vol. 46, no. 8
Primary tabs
Volume XLVI
Police Sue Gay Paper for $20M
aclu news
November-December 1981
Bay Area Reporter editor Paul Lorch (1.) and publisher Bob Ross are being sued
for $20 million libel for a story about alleged oe brutality against the gay
community.
Court Reaffires Abortion Funds
Late Friday afternoon on November 6, just as the ACLU News was going to
press, the California Court of Appeal handed down a victorious decision for the
Aclu in CDRR y. Cory. The unanimous decision, issued only nine days follow-
ing the argument, assures the continuation of Medi-Cal funding for abortion.
Reaffirming the California Supreme Court opinion in March 1981 (CDRR v.
Myers) that "once the state has decided to make such [medical] benefits available, it
cannot selectively withdraw part of that care solely because a woman exercises her
constitutional right to have an abortion," the appellate court issued a peremptory
writ directing state health and finance officials "to refrain from enforcing the
unconstitutional restrictions in the Budget Act of 1981."
This important decision means that 8000 women a month-one-third of them
teenagers-who rely on Medi-Cal funding for abortions will continue to have the
constitutionally guaranteed right to reproductive freedom. The ACLU has been
~ fighting for this victory for a long time, and the story below which outlines the latest
episode in this battle, indicates how complex this issue has become.
It was a bit like deja vu in the court
room. On October 28, ACLU-NC staff
counsel Margaret Crosby was once
again arguing CDRR vy. Cory in the
fourth floor court room of the State
Building, reminding the justices of their
responsibility under the California
Constitution to ensure that all women
-regardless of economic status-have
the right to choose an abortion.
But this year, six months following
the landmark California Supreme Court
decision securing Medi-Cal funds for
abortion, the scenario-and the players
-were a bit different.
. The ACLU filed this year's version of
CDRR vy. Cory in July after the Legis-
lature, with flagrant disregard for the
Supreme Court's decision, again cut
95% of Medi-Cal funds from the Budget -
Act. The named defendants in.the
ACLU suit, Beverlee Myers, Director of
the Health Services, Kenneth Cory,
state Controller, and Jesse Unruh, state
Treasurer, responded in varying ways to
the suit, but all advised the court that
they would abide by the Supreme
Court's March ruling mandating them
to provide funding.
This may have led to a strange scene
in the Court of Appeal hearing, with
Crosby arguing against no opponent.
But, two weeks before the scheduled
hearing, in stepped the California Sen-
ate, represented by none other than the
former lawyer for Myers, Cory and
Unruh-Attorney General George
Deukmejian.
The Senate moved to oppose the
ACLU challenge arguing that the court
is not empowered to order the Legisla-
ture to appropriate funds for abortions.
Deukmejian, it seems, was happy to
part ways with his former clients who
are now willing to comply with the court
mandate, and advocate the Senate's op-
posing position.
Alarmed at the unethical behavior of
the Attorney General, Crosby filed a
motion on October 22 to disqualify him
from proceeding further in the lawsuit.
Crosby explained that the Attorney
General's participation in the case must
be prevented for two reasons. "First,"
she said, "the Attorney General's repre-
sentation of the Senate in this case vio-
lates the principle that he may not adopt
a position antagonistic to the Governor
-and the Governor vetoed a Senate
amendment (the Schmitz Amendment)
- which would have prevented the state
Continued on p. 3
Michael Miller
"The police libel suit against the Bay
Area Reporter is an attempt to intimi-
date the people of San Francisco from
speaking out against police brutality.
The debate regarding the issue of police
abuse is too important to be manipu-
lated by the threat of a multi-million.
dollar libel suit," said Amitai Schwartz,
ACLU-NC staff counsel.
Schwartz, speaking at an October 14
press conference, announced the ACLU's
defense of the Bay Area Reporter (BA R)
in a libel suit filed against the newspaper
by the police.
The BA Ris a weekly newspaper pub-
lished in San Francisco covering issues
and events of interest to the gay com-
munity. The newspaper, its publisher
Bob Ross, editor Paul Lorch, and a
reporter, John Karr, are being sued for
$20,000,000 by two San Francisco police
officers who are being supported in the
suit by the San Francisco Police Offi-
cers Association (POA).
The multi-million dollar libel suit is
based on an article which appeared in
the May 21, 1981 issue of the BAR en-
titled "SFPD Brutality Aired, Toklas
Club Envisions Review Board to Curb
Rising Police Aggressiveness Against
Gays."
The story, written by John Karr, re-
ports a meeting of the Alice B. Toklas
Democratic Club where persons testi-
fied about alleged police brutality
against San Francisco's gay community.
Karr attended the meeting and wrote
inthe BAR, "The Political Action Com-
mittee of the Alice B. Toklas Memorial
Democratic Club convened last Thurs-
day to hear testimony from victims of
police brutality and discuss possible
courses of action. The stories indicated _
Vv
CARI OEWD
ORO
AVN
am
(Att Se
STEG6 VO OG
I
6
1) a rising tide of unwarrant
checked police brutality to
and 2) the possible recourse o
slow, bureaucratic and always painfully
after-the-fact."
Karr reported on the testimony given
by members of the gay community about
specific instances of alleged police bru-
tality and noted, "Plans are being laid to
publish accounts of brutality in the
hopes of deterring such events and help-
ing the victims."
Two officers who were mentioned in
the Karr article filed the multi-million
dollar'libel suit against the BA R on July
13 in San Francisco Superior Court. -
At the ACLU press conference, BAR
publisher Bob Ross said, "No law en-
forcement agency or official has the
right to prevent a reporter from report-
ing. Our reporter was exercising his
First Amendment rights in covering
that story."
BAR editor Paul Lorch, noting that
the reported meeting took place in the
midst of a campaign by many commu-
nity, legal and minority groups to estab- _
lish an Office of Citizens Complaint to .
investigate police abuse, said, "To use
the laws of libel to block reforms in the
midst of a political campaign-besides
being a colossal blunder-is a danger-
ous strategy."
The legal defense of the BA Ris being 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_1969 ACLUN_1969.MODS ACLUN_1970 ACLUN_1970.MODS ACLUN_1971 ACLUN_1971.MODS ACLUN_1972 ACLUN_1972.MODS ACLUN_1973 ACLUN_1973.MODS ACLUN_1974 ACLUN_1974.MODS ACLUN_1975 ACLUN_1975.MODS ACLUN_1976 ACLUN_1976.MODS ACLUN_1977 ACLUN_1977.MODS ACLUN_1978 ACLUN_1978.MODS ACLUN_1979 ACLUN_1979.MODS ACLUN_1980 ACLUN_1980.MODS ACLUN_1980.batch ACLUN_1981 ACLUN_1981.MODS ACLUN_1981.batch 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
handled by ACLU-NC cooperating at-
torneys Robert Lewis and Lynn Pas-
ahow of the San Francisco law firm of
McCutchen, Doyle, Brown and Enersen
and ACLU staff counsel Amitai
Schwartz.
