Iranian Consulate in San
Francisco with their faces masked by leaflets, the
ACLU appealed their conviction. In December, 1978,
the California Court of Appeals ruled that demon-
strators do have a First Amendment right to wear
masks to conceal their identity while engaging in lawful
activity.
e The ACLU's recognition of the importance of
anonymous expression is reflected also in a successful
challenge to a California Election Code provision that _,
forbids anonymous campaign literature. In People v.
Drake, an Appellate Division of the Superior Court
agreed with the ACLU argument that prohibited
distribution of unsigned election leaflets was an
overbroad restriction of the right of free speech. q
and
aclu
Political Expression
e lhe ACLU has challenged several attempts to
restrict freedom of political expression, even where the
participants were not desiring anonymity. In another
local election case (Sussli v. City of San Mateo), the
ACLU is appealing a court decision upholding a city
ordinance which prohibits the posting of campaign
signs on public property. The argument points out that
the ability of people to post signs on public property is
particularly significant in that it is one of the few ways
to communicate information to the public without
having to spend a great deal of money. As the
challenge addresses the availability of all public
property for communicating information, it is quite
likely that this litigation will create a significant
precedent on the scope of free speech activities.
e Additionally, a favorable ruling will invalidate
similar bans which currently exist throughout the state.
San Francisco, for example, has a municipal or-
dinance prohibiting sign posting on public property.
When a resident taped campaign signs supporting a
gay activist for Mayor to street lamps, police hand-
cuffed and arrested him. The ACLU went to court on
his behalf, and the charges were subsequently
dismissed (People v. Constenza).
e Also in the realm of political expression, the
Foundation has been defending the rights of lobbyists.
In August, the California Supreme Court in the case of
the Fair Political Practices Commission v. Superior
Court, agreed with an ACLU amicus brief that an
2 1979 legal docket
absolute ban on political contributions by legislative _
advocates was unconstitutional.
_@ A similar issue is at stake in a case which involves
the ACLU directly. In the course of a routine Fran-
chise Tax Board audit of ACLU of Northern California |
lobbyists, under the Political Reform Act of 1974, the
Tax Board obtained a subpoena authorizing access to
a whole host of records in the ACLU offices. The
Foundation is challenging the authority of the sub-
-. poena in part, on the grounds that it violates the rights
to petition, political association, privacy, and to be free
from unreasonable searches.
e Threats to the most basic tenet of the right of
political expression, the right to vote, have also been
blocked by ACLU litigation this year. In the case of
Barrett v. Neal, a County Clerk's refusal to allow (c)
evicted persons to vote on the ground that those
_ persons are no longer residents of the precinct for
voting purposes was struck down by the Santa Clara
County Superior Court.
e Acase in Sonoma County (Eliassen v. City of
Sonoma), in which the ACLU presented a friend of:
the court brief on behalf of the citizens whowere ,
denied their right to place an initiative concerning
funds for the new city jail on the ballot, resulted in the
Superior Court compelling the city to put the initiative
measure on the ballot.
Qo
aclu
`Freedom of the Press -
. @ Freedom of the press suffered a threatening blow
when in April a jury awarded over $4.5 million to
three city officials in a libel suit (McCoy et.al. v. The
Hearst Corporation et.al) against The San Francisco
Examiner and two reporters, Lowell Bergman and
Raul Ramirez. The suit, based on a series of articles
written by Bergman.and Ramirez about a controversial |
murder trial involving a 19-year old Chinese youth, =|
claimed that two San Francisco police officers and a
former assistant district attorney had been libeled
when it was reported that they had coerced a witness
to give false testimony.
The ACLU will represent Bergman and Ramirez, each
`of whom have been ordered to pay $780,000 in the
judgement, because the case strikingly documents the
potential of libel suits for chilling inquiry into public
affairs. All speech pertaining to public affairs is
protected by the First Amendment, and that freedom
of expression is inhibited if a reporter, before writing
critically on public issues, is forced to consider the
-possibility of being sued for libel. If unchallenged, the
court decison could result in dangerous self-censorship
by the press for fear of enormous financial liabilities.
e In another instance of press censorship, quick
action by the ACLU of Northern California led to a
series of favorable court decisions of national im-
_ portance. During the course of The Progressive
magazine's appeal of an injunction prohibitirig them -
from printing an article about the workings of the H-
Bomb, Charles Hansen, a California computer
programmer with an interest in nuclear weaponry and
- government secrecy, wrote a letter about the H-Bomb
to Senatory Percy (R-Ill.) with copies to several _
newspapers around the country.
When the government learned that the Berkeley
student newspaper, the Daily Californian, had
received a copy of the letter they sought and obtained
a restraining order on a Saturday night prohibiting the (c)
paper from publishing it. Upon learning of the Daily
Cal injunction on Sunday, ACLU lawyers announced
that they would take legal action on behalf of the -
paper to fight this prohibition of press freedom.
Simultaneously, the Madison Press Connection, an
independent Wisconsin paper, printed the Hansen
letter in a special Sunday edition. The following day,
as a result of the ACLU's proposed action and the ~
Wisconsin publication, the government withdrew its
injunction against the Daily Cal, and afew hours later.
announced that they would also drop the case against
_ The Progressive.
This is a landmark case in the area of press freedom: it |
was the first time the government succeeded in getting
an injunction for prior restraint of a publication, and
that alone is grave cause for concern.
aclu
Censorship -
- @ Censorship has reared its ugly head in other areas
as well. A local school district has banned the books of
nationally acclaimed author Richard Brautigan from
_ its high schools (Wexner v. Anderson Union High
School District). On behalf of students and teachers at
the high school, the ACLU is challenging the ban in -
- the Shasta County Superior Court, and had already
won the first round when the court rejected a request
by the school district to dismiss the case on the _
grounds that even if they had done what they were
- being cited for, their action was not illegal.
e Broad censorship of reading materials at Folsom
Prison was declared unconstitutional, when the U.S.
District Court issued a consent decree affirming the
prisoners' right to read Thoughts of Chairman Mao,
Soledad Brother, and other books, political or
otherwise, so long as they do not specifically violate .
_the penal code which prohibits to prisoners
publications which describe the making of a lethal
weapon.
e The right to read is also being challenged by the
ACLU in an amicus curiae brief in the case of U.S. v.
Giese, in which the introduction of a book of
revolutionary writings owned, but not authored, by a
`university professor on trial for conspiracy is being
_used as evidence to prove illicit intent.
(R)
aclu
~ Enforcement
e The enforcement of basic First Amendment rights
always requires the eternal vigilance of the ACLU.
Recently, a San Francisco temporary employment
agency attempted to stop an organization dedicated to
improving working conditions for women from
holding an informational picket about the poor em-
ployment practices of the company on the street in
front of their offices. An ACLU staff attorney rushed to
court only hours after the demonstrators learned of
the lawsuit and successfully defended against the
restraining order which would have forced the
picketers off the street. (Olsten Corporation v. Women
Organized for Employment.)
e@ A Santa Cruz County rule which banned the
distribution of all unauthorized literature in the county
welfare offices was struck down last winter when the
Superior Court agreed the ACLU argument that
the Welfare Education and Legal Assistance Center
had the right to distribute their literature in public
offices.
@ Achallenge to a sweeping ban on the freedom of
speech of 900 Bay Area Synanon members is sup-
ported by the ACLU in the California Court of Appeal.
The ban, prohibiting Synanon members from
protesting the editorial policy of a local TV station
through phone calls, mail, sign.posting, and even
conversations with the station's employees, is an
- overbroad restriction which clearly violates the
constitutional guarantee of freedom of association.
e The Foundation's ongoing commitment to lengthy
and complicated civil liberties issues is evidenced by
the continuing work this year on two particular cases
which have spanned several years of litigation. In the
case of Franklin v. Stanford, the ACLU is continuing
its fight on behalf of a professor who was fired from
Stanford University for speeches made during the
Vietnam War era, which were characterized by the
University as incitement to disruption of campus
activities. This year, the ACLU is arguing the
California Court of Appeal that Professor Franklin is
entitled to a second administrative hearing at Stan-
ford, to re-evaluate his dismissal, since the trial court -
held last year that the discharge was based in part on
constitutionally protected expression.
The trial judge has ordered Stanford to re- -evaluate the
sanction in light of his ruling, but the university wants
an immediate appeal of the decision that some
speeches were entitled to constitutional protection.