Addressing the ACLU's decision to
take the case, Schwartz said, "The use of
libel suits to chill political expression
Continued on p. 2
Keynote Speaker
Bill of Rights Day
Celebration
Sunday, December 13
Sheraton Palace Hotel
San Francisco
1981 Earl Warren Civil Liberties Award will be presented to:
Benjamin Dreyfus 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_1969 ACLUN_1969.MODS ACLUN_1970 ACLUN_1970.MODS ACLUN_1971 ACLUN_1971.MODS ACLUN_1972 ACLUN_1972.MODS ACLUN_1973 ACLUN_1973.MODS ACLUN_1974 ACLUN_1974.MODS ACLUN_1975 ACLUN_1975.MODS ACLUN_1976 ACLUN_1976.MODS ACLUN_1977 ACLUN_1977.MODS ACLUN_1978 ACLUN_1978.MODS ACLUN_1979 ACLUN_1979.MODS ACLUN_1980 ACLUN_1980.MODS ACLUN_1980.batch ACLUN_1981 ACLUN_1981.MODS ACLUN_1981.batch 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 Fay Stender
Congressman Ronald V. Dellums
No-Host Bar 3-4 PM Program 4-6 PM
Music by: Men About Town
of the S.F. Gay Men's Chorus
r
(posthumously )
For Tickets see po
aciu news
nov-dec 1981
Senate Hearings
by Beth Meador
ACLU-NC Legislative Advocate
State Senator John Schmitz, chair of
the Senate Constitutional Amendments
Committee, held hearings this month in
Sacramento and San Francisco on SCA
39, a proposed state constitutional
amendment to make all affirmative ac-
tion programs unconstitutional.
Proponents of affirmative action re-
ceived no word of the hearings prior to
the notice printed in the Senate Daily
File on October 15-the hearings were
held one week later on October 22 and
27. Even Senator Diane Watson, a mem-
ber of the Senate Constitutional Amend-
ments Committee informed me that she
was not notified of the hearings until
_ two days before they began.
~ On the other hand, it was revealed
during the hearings that groups and
individuals sharing Schmitz's viewpoint
were informed of and invited to the hear-
ings at a much earlier date-among
them California Supreme Court Justice
Stanley Mosk. Mosk submitted a pro-
posal to Schmitz for a constitutional
amendment prohibiting affirmative ac-
tion by governmental entities and pub-
licly-funded institutions.
Despite apparent efforts to minimize
opposition at the hearings, many orga-
nizations managed to send representa-
tives to advocate maintaining affirma-
tive action programs. In addition to
attorneys representing the University of
California at Davis and Berkeley who
defended their admission programs, rep-
resentatives from NOW, MALDEF, Chi-
nese for Affirmative Action, NAACP,
Urban League, U.C. Students Lobby,
the California Democratic Council and
the ACLU-NC all testified in defense of
affirmative action. :
One of the more interesting and bi-
zarre arguments put forward in support
of the Schmitz amendment came from
-Christine Kasun, a Deputy District At-
~ torney from San Francisco. Kasun stated
that affirmative action programs result
in inefficiencies because they supplant
the "private marketplace" in determin-
`ing who is admitted to professional
_ schools. Thus, we do not get the "best
and the brightest" doctors and lawyers.
When asked by Senator Watson tode- "Senator, I'm looking at you and you
dies designed to correct past wrongs.
Then, noting that the conservatives had
recently announced a corner on moral-
ity, she appealed to Senator Schmitz's
sense of moral judgment. In her sincere,
but disarming manner, Paterson said,
Z `cabo a
| Z
CTION
Ve fl
rT
fine her use of Moe. Kasun re-
plied that she referred to the law of sup-
ply and demand. Whereupon Watson
asked her to explain, in light of her
supply and demand theory, why UCLA
failed to admit a black student to the
medical school until 1961, considering
there is a large black population in Los
Angeles in need of doctors.
In my own testimony, in an attempt
to deal with this red herring.of supply
and demand, | pointed out that we do
not have a free market economy-in
fact, many of the barriers to oportunity
_ still confronted by minorities are as a
result of past government action. There-
fore, government action to remedy these
wrongs is necessarily required. The idea
of the free market to determine hiring or
admissions policy in this era, I noted,
was simply utopian.
Eva Jefferson Paterson represented -
the ACLU-NC at the San Francisco
hearings. She carefully outlined the basis
for affirmative action laws, describing
Letters
As an ACLU member, I'm glad to see
you pursue the matter of police strip
searches for minor offenses such as dog
license matters (ACLU News, October
1981).
_ Alas, there is a despicable minority (1
hope it's a minority) on the public pay-
roll who think that a shiny badge or
fancy title is a license to trample all over
people. .
Those twerps only learn (if they ever
do) via the mailed fist of lawsuits. Ac-
cordingly, the lesson must be repeated
over and over again until they're finally
tamed.
Leonard W. Williams -
Sunnyvale
The article "Alameda DA Barred
from Searching Subscribers List"(ACLU
News, October 1981) reminded me of a
notice I received from the security office
of Pacific Telephone a few years ago.
The notice stated that the phone com-
pany, through a court order, obtained
my name from a list of subscribers or
potential subscribers to a magazine for
telephone lobbyists. The notice implied
that my dissemination of certain infor-
mation obtained from this source, or
even possession of the magazine, is a
crime in many states.
This raises several doubts in my mind:
whether my continued possession of the
magazine is a criminal offense; if the
phone company has targeted my line for
some special kind of surveillance; wheth-
er my First Amendment rights have
been abridged and if the court decision
reported in the ACLU News has any
effect on my situation.
Gerald C. Gordon
Ben Lomond
Mary K. McEachron, ACLU-NC co-
operating attorney in Vail replies:
The U.S. Supreme Court in Stanley
v. Georgia suggests that the mere pos-
session, in the privacy of one's home, of
written material of any nature is pro-
tected by the First Amendment and can-
not be a crime absent an intent to dis-
tribute. The decision to which you refer
(Vail) has no direct bearing on your situ-
ation since the harm prevented there-
the disclosure of the subscribers list-
has already occurred in your case. How-
ever, decisions of this nature may help
to prevent a recurrence of such disclo-
sures in the future.