ACLUN_1946 ACLUN_1946.MODS ACLUN_1947 ACLUN_1947.MODS ACLUN_1948 ACLUN_1948.MODS ACLUN_1949 ACLUN_1949.MODS ACLUN_1950 ACLUN_1950.MODS ACLUN_1951 ACLUN_1951.MODS ACLUN_1952 ACLUN_1952.MODS ACLUN_1953 ACLUN_1953.MODS ACLUN_1954 ACLUN_1954.MODS ACLUN_1955 ACLUN_1955.MODS ACLUN_1956 ACLUN_1956.MODS ACLUN_1957 ACLUN_1957.MODS ACLUN_1958 ACLUN_1958.MODS ACLUN_1959 ACLUN_1959.MODS ACLUN_1960 ACLUN_1960.MODS ACLUN_1961 ACLUN_1961.MODS ACLUN_1962 ACLUN_1962.MODS ACLUN_1963 ACLUN_1963.MODS ACLUN_1964 ACLUN_1964.MODS ACLUN_1965 ACLUN_1965.MODS ACLUN_1966 ACLUN_1966.MODS ACLUN_1967 ACLUN_1967.MODS ACLUN_1968 ACLUN_1968.MODS ACLUN_1968.batch ACLUN_1969 ACLUN_1969.MODS ACLUN_1969.batch ACLUN_1970 ACLUN_1970.MODS ACLUN_1970.batch ACLUN_1971 ACLUN_1971.MODS ACLUN_1971.batch ACLUN_1972 ACLUN_1972.MODS ACLUN_1972.batch ACLUN_1973 ACLUN_1973.MODS ACLUN_1973.batch ACLUN_1974 ACLUN_1974.MODS ACLUN_1974.batch ACLUN_1975 ACLUN_1975.MODS ACLUN_1975.batch ACLUN_1976 ACLUN_1976.MODS ACLUN_1976.batch ACLUN_1977 ACLUN_1977.MODS ACLUN_1977.batch ACLUN_1978 ACLUN_1978.MODS ACLUN_1978.batch ACLUN_1979 ACLUN_1979.MODS ACLUN_1979.batch ACLUN_1980 ACLUN_1980.MODS ACLUN_1981 ACLUN_1981.MODS ACLUN_1982 ACLUN_1982.MODS ACLUN_1983 ACLUN_1983.MODS ACLUN_1983.batch ACLUN_1984 ACLUN_1984.MODS ACLUN_1985 ACLUN_1985.MODS ACLUN_1986 ACLUN_1986.MODS ACLUN_1987 ACLUN_1987.MODS ACLUN_1988 ACLUN_1988.MODS ACLUN_1989 ACLUN_1989.MODS ACLUN_1990 ACLUN_1990.MODS ACLUN_1991 ACLUN_1991.MODS ACLUN_1992 ACLUN_1992.MODS ACLUN_1993 ACLUN_1993.MODS ACLUN_1994 ACLUN_1994.MODS ACLUN_1995 ACLUN_1995.MODS ACLUN_1996 ACLUN_1996.MODS ACLUN_1997 ACLUN_1997.MODS ACLUN_1998 ACLUN_1998.MODS ACLUN_1999 ACLUN_1999.MODS ACLUN_ladd ACLUN_ladd.MODS ACLUN_ladd.bags ACLUN_ladd.batch add-tei.sh create-bags.sh create-manuscript-bags.sh create-manuscript-batch.sh fits.log
Court of Appeal (October 16, 1978)
e In the case of Allen v. Monger, the U.S. Supreme | |
Court has been asked to decide whether the First _
Amendment protects servicemen distributing a
petition protesting the movement of two aircraft
carriers during the Vietnam War.
@
aclu
EQUALPROTECTION _
Though the Constitution guarantees that the state
government cannot deny its citizens their rights nor
- equal protection of the laws, much of the ACLU
casework this year has been fighting-exactly that: the
denial of equal protection on the grounds of sex and -
sexual preference, age and race. ;
Women's Rights
e With the California Legislature taking action against
Medi-Cal funded abortions for poor women, the
ACLU has made an enormous commitment to
provide for a woman's right to choose. The breadth of
the litigation handled by the Foundation, which has
already involved five lawsuits in four different courts
_ over.a period of one and one half years, illustrates the
difficult battle the ACLU faces in attempting to protect
the constitutional guarantee of a woman's right to
reproductive freedom. A brief scenario of this year's -
litigation follows:
In the original legal action, eleven ates
representing Medi-Cal patients, health care providers,
taxpayers and several organizations concerned with -
the rights of women, minority groups and the poor,
are claiming that the California Legislature's decision
of July 1979 to cut off funds which have been
available to indigent women for abortions violates the
federal law and is an unconstitutional denial of equal
protection and the right of privacy under the California
_ Constitution.