As to whether the phone company
has targeted your line for special surveil-
lance, that certainly seems to be infor-
mation which you are entitled to know,
why not ask the phone company?
don't look like an evil man. So I don't
understand why you're doing this thing
that is so wrong." Schmitz had no reply.
Acceptable Racism
Assemblyman Phillip Wyman, who
as Chair of the Assembly Constitutional
Amendments Committee was invited to
`participate in the hearings, said that he
felt affirmative action programs discrim-
inate against white males. Responding
to testimony by CRLA attorney Rodolfo
Aros, Wyman reasoned that if 15% of
- 80 Chicanos applying to law school are
accepted, while only 10% of 800 white
males were accepted, this constituted
discrimination against the white males.
Senator Schmitz questioned whether
or not white and black doctors could
not adequately serve Chicanos "just as
blacks represent whites and Chicanos
on the basketball court." He also re-
minded us that Branch Rickey did not
need government interference to hire
= ~ Jackie Robinson.
their basis in courts of equity as reme-
The hearings were frightening. Sena-
tor Schmitz's pronouncements were bla-
tantly racist. That Justice Mosk has al-
lied himself with someone of Schmitz's
outlook does not bode well for people of
color and women who are still trying to
achieve equality in this country. Five
years ago, even John Schmitz watched
his rhetoric. Today, in 1981 California,
he is assuming the stance of George
Wallace in the '60s.
Though it has not yet been determined
which policy committee the proposal
will be assigned to, nor when it will be
voted on by the Constitutional Amend-
ments Committee, all supporters of
affirmative action are urged to write
now to Senator Schmitz, Chair of the
Constitutional Amendments Commit-
tee, as well as your own state Senator
New Threat to Affirmative Action
expressing your objections to the pro-
posed amendment. Letters should ne
_ addressed to:
Senator =
State Capitol Building
Sacramento, CA 95814
BAR poe Suit
Continued from p. I
is on the rise, and it is frightening."
Schwartz noted that in addition to this
case, the ACLU has several other cases
on its docket in defense of journalists
and campaigners against political libel
suits by the police and. other public
officials.
"It is difficult to imagine a political
topic that is more vital to a democracy
than debate about police conduct and
police brutality," Schwartz said. "Surely
police, who are entrusted by society
with enormous powers to use force, to
make arrests and even kill, are the
proper subject of accountability through
criticism and debate.
"It is not unreasonable to expect that
opinions about police conduct will fre-
quently appear as fact in the rough and
tumble of political debate and persua-
sion," Schwartz added.
Cooperating attorney Robert Lewis
said, "One can look to the First Amend-
ment and the constitutional rights which
apply to criticism of public officials
(and police officers are public officials
for purposes of the First Amendment)
to see quite clearly that the article under
attack is- privileged `fair comment' by a
local paper upon police conduct gener-
ally and the San Francisco Police De-
partment in particular.
"In addition, the meeting reported in
the article was lawfully convened and
open to the public for the purpose of
discussing a topic of public interest-
and to redress grievances. According to
federal court rulings, it is in this area
where the press performs its `most valu-
_able function in the interest of the people
at large by correctly reporting proceed-
ings which relate to the administration
of law,." Lewis said.
The ACLU attorneys said that they
had filed a demurrer asking the court to
dismiss the libel suit entirely and are
. pursuing a legal and legislative strategy
to halt the use of libel suits to intimidate
and harass groups which voice political
dissent.
BAR editor Paul Lorch added, "For
the Bay Area Reporter, today begins the
process of proving the use of libel to
block political expression as a forlorn
strategy and one that must and will be
repudiated."
Elaine Elinson, Editor
aclu news
issues a year, Pe OnEAI except bi-monthly 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
Davis Riemer, Chairperson Dorothy Ehrlich, Executive Director
Marcia Gallo,
Chapter Page g
ACLU NEWS (USPS 018-040)
I 663 Mission St., 4th floor, San Francisco, California 94103. (415) 621-2488
Membership $20 and up, of which 50 cents is for a subscription to the aclu news
and S0 cents is for the national ACLU-bi-monthly publication, Civil Liberties.
ACLU Aids PATCO Strikers
by Mason Drukman
Did the government act unconstitu-
tionally in the air traffic controllers'
strike in singling out particular PATCO
workers for prosecution? The ACLU-
NC believes it did and as we go to press
this question is being examined in U.S.
District Court in San Francisco.
The ACLU is supporting the defense of five PATCO leaders who are being
tain individuals for prosecution not
because they, along with many others,
took part in an allegedly illegal strike,
but because they were PATCO officers -
_and vocal activists known to have advo-
cated collective strike action for their
union.
In the brief, ACLU cooperating at-
}
a
n
eo
2
Tat
3
}
eo
s
bet
3
S
gee GD
Be It
criminally prosecuted for their vocal support of union policy. One of the five,
Robert R. Kenny, is pictured above (center, with strike buttons on dark sweater) on
a picket of the San Francisco International Airport.
On October 19 District Court Judge
Stanley Weigel granted a request from
five PATCO members-Robert Butter-
worth, William Newton, Darrell Reazin,
Albert Stephens, and (in a separate
case) Robert R. Kenny-to hold an evi-
dentiary hearing to discover how and
why these men were targeted for prose-
cution and whether their First Amend-
ment rights were violated in the process.
The ACLU supported the five air con-
trollers in an amicus curiae brief charg-
ing the government with selecting cer-
Abortion Funds
Continued from p. 1
officials from Soke the Medi-Cal |
abortion payments despite a court order.
"The Attorney General is subordinate
to the Governor. Where a policy dispute
arises between them, the Governor's
view prevails," Crosby said.
"Second," she continued, "the Attor-
ney General may not adopta position in
a lawsuit which is adverse to his former
agency clients in substantially related
litigation. Not only has the court ruled
that an attorney-client relationship
`raises an irrefutable presumption that
confidences were disclosed, but the Sen-
ate's position, framed in the Schmitz
Amendment, strikes at the institutional
autonomy of the Attorney General's
former clients.
"The Attorney General has no license
to chart a collision course with the Gov-
ernor and his former clients,' Crosby
added.
Just two days prior to the hearing, the
Court of Appeal denied the Senate's mo- _-
tion to intervene, but allowed them to
enter the case as amicus curiae. The
court has not yet ruled on the motion to
disqualify the Attorney General.