History of actions and decisions: pre
Court grants ACLU petition for a's writ to Liaw
maintain funding for Medi-Cal abortions until it
reaches a decision on the appeal.
California Supreme Court (March 22, 1 979)
` ACLU thwarts attempts by anti-abortion groups to
dissolve the Court of Appeal order and thus maintains
funding. (c)
San Diego Superior Court (March 12, 1979)
Anti-abortion groups get an order stopping the state
controller from signing checks for abortion funding.
San Francisco Court of Appeal (March 20, 1979)
ACLU obtains an order temporarily nullifying the San
Diego Court injunction to halt the signing of checks.
California Court of Appeal (May 29, 1979)
The appeal court substantially upholds the
Legislature's decison to cut off abortion funding for at
least 95% of California's poor women. The ruling
makes the restrictions so stringent that many doctors
will refuse to allow abortions under any circumstances;
however the legislation expires before the decision is
effective.
California Supreme Court (July 9, 1979)
The original plaintiffs file a petition to reverse the
~ Court of Appeal decision.
California Supreme Court (August 6, 1979)
The original plaintiffs file a new suit to challenge
virtually identical 1979.legislation and to request a
temporary stay of these restrictions.
The California Supreme Court (August 9, 1979)
The court issues a temporary stay to maintain abortion
funding only one week before the proposed cut-off
date (August 15). The funding will be maintained until
the Court decides weeibe: or not to accept the
petition. |
California Supreme Court ese ke 19, 1979)
The Supreme Court agrees to hear the two cases on
the legitimacy of halting Medi-Cal funding for abor-
tions. The acceptance of the petitions nullifies all
previous lower court decisons, and means that the
funding will continue until the court makes its final
decision.
e There has also been a wide range of other sex
discrimination cases handled this year. In a major
_ victory for women's rights, the United States Court of
_ Appeals ruled in De la Cruz v. Tormey that a college
1979 legal docket 3
po EFIRUATIVE IT FAVORS
1AM ope Be Ke TON ee SOME GROUPS -
ON) MORAL SROUNIS OP QUOTAS.
OLRICTS
GROUPS.
ALD
OTHE
MY GROUP HAS PROS-
REP TOUT AFFIRM
6 10 L wit
te eae
district's oly against establishing child- -care centers
may violate both statutory and constitutional bans
against sex descrimination i in the school system.
_@ The "boys only" membership rule of the Santa Cruz "
Boys Clubis being challenged in an ACLU case
(Isbister v. Boys Club of Santa Cruz) as a violation of
the Unruh Civil Rights Act prohibiting discrimination on
the basis of sex in all kinds of business establishments.
-@ Inthecase of Wellman v. Wellman, the ACLU is
-. appealing a custody decree which stipulatce that the.
wife i is poeies from having any overnight male
aclu
Gay Rights
e ACLU is again grappling with the military over the
_ discriminatory application of the law towards service
people. An Army lieutenant, after four years of
`| service, was ten days away from being honorably
discharged when charges of sexual misconduct were
brought against him for homosexual sodomy. In the
case of Hatheway v. Secretary of State, the ACLU is
asking the U.S. District Court to strike down the court
martial conviction on the grounds that not only are
sexual acts between consenting adults protected by the
Constitution, but that the section of the Military Code
under which the lieutenant was convicted was never -
enforced against heterosexuals, thereby denying
- homosexuals equa! protection of the law.