-ACLU-NC Executive Director Dor-
othy Ehrlich said, "We are extremely
pleased with the court's decision, and
hope that it marks the end of this lengthy |
battle." Ehrlich explained that it is pos- -
sible that the opponents may appeal this
decision but added that a successful
appeal was unlikely.
"While the complex legal issues may
have been resolved," Ehrlich said, "the
political battle to maintain reproductive
freedom will continue to occupy a prom-
inent place in the ACLU agenda."
torney Marsha Berzon argued that the
government was seeking criminal sanc-
tions against individuals who held lea-
dership positions within PATCO, and
who exercised their constitutional right
to assert union policies as strongly and
as vehemently as they felt necessary.
A union leader, Berzon contended,
does not lose his First Amendment pro-
tections when he "advocates the right to
strike or even engages in proscribed
Photo by Dwayne
leadership positions in unions such as
PATCO would be severely hampered in
their advocacy role if they feared that
"in the event of an illegal strike some-
time in the future . . . [they] would be.
singled out for prosecution."
Government as employer
Berzon argued that since the govern-
ment was acting as both employer and
prosecutor, this case could be character-
ized simply as one involving a special
form of employee discipline. She indi-
cated that the FBI had begun investigat-
ing some of the defendants before they ~
- walked out on strike from their jobs.
(Defense attorneys Dennis Riordan and
Doron Weinberg also argued that the
statute prohibiting employees from as-
serting their right to strike is overly
`broad and unconstitutionally vague.)
Judge Weigel ruled that the defen- |
dants were entitled to an evidentiary
hearing on the question of selective
prosecution and that the government
must provide defense attorneys with all
_ relevant documents prior to the hearing.
ACLU policy asserts that the right to
strike constitutes a fundamental civil
liberty and has supported PATCO's
exercise of this right from the very begin-
ning. In a statement released on August
4, national ACLU Executive Director
Ira Glasser declared that in firing strik-
ing PATCO workers "President Reagan
aclu news
nov-dec 1981
is acting like any other union busting
employer. Instead of dealing with the
merits of his employees' demands, he is
trying to punish them for striking.
"The ACLU," Glasser said, "thinks
the employer's reprisal is an unfair labor
practice. The fact that President Reagan
isan employer who has the power of the
government behind him, and can invoke
criminal and civil-penalties, makes his
response all the more oppressive."
ACLU legal actions on behalf of con-
trollers are also underway in other parts
of the country. In a New York case the
ACLU is challenging the firing of a non-
PATCO air controller supervisor who
advised union members not to strike but
to remain united to gain their objectives.
He was fired when government officials
heard his remarks on national TV urg-
ing members to stick together-his rec-
ommendations against striking were not
broadcast. In Chicago the Federal Avia-
tion Administration dropped dismissal
proceedings against two non-striking,
non-PATCO employees who had shown
support for PATCO strikers. The FAA
reversed itself after the ACLU filed suit
charging that agency with intimidating
the workers and violating their First
Amendment rights.
Mason Drukman, a freelance writer
and editor, is a volunter with the ACLU
News.
See Next Month's ACLU News for-
How the Hoover Institution syndicated a 1980 diatribe against the ACLU in
1981...
A civil liberties perspective on the 1981 Legislative Session in Sacramento...
Funds, Support Build for Rights Day
On the night of October 22, an ad hoc
"Bill of Rights Day room" at the ACLU- .
NC office was a hive of activity: nine
volunteers were phoning scores of
ACLU members in an effort to raise
money for the 1981 Bill of Rights Day. |
This was the first of eight phone eve-
nings scheduled to take place through-
out northern California in the next two
months. According to one volunteer,
"The persistent ringing paid off-the
total amount pledged that night was
$1700."
Linda Weiner, chair of the 1981 Bill
of Rights Day Solicitation Committee,
said, "This is reflective of the high level
of grassroots participation in this year's
Bill of Rights Day fundraising effort. In
addition to the phone nights, many
people are doing face-to-face solicita-
tion to encourage their friends to donate
to the ACLU. This year, volunteers
from the fifteen chapters are working
actively to meet our $50,000 goal."
The ninth annual Bill of Rights Day
Celebration will be held on December
13 at the Sheraton Palace Hotel in San
Francisco. "It is both the culmination of
the ACLU Foundation's fundraising
_ drive and the day to honor persons who
have been outstanding in their contribu-
99
tion to the fight for civil liberties,"'-
Weiner said.
This year the Earl Warren Civil Lib-
erties Award will be presented to noted
civil rights attorney Benjamin Dreyfus
and posthumously to former ACLU-NC
Board member Fay Stender. The key-
note speaker at the event will be Con-
~gressman Ronald V. Dellums. Dellums,
who is rated by the ACLU national leg-
islative office as one of the top civil lib-
erties advocates on Capitol Hill, will
speak on lessons of the Select Commit-
tee to Investigate the Intelligence Com-
- munity and their relevance to current
administration proposals which hamper
civil liberties.
"The funds raised from Bill of Rights
Day are vital in support of the Founda- -
tion's extensive litigation program. The
1981 Legal Docket (see insert) shows
the enormous caseload the Foundation
has handled this year-with some very
ominous threats like school book cen-
sorship, required loyalty oaths, and
libel suits used against political cam-
paigners and muckraking journalists
rearing their ugly head," said Weiner.
"Without special support from each
friend of the ACLU this year in the form
of tax-deductible contributions, we will
not be able to continue this unique legal
program," she added.
This year's fundraising efforts have
been greatly enhanced by chapter par-
ticipation, particularly the Solicitation
Committee. In addition to Weiner, mem-
bership includes: Berkeley-Peter Hag-
berg; Earl Warren-Barbara Littwin
and Dennis Rothhaar; Marin-Bill Luft
and Bruce Armbruster; Mid-Peninsula
-Larry Sleizer and Harry -Anisgard;
Monterey-Samson Knoll and Dick
Criley; North Peninsula-Sidney Schie-
_ ber, Walter Smithey, Richard Keyes,
Sylvia Block and Monroe Sweetland;
Sonoma-Jake Rubin and Jacques
Levy; Yolo-Larry Garrett, Nadine
Noelting, Jules Young, Katherine
Domeny, Makepeace Tsao and Paul
Craig; and At Large-Bernice Biggs,
Gordon Brownell, Bob Bustamonte,
Nancy McDermid, and Marlene De- |
Lancie.
Please send me
I am enclosing a check for $
Name
Bill of Rights Day eclcbration
I want to honor those who protect the Bill of Rights.
tickets at $7.00 each.
Addess
City
envelope.
Zip Phone
Please make checks payable to ACLU-NC Foundation and mail to Bill of Rights
Day, 1663 Mission St., S.F., CA 94103. Please enclose a stamped, self-addressed
a aclu news
nov-dec 1981
Field Committee Update Conference Sparks Action
With the successful and spirited an-
nual conference serving as a springboard
for action, the ACLU-NC's Field Com- (c)
mittee is now full throttle into the orga-
nizing efforts begun over the summer
months. Looking toward December's
Bill of Rights Day and January's Apple
Pie Day in Sacramento, Field Commit-
tee leaders are recruiting new ACLU
members, activating current ones, and
building a strong ACLU Re in
their communities.
Bill of Rights Day
Field Committee members have as-
sumed active fundraising roles for the
1981 Bill of Rights Day Compaign.
From personal solicitations to telephone
follow-ups, chapter board members and
activists have been recruited to help
raise the funds needed to continue the
ACLU's legal program in northern Cali-
fornia. Field Committee set a goal to
raise $50,000 this year for the Bill of
Rights Day Campaign, according to
Committee chair Peter Hagberg. Hag-
berg also serves on the Bill of Rights
Day Campaign Committee chaired by
Field Committee member Linda Weiner.
(For more information on Bill of Rights
Day fundraising activities, see article on
p.3.)
As American As Apple Pie
Continuing their commitment to the
right of reproductive freedom, the Pro-
Choice Task Force is now focusing on
_ the January 21 "Apple Pie Day" in Sac-
ramento, as their next mobilizing event.
Says Task Force chairperson Anne Jen-
nings, "For the last two years, pro-
choice groups in California have cele-
brated the anniversary of Roe v. Wade,
the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision
legalizing abortion, by gathering in Sac-_
BOARD MEETINGS: Thursday,
December 10-8:00 p.m., 1520 Arch
- Street, Berkeley. Thursday, January
28-8:00 p.m. Contact: Joe Dorst,
415/654-4163 for more information.
Earl Warren
BOARD MEETINGS: (Third Wed-
nesday each month.) December 16-
January 20; 7:30 p.m. Sumitomo
Bank, 20th and Franklin, Oakland.
Contact: Barbara Littwin, a)
452-4726.
Gay Rights
- ELECTION RESULTS: Officers re-
cently elected include Steve Block,
Chair; Anne Jennings, affiliate Board -
Representative; Zona Sage and Doug
Warner.
BOARD MEETINGS: (Usually the
second Tuesday of each month.) Call
Steve Block, 415/772-6004 for con-
firmation; held at the ACLU-NC of-
fices, 1663 Mission, San Francisco.
Marin
ELECTION RESULTS: Officers re-.
cently elected include Bill Luft, Chair-
person; Marion Saunders, Vice-
Chairperson; Bill King, Treasurer;
and Dan Beittel, Secretary.
ramento to present apple pies-`Choice
is as American as apple pie'-to pro-
choice legislators and apple cores-
`Choice is-at the core of the democratic
system'-to those who consistently vote
against a woman's right to choose."
Jennings reported that a northern
California-wide petition drive has been
launched by the Task Force, in conjunc-
tion with the Bay Area Pro-Choice Coa-
lition and other reproductive rights
pple Pie Day 1980-Assem
pro-choice activists around northern
California who will take part in the
Apple Pie Day activities at the state cap-
itol. The activities will include a morning
press conference, the delivery of apple
pies and cores to legislators, accompa-
nied by "Telling Sing-a-Grams" which
proclaim the pro-choice message, a se-
ries of workshops and an Apple Pie Day
luncheon. "A very visible ACLU con-
tingent-even larger than last year's-is
yman Tom Bates being rewarded for his pro-choice
stance with a Choice-is-as-American-as-A pple Pie.
groups, with the aim of gathering at
least 2,500 signatures. Petitions being
circulated by ACLU's Task Force mem-
bers include a special check-off box so
that pro-choice supporters who wish to
become more involved in Task Force
efforts can be contacted. The deadline
for completed petitions is December 15;
the petitions will be presented to state
legislators on Apple Pie Day. "With pro-
choice coalitions and groups through-
out northern California collecting sig-
natures," Jennings added, "we'll be able
to impress upon our elected representa-
tives that the vast majority of voters in
this state are in favor of the right to
choose."
Task Force members are also setting
up carpools and buses for at least 200
what we're working toward," Jennings
said.
Federal attempts to restrict a woman's
right to reproductive freedom are also
being addressed by the Task Force. An
action alert on the Legislative Authority
Amendment (SJR 110), the latest ver-
sion of the so-called "Human Life"
Amendment, which aims to prohibit
abortion by allowing the states and Con-
gress to pass laws against it, was sent to
more than 100 Task Force members and (c)
supporters. Letters to members of the
U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, who
may be considering this measure follow-
ing Senator Orrin Hatch's Subcommit-
tee on the Constitution hearings, are
needed. (The Hatch subcommittee hear-
ings on the so-called "Human Life"
Chapter Calendar
BOARD MEETINGS: (Third Mon-
day each month.) December 21-
January 18; 8:00 p.m. Fidelity Sav-
ings, Throckmorton Street, Mill
Valley. Contact: Bill Luft, oF
453-6546.
~ Mid-Pen
BOARD MEETINGS: Thursday,
December 17-Thursday, January
28; 8:00 p.m. Contact: Harry Anis-
gard, 415/ 856-9186.
Monterey
BOARD MEETINGS: (Last Tues-
day each month.) January 26, 7:30
p.m. Monterey Public Library. Con-
tact: Richard Criley, 408/624-7562.
Mt. Diablo
ELECTION RESULTS: Officers re-
cently elected include Guyla Pon-
omareff, President; Beverly Bortin,
Vice-President; Dennis Belcourt, Sec-
retary; and David Bortin, affiliate
Board Representative.
BOARD MEETINGS: (Third Thurs-
_ day each month.) A special Holiday
Party will be held in December-
contact 939-ACLU for details. Next
Board Meeting-Thursday, Jenuary
21
North Pen
BOARD MEETINGS: (Third Mon-
day each month.) December 21-
January 18; 8:00 p.m. Allstate Sav-
ings and Loan, South Grant and
Concar Drive, San Mateo. Contact:
Richard Keyes, 415/367-8800.
Sacramento
BOARD MEETINGS: (Third Wed-
nesday each month.) December 16-
January 20; 7:30 p.m. Sacramento
County Administration Building, 700
H Street, Sacramento. Contact: Myra
_Schimke, 916/451-2835.