@
aclu
School Desegregation
- Discrimination on the basis of race destroys the right of
equality to which all citizens are entitled. The long hard
struggle for civil rights in which the ACLU has played a
leading role is not over yet. Racial minorities, par-
ticularly Blacks and Hispanics, still bear the yoke of
discrimination and in no field is this more evident than
in public education.
e Proposition 1, the Robbins Aaendment is an
attempt to turn the clock of progress back to the days
when minorities were second class citizens. Its
~ declared objective is to "stop busing" and thus deprive
school integration efforts of what the California
Supreme Court has said is "one potential tool" to
reach the goal of equal education for all. In light of the
heated and reactionary arguments surrounding the
Propositon 1 campaign, some of which have been
dragged up from the depths of anti-integration sen-
timents which haven't seen the light since 1954, the
California Court of Appeals favorable decision in
Tinsley v. Palo Alto Unified School District is par-
ticularly significant. -
In April the Court ruled that state and fecal officials in
the mid-Peninsula area, which includes the
predominantly Black school district of Ravenswood,
surrounded by school districts of predominately white
enrollment, must adopt a feasible plan to desegregate
that will include schools in the whole geographic area,
regardless of arbitrary school district boundary lines
which serve as barriers to desearegation.
This decision, approving a multi- district remedy,
reaffirms that racial isolation violates the California -
' Constitution regardless of whether or not the condition
is caused by intentional acts of school officials. The
significance of the decision is highlighted by the fact
that it explicitly rejected the more rigid standards fora -
finding of unconstitutional segregation developed by
the U.S. Supreme Court under: the Federal Con-
stitution, and the decision underscores the state's
obligation to eradicate school desegregation
"regardless of cause.' f
aclu
- Affirmative Action
The wide variety of programs referred to as "af-
firmative action" remedies, principally in education
and employment, can be traced to the course of
school desegregation litigation. Designed to redress
the historical exclusion of minorities and women from
many schools, professions and jobs, these programs
are now facing a backlash of "reverse discrimination"
suits from whites who feel that they are being unjustly
penalized by exclusion. The most well known cases
dealing with affirmative action plans are the U.S.
Supreme Court's Bakke and Weber decisions. Both of
`these cases may have a significant effect on the
`outcome of three affirmative action cases before the
. California Supreme Court in which the ACLU- `NC is
participating.
e Thecase of Price t v. Civil Seneca Gamnnccons of |
Sacramento County pits two state government
agencies against each other: the Sacramento District
Attorney's office is resisting a minority hiring ratio
imposed by the Sacramento County Civil Service __
Commission which has mandated preferential hiring
to rectify past discrimination (The DA's office has only
one Black attorney out of 65).
e The case of Hiatt v. City of Berkeley isa challenge -
by Caucasian firefighters to an affirmative action
program voluntarily adopted by the City of Berkeley to
achieve a goal of "proportional representation" in all.
city jobs, in such a way as to reflect the city's racial
make-up. The trial court ruled that the affirmative
-action program was invalid, and the ACLU is sup-
porting the City's appeal to the State Supreme Court.
e In Hull v. Cason, Black workers claimed
discrimination in hiring by the Oakland Fire Depar-
tment, and the trial court ordered the Fire Department
to institute an affirmative action program. The appeal
court reversed the decision in another instance of
chipping away at affirmative action programs, and the (c)
ACLU is supporting the appeal of the original plaintiff
to the state supreme court.
@
aclu
DUE PROCESS OF LAW
ACLU Foundation litigation resulted in several court
decisions in 1979 which will have long-term effects on
the administration of justice and will help to ensure
due process of the law.
Rights of Mental Patients
e In Jamison v. Farabee, an ACLU lawsuit
challenging the forcible administration of anti-
psychotic medication to mental patients without their
informed consent, the federal district court ordered the
state agencies to negotiate a settlement. As a direct
result of the lawsuit, the State Department of Mental -
Health has proposed new regulations which would
provide informed consent and the right to refuse this
medication to voluntary mental patients in all public
and private licensed health facilities in the state.
Because the defendants will not agree to a similar right
for involuntary patients, the ACLU will bring this issue
to trial to seek a court order declaring that the present
policy of medicating with these potentially dangerous
drugs without informed consent is a violation of the |
patients' constitutional rights.
. 1979 legal docket
Grand Jury System
e The grand jury system is another area whichhas_ __
long been criticized by the ACLU for its failure to meet
basic due process standards. First, those prosecuted |
by a grand jury indictment are denied some of the
protections allowed those tried on charges directly
_ brought by the prosecutor. Second, the grand jury has
become arubber stamp for the prosecution, when in
an overwhelming majority of cases an indictment will
result from a prosecutor's request. A California
Supreme Court decision in November of last year,
resulting from a case supported by the ACLU (People
v. Levins), and two other related cases, has virtually
abolished the unjust state grand jury indictment
system. The high court found the system violates the
state's guarantee of equal protection under the law.