San Francisco
BOARD MEETINGS: (Last Tues-_
day each month.) December 29-
January 26; 6:30 p.m. ACLU-NC
offices, 1663 Mission, San Francisco. |
Santa Clara
BOARD MEETINGS: (First Tues-
day each month.) December 1 -Jan-
uary 5; 7:30 p.m. Community Bank
Building, San Jose. Contact: Vic
Ulmer, 408/379-4431.
Santa Cruz
BOARD MEETINGS: (Second
Wednesday each month.) December
Amendmentare receiving little publicity
although they began on October 5 and
will continue through January, 1982.)
ACLU activists interested in receiving
more information about the Legislative
Authority Amendment are urged to con-
tact Marcia Gallo at the ACLU-NC,
415/621-2493 as soon as possible. And
WRITE right now!
A holiday "Celebration of Choice"
will follow the next meeting of the Pro-
Choice Task Force, on Tuesday, Decem-
ber 15, at 7:30 p.m. at the ACLU offices.
All pro-choice activists are welcome.
The Need to Know
The ever-increasing assault on civil
liberties represented by such measures
as the "Names of Agents" bill and other
repressive legislation continues to be the
concern of the Field Committee's moni-
toring group, the Right to Dissent Sub-
committee. Subcommittee chair J.R.
Rubin reports that the focus of the
group Is "to inform our members about
the dangers to our civil rights being put
forward by some members of Congress
-and the Reagan administration-in
the name of `national security.' "
The subcommittee, which held a large
caucus meeting at the recent Pt. Bonita
conference following a sobering speech
by National Committee Against Repres-
sive Legislation director Esther Herst, |
meets the first week of each month at
the ACLU offices in San Francisco.
"We're working on developing a
- Speakers' Bureau of ACLU activists
who can present information to groups
around northern California," Rubin ex-
plained. "We're hoping to function as
an `alert network' so that proposals put
forward which will restrict our rights
can be challenged immediately."
Members interested in knowing more
about the work of this watchdog group
should contact Marcia Gallo at the
ACLU-NC offices: 415/621-2493.
9-January 13; 8:00 p.m. Louden
Nelson Center, Santa Cruz. Contact:
Blanche Greenberg, 408/476-8653.
Sonoma
BOARD MEETINGS: (Third Thurs-
day each month.) December 17-
January 21; 7:30 p.m. Center for
Employment Training, 3753 Santa
Rosa Avenue, Santa Rosa. Contact:
Wayne Gibb, 707/523-1155.
Stockton
CHRISTMAS PARTY/ANNUAL
FUNDRAISER: Sunday, December
6-4:00 to 7:00 p.m. 3216 Country
Club Boulevard, Stockton. Contact:
Larry Pippin, 209/477-7698.
ANNUAL MEETING: Tuesday,
January 5, 8:00 p.m. 3859 Petersburg
Circle. Contact: Larry Pippin (tele-
phone listed above).
LEGAL COMMITTEE MEETING:
Tuesday, January 19. Contact: Bar-
bara Redalia, 209/478-3873.
Yolo
BOARD MEETINGS: (Third Thurs-
day each month.) January 21-7:30
p.m. Contact: Larry Garrett, 916/
427-4990.
The Annual Report of the
ACLU Foundation of Northem Califomia
_ The writing was already on the wall
when we entered 1981.
It was woefully ironic that one of the first
cases entered on this year's docket was a.
challenge to the use of a McCarthy-era loy-
alty oath as a requirement for all teachers in
the Richmond Unified School District. The
case seemed a harbinger of the climate we
are facing-the rise of the ideology of the
New Right to new heights (including to the
highest office of the land) and the threat
that this outlook brings to civil liberties in
the eighties.
A few months later, the ACLU was
tagged a "criminals' lobby" by Presidential
Counselor Edwin Meese. This attack pro-
vided further insight into who was going to
be officially considered "criminal" But we
were not the only ones who were called
names. Reporters in San Francisco, en-
vironmental activists in Pacifica, and politi-
cal campaigners in Beverly Hills-are just a
few of the ACLU defendants who have
become the victims of libel suits intended
to muzzle critics by police and govemment _
Officials, development corporations and
landiords. The defense against libel suits to
silence political opposition is an item mov-
ing rapidly to the top of the ACLU agenda.
In June we experienced some major fall-
out from the rightwing backlash against
women's rights. Flaunting the landmark Cali-
fomia Supreme Court decision of just three
months before which guaranteed that
every woman in Califomia-regardless of
economic status-was entitled to the right
to choose whether or not to have an abor-
tion, the Califomia Legislature once again
slashed Medi-Cal funds for abortion from
the state budget. Immediately, the ACLU-
NC Foundation took legal action to chal-
lenge the budget cuts and at the same time
vowed to litigate any of the other pending
legislative measures designed to eliminate
or seriously burden a woman's right to
reproductive freedom.
Next came the report of the Attomey
General's Task Force on Violent Crime-
totally ignoring the causes of crime, instead
calling for measures like preventive deten-
tion, diminishing the exclusionary rule, and
expending $2 billion on prison construc-
tion. More importantly, it laid out a presi-
dential law-and-order perspective on the
administration of justice-a perspective
which will sorely. challenge the ACLU to
insure that some basic principles of the
Constitution, the presumption of inno-
cence, protection against cruel and unus-
ual punishment, to name but a few, are not
abandoned in the administration's haste to
"get tough" with criminals.
Yet the ACLU-NC Foundation was hardly
underworked even before these new
threats developed. The range of our cases-
from the strip searching of two East Bay
women accused of failure to pay dog
license fees to the police surveillance and
harassment of anti- racist marchers in Sac-
ramento with videotape and metal detec-
tors-indicates that we are already work-
ing on many fronts to protect our civil
liberties.
The goal of our litigation program is not
simply to ensure local victories, but rather
to establish legal precedents for the state
and indeed the entire county. The wide
ranging effect of our work is reflected in the
four ACLU-NC supported cases which were
brought to the US. Supreme Court and the
eight cases brought to the Califomia Su-
preme Court this year.
Three ACLU-NC staff attomeys, Margaret
C. Crosby, Alan L. Schlosser and Amitai.
Schwartz have for five years shared re-
sponsibilities for directing this remarkable
legal program, assisted by Pat Jameson,
Donna Van Diepen and Chris Thomas. The
staff counsel currently handle 150 active
cases with the help of 80 dedicated private
lawyers who donate their services as ACLU
cooperating attomeys.
Moreover, for every case which appears
on the docket, there are hundreds of civil
liberties conflicts which are resolved admin-
istratively. ACLU's Complaint Desk, staffed
by ten volunteer lay counselors, receives
more than 200 phone calls per week. As-
sisted by the staff attomeys and twelve law
student intems who clerk for the legal
department during the course of the year,
the counselors make appropriate refervals,
provide. information on civil liberties issues,
and often provide the advocacy necessary
to resolve a particular grievance.
In addition, the ACLU's public informa-
tion program, ably directed by Elaine Elin-
son, alerts the public to the action taken
and the issues championed by ACLU litiga-
tion through the media and our own
publications.
The hostile political climate of the 1980's
is bringing an enormous amount of pres-
sure on the ACLU's legal program. Itis a kind
of pressure which calls upon us to more
than double our efforts. ACLU friends who
contribute to the ACLU Foundation of
Northem Califomia have enabled us to
close 1981 with this impressive docket. We
are counting on their support to allow us
to resist the massive challenges which will
confront us in 1982. Davis Riemer
Chairperson
Board of Govemors
Dorothy M. Ehriich
Executive Director -
FIRST AMENDMENT
Though the defense of First Amendment
rights has always been a major focus of the
ACLU's work, that defense took on disturb-
ing new implications this year in several of
our cases: the challenge to a McCarthy era
loyalty oath being used in the California
public school system; four separate cases
in which we are defending journalists and
campaigners against whom defamation
suits are being used as a weapon to silence
political expression; and the challenge to
censorship of books and periodicals in
school classrooms and libraries.
Alternatives for California Women v.
Contra Costa County
(California Court of Appeal)
The ACLU-NC is representing the ACW, a
group which goes door to door to canvass and
- fundraise for battered women, which hasbeen -
prohibited from.canvassing after the hour of 7
P.M. by a county ordinance.
As the evening hours are the optimal time for
canvassers to communicate with residents, the
time restriction is an unconstitutional limitation
of the free speech rights of ACW members and
Contra Costa residents.
Bailey v. Loggins
(California Supreme Court)
An amicus brief by the ACLU argues that the
First Amendment protects a newspaper edited
by inmates inside the walls of a prison from
_ censorship by the state.
The case arose out of the censorship by
Soledad prison officials of two articles written
in 1976 by the inmates for the prisoners' |
newspaper.
The amicus arguments were presented to
the high court for the second time in August.
Carr v. Warden and Friends of Pacifica
(San Mateo Superior Court)
The ACLU Foundation is defending the Friends
of Pacifica, an environmental organization which
is currently circulating a local growth control
initiative, against a $125,000 slander suit filed in
September by members of the local Planning
Commission.
_ The Planning Commission's slander suit is
based on a statement made by the organiza-
tion's chairperson, as reported in the Pacifica
Tribune, questioning the integrity of "some-
one" on the Planning Commission. The Friends
are named in the suit as well as their chair
because allegedly he was an agent of the
group which "authorized, ratified and ap-
proved the statements . . ."
The ACLU is defending the organization -
claiming that the unjustifiable slander allega-
tionhasa chilling effect on members and those
who wish to associate with the group.
Coughian v. Synanon
(California Court of Appeal) "
The ACLU filed an amicus brief in opposition
to a.San Francisco Superior Court injunction
which prohibited members and supporters of
Synanon from engaging in informational activ-
ities near the homes of KGO TV broadcasters
who had criticized Synanon in the media. The
Case is pending in the Court of Appeal.
Diaz and Prisoners Union v. Watts
(Solano County Superior Court)
Prison Officials at the California Medical Facil-
ity in Vacaville who censored, destroyed and
closed down the prisoner run newspaper
there were ordered by the court in April to
allow the newspaper to resume publication
and to impose no reprisals on the prisoner
newspaper staff after an ACLU challenge to
their actions.
Franklin v. Stanford
(California Court of Appeal)
After ten years of debate and decision with-.
in Stanford University and at the superior court
level, the ACLU will bring to the Court of
Appeal its challenge to the 1972 dismissal of a
tenured professor, Bruce Franklin, for soeeches
made during the height of anti-war campus
protests.
In March, the Santa Clara Superior Court
ruled that the Stanford Advisory Board had not
abused its discretionary power in dismissing
Franklin for anti-war soeeches he made on cam-
pus; the appellate court, however, will con-
sider for the first time in this lengthy case, (c)
whether, as the ACLU is arguing, Franklin's con-
-Stitutional rights were violated by the Stanford
firing.
Gomes v. The Observer
(California Court of Appeal)
A small family-run newspaper is threatened
with closure because of a jury verdict that the
paper must pay $170,000 damages for libel to
a local police officer who was the subject of a
critical editorial. ;
The ACLU is appealing the judgment-
which was reduced to $35,000 after ACLU law-
yers moved for a new trial. In May 1980 the
ACLU won a stay of the money judgment, argu-
ing that until all appeals have been exhausted,
forced payment of damages in a libel suit
operates as an unconstitutional prior restraint
of the press.
Haddad v. Newman
(Monterey County Superior Court)
A former member of the Seaside City Coun-
cil who was recalled by the voters has sued the
- circulators of the recall petition for election
fraud and defamation. The ACLU filed a brief as
amicus curiae in support of a motion to dis-
miss arguing that the circulators of the initiative
were exercising their right to petition under the
federal and state constitutions and cannot be
personally liable for a successful petition effort.
Harris and Ruden v. Superior Court/
Okun v. Superior Court
(California Supreme Court)
Two libel suits claiming millions of dollars in
_ damages bya development corporation against
citizens who had campaigned against their pro-
posed development projects were dismissed
by the California Supreme Court in June. The
corporation based its arguments for defamation
on a letter to the editor, an open letter to the
Mayor and ballot arguments against a proposi-
tion which would have allowed re-zoning to
permit the building of a condominium. In June
1981 the Supreme Court held in accord with an
ACLU amicus brief that the statements were
protected political opinion which can not be
the basis for a defamation judgment.
Hinze v. Superior Court
(California Court of Appeal)
Ahigh school student's right to wear a outton
saying `Fuck the Draft'' was denied by the state
Court of Appeal in June. The student, a junior at
Redwood High School in Marin County, was
represented by the ACLU-NC after being sus- ~
pended from school for wearing the button
during student anti-registration protests.