These Supreme Court decisions will have a
tremendous effect on California's legal system.
e In another case affecting persons awaiting trail, Van
Atta v. Scott, the ACLU has filed an amicus brief with
several other organizations in a major challenge to San
Francisco's bail and "Own Recognizance" system. The
California Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case,
which alleges that the present system virtually denies
bail to poor pre-trial detainees while allowing the more
affluent to post bail and avoid pre-trial incarceration.
e In the case of People v. Allen and Graham, death
sentences for two Black inmates were overturned
when the California Supreme Court ruled in February
that the original conviction was invalid as it had been
rendered by an all-white jury created by the
prosecution's exclusion of all fourteen potential Black
jurors, thus denying the defendants a trial by their
peers.
e In asecond case involving i denial of a fair trial,
People v. Johnny Larry Spain, the ACLU is acting as
a friend of the court in an attempt to reverse the earlier
conviction of one of the San Quentin Six defendants,
citing the shackling of the defendant to his chair during:
the trial and the improper contact between the judge
~ and a juror as blatant disregard of due process.
e In the case of Ostrager v. Board of Control, the
ACLU is challenging the constitutionality of the
residency restrictions of California's Victims of Crime
Act. A visiting New York taxi driver, shot by a sniper in
San Francisco, was denied victim's compensation
under the act solely because he is not a California
resident. @
aclu
Police Practices
e Many civil liberties cases have arisen this year as a
result of the police overstepping their bounds as law
enforcement officers. Perhaps the most serious
example of this occurred earlier this year when San
Francisco and San Mateo police officers, working on a
case totally unrelated to the Clinic, invaded the
Methadone Clinic at San Francisco General Hospital,
an innocent third party, and seized the confidential
records of 35 patients. This police raid echoes the
events of eight years ago when police officers raided
the offices of the Stanford Daily, also an innocent third
party, looking for unpublished sneer of student
violence. . :
Since the Stanford Daily case, in which the police
search and seizure was adjudged to be legal,
legislation has been passed to protect some "innocent
third parties" from such raids. The ACLU is
aclu) "
This ACLU-NC Foundation 1979 Annual |
Report was prepared by Elaine Elinson,
| ACLU News editor.
. challenging the raid in the San Francisco Superior
Court on the grounds that the California Constitution's
guarantees of personal privacy and unwarranted
search and seizure offer protection to uninvolved third
parties. In the raid of the Methadone Clinic, the police
also disregarded specific federal regulations
safeguarding the privacy of patients in drug treatment
programs. :
e@ The question of illegal search and seizure also
appears in the case of People v. Eleanor Kraft. When
a dozen plainclothes police officers burst through the
doors of a clients' private residence, their lawyer, who
was a guest in the home, demanded to see the search
warrant. For this verbal demand, the lawyer was
charged and convicted of obstructing the police. The
ACLU is appealing her innocence on the grounds that
she had a right to ask for the search warrant, and that
even if she hadn't, her verbal assertions could not be
deemed an obstruction of justice.
e Sometimes the misdeeds of police hee fatal
results. The case of Peterson v. City of Long Beach is
such a tragedy. A Long Beach police officer shot and _
killed a fleeing, non-violent burglary suspct, though
the policeman had no evidence of arms or violence.
The burglary call in fact was erroneous, but an in-
nocent man was shot in the head and killed. In May,
, the California Supreme Court determined that police
officers must abide by internal regulations which forbid
shooting at non-violent fleeing felons. The Foundation
entered the case as a friend of the court.
e One ACLU police practices lawsuit has resulted in
new legislation this year. The filing of the taxpayers'
suit, Ramey v. Gain, which challenged the police
arrests of thousands in a "`clean the streets"
harassment operation under a broad Municipal Code
about loitering, not only lowered the incidence of
arrests dramatically, but also resulted in the repeal of
the old ordinance and the implementation of a new |
ordinance which considerably decreases the scope of
police discretion in making arrests. The ACLU is
hopeful that the new ordinance will prohibit the police
from using the regulation for purposes of harassment.
e The ACLU is acting as a friend of the court in a
challenge to a Dixon City ordinance which prohibits
persons under 18 from "loitering, idling, wandering,
strolling or playing in all public areas after 10 p.m."