The case is now moot because Hinze, hav-
ing graduated in June, is no longer a student at
Redwood High School.
international Committee Against Racism
Vv. City of Sacramento
(Sacramento County Superior Court)
In July, the ACLU filed suit against the City of
Sacramento charging that the Sacramento police
used an arsenal of chilling and abusive tactics. .
last year to harass, intimidate, and deter a
totally lawful protest march.
_ Without any justification, participants in a
November 1980 "March Against Racism' were
subject to police detentions, metal detector
searches, body frisks, individual mug shots,
intensive videotape surveillance and a police
escort intended to prevent spectators from
joining the march.
The suit is seeking an injunction prohibiting
police from a repeat performance, destruction
of police photographs and records of the
event, and damages for the violation of the
marchers' freedom of speech and association.
McCoy et. al. v. The Hearst
Corporation et. al. (California Court of Appeal)
The appeal of a 1.6 million dollar libel judg-
ment against two former San Francisco Exam-
iner reporters, Raul Ramirez and Lowell Berg-
man, was filed in April in the Court of Aopeal.
The seven figure libel judgment, awarded by
a San Francisco jury in 1979, was the result of a
suit brought by two city policemen and a
former Assistant District Attorney against the
reporters and the Examiner because of a series
of articles published in 1976 about a contro-
versial murder trial in which a 19-year-old Ching:
town youth was convicted. :
The case strikingly documents the potential
of libel suits for limiting journalistic inquiry into
the activities of public officials. If unchallenged,
the Court decision could result in dangerous
self-censorship by the media for fear of incur-
ring enormous financial liabilities.
. McKamey v. Mt. Diablo Unified
School District
(Contra Costa County Superior Court)
An ACLU suit on behalf of students, teachers,
parents, a taxpayer and the Ms. Foundation, -
`challenges the school board's decision to re-
strict access to MS. magazine to students who
could obtain written permission from a parent
argues is tantamount to censorship.
The suit, filed in September 1980, is pending
in Superior Court.
Pera v. Bay Area Reporter
(San Francisco Superior Court)
In July, two San Francisco police officers,
supported by the Police Officers Association,
filed a $20 million libel suit against the Bay Area
Reporter, a local newspaper covering events
of interest to the gay community. The libel
complaint is based on BAR's coverage of an
open meeting in which several persons spoke
about alleged police brutality against the gay
community.
The ACLU is defending the newspaper and
its publisher, editor and a reporter against the
libel action. An ACLU demurrer asking the court
to dismiss the case was filed in October.
Pina v. Carmel. Unified School District
(U.S. District Court)
In June, the Federal district court agreed
with the ACLU that a school bus driver who
refused to drive after certain hours on religious
grounds and was therefore fired by the schoo!
district, was being discriminated against on
religious grounds in violation of Title VIl of the
Civil Rights Act. He won his job back and has
been paid seven years' back pay.
Schmid v. Lovette
(California Court of Appeal)
The use of a McCarthy era loyalty oath by the
Richmond School District was struck down by
an April Superior Court ruling in an ACLU chal-
lenge. The ACLU represented a teacher who
objected to signing the oath, disavowing mem-
bership in the Communist Party, when applying
for a job with the Richmond School District.
The judge ruled that the oath may no longer
be required of school district employees and
that the state superintendant of public instruc-
tion must write to all school and community
college districts informing them that the oath is
unconstitutional.
The School District has appealed.
Saylor v. City of San Francisco |
(San Francisco Superior Court)
On the eve of the November 1980 elections,
the ACLU filed a taxpayer suit challenging a San
Francisco ordinance which prohibits posting
political signs on public property while permit-
ting the posting of commercial advertising.
City officials agreed that the ordinance was
unconstitutional but the ordinance is still in
effect and the lawsuit is still pending.
Sussli v. City of San Mateo
(U.S. Supreme Court)
A ban on sign posting on public property
imposed by the City of San Mateo was upheld
by the California Court of Appeal in May. The
ACLU, representing a city council candidate
whose election campaign posters were taken
down by the City, appealed the decision limit-
ing political expression, to the U.S. Supreme
Court in October.
U.S. v. Butterworth
(U.S. District Court)
The ACLU is supporting the defense of five
air traffic controllers who have been criminally
charged for participating in the PATCO air con-
trollers strike. This is the first time ever that the
federal government has sought criminal penal-
ties under the federal employees' strike ban.
Only five of the 300 local striking air traffic
controllers are being prosecuted, and all of the
five are union organizers or officers. Therefore, .
the ACLU is arguing that the defendants were
selected for prosecution based on their advo-
cacy of union policies (including the right to
strike), in violation of the First Amendment.
The. arguments raised in the ACLU amicus
brief in support of pre-trial defense motions to
dismiss due to discriminatory prosecution and
for an evidentiary hearing were accepted by
the judge, and the evidentiary hearing was set
for November.
y dads
Pay ong lo)
University of California Nuclear
Weapons Labs Conversion Project
v. Lawrence Livermore Laboratory
(California Court of Appeal)
Schuster v. Imperial County Municipal Court
(U.S. Supreme Court)
In April, the U.S. Supreme Court let stand a
California appeal court decision that people
who distribute anonymous campaign material
can no longer be prosecuted under the state
Election Code.
The ACLU-NC represented the campaigners
charged under the statute, arguing that the
_ Election Code section which prohibited the
distrioution of unsigned election literature is an
unconstitutionally overbroad restraint on free-
dom of expression.
Last year, in an unprecedented First Amend-
ment case, the ACLU convinced the Alameda
Superior Court that Lawrence Livermore Labora-
tory must allow anti-nuclear groups to place
their information in the Lab's Visitors Center
and to use the Lab's auditorium for the showing
of a film about the dangers of nuclear weapons.
~ Lawyers for the University of California, which
administers the Lab for the U.S. Department of
Energy, appealed the decision to the state
Court of Appeal, where it is now under
consideration.
West Contra Costa Coalition Against
U.S. Intervention in El Salvador
v. Hilltop Shopping Center
(Contra Costa Superior Court)
In May, political activists opposing U.S.inter-
vention in El Salvador won the right to distrib-
ute their leaflets, collect petition signatures,
and solicit funds from shoppers at the Hilltop
Shopping Center in Richmond, despite the
mall owners' objections.
The court not only lifted the ban on leafletting
at the shopping center, but, for the first time
since the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark deci-
sion in Robins v. Pruneyard Shopping Center
in March 1980, defined a shopping center's
"time, place and manner regulations" as un-
necessarily burdensome and invalidated them.
' Wexner v. Anderson Union
High School District
(California Court of Appeal