The ordinance, which attacks fundamental rights,
currently gives sweeping search and seizure power to
police, who have even used it to stop and searcha
youth who was driving in the town after the curfew
(c)
aclu
PRIVACY
e@ Abuses of the right to privacy by state and private
agencies have been the subject of several ACLU cases
this year, with some success. A Court of Appeal
decision in July determined that law enforcement
agencies may no longer provide public employers with
the arrest records of potential job applicants where no
conviction has resulted from the arrest, as this practice
violates the state's constitutional right to privacy. The
case, Central Valley Chapter of the Seventh Step
Foundation v. Younger, in which the ACLU
_ presented an amicus brief, argued that arrest without
conviction, though implying no guilt on the party,
would result in gecuninatow hiring Bee
e In an amicus brief in acriminal appeal, People v.
~ Blair, the ACLU is continuing its fight against un-
' bridled police access to personal financial records, in
this case credit cards, on privacy grounds. The Bank
Secrecy Act was first challenged by the ACLU in 1972
which resulted in restrictions on law enforcement
officers' access to individuals' bank records. The ACLU
_ has also challenged access to telephone records on the
same grounds, and in the present day "credit card
economy," uncontrolled police examination of credit
card records represents an enuelly, lperten) invasion -
ofprivacy.
e The ACLU lost one case concerning government
wire-tapping in December last year (Hallinan v.
Mitchell) when the U.S. Court of Appeals refused to
_ make the ban on wiretapping retroactive and decided
that wiretapping will go unpunished if it occurred
before the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court
outlawing warrantless federal wiretapping. However,
ACLU lawyers have just won a major vicory in the
case of De Lancie v. McDonald. On October 9 of this
year, the 2-to-1 decision came in response to an
ACLU suit against the San Mateo County Sheriff's
practice of covert electronic monitoring and tape-
recording of conversations between prisoners awaiting
trial and their visitors, as well as conversations be-
tween prisoners in their cells.
"The detained citizen does not automatically forfeit his
basic civil rights as soon as the jailhouse door clangs
shut," said Presiding Justice John T. Racanelli in the
majority opinion. This is the first case in the country to
hold that prison officials could not engage in
systematic surveillance of prisoners' conversations.
~@ Inaprivacy case involving a private company,
Shields v. Household Finance Corporation, the
ACLU has filed a class action complaint on behalf of a:
woman fired from her job for living with a man to
whom she was not married. As a result of the lawsuit,
the company has apparently dropped this
discriminatory hiring/firing policy.
e The ACLU has also been successful in using the
federal Freedom of Information Act and the state
Public Records Act to broaden the scope of the
public's "right to know." In a decision which sheds
some light on the state Department of Justice sur-
veillance practices, a Sacramento County Superior
Court judge has ruled that the withholding of
documents compiled by the Organized Crime and
Criminal Intelligence Branch (OCCIB) of the
Department of Justice, was in violation of the
California Public Records Act.
The disclosure of these documents may reveal the
extent of the OCCIB's involvement with the Law
Enforcement Intelligence Unit which, under the guise
ot investigating organized crime, is accused of spying
on a broad range of social organizations and in-
dividuals.
e In another "right to know" victory, a Public Records
_ Act lawsuit against the California Highway Patrol -
(CHP) for the purpose of gaining access to CHP
manuals, arrest procedures, weapons policies, etc.
resulted in a decision that, though some materials
were legitimately exempt from disclosure as "security
procedures," the trial court had failed to segregate and
produce non-exempt materials as they are obliged to
do. However, a U.S. District Court, in Ramo v.
Secretary of the Navy, ruled that in the case of the
surveillance of a worker in an overseas military law
project, the Navy and the FBI had legitimately denied -
access to their records and were not required to
produce them.
I wish to support the legal work of the ACLU Foundation. I am enclosing a tax- deductible con-
: tribution of $ to the ACLU Foundation.
Name
Address Telephone
- City State. Se Zip
San Francisco, CA 94103.
Please make all checks payable to ACLU-NC Foundation, and mail to 814 Mission St.,
Suite 301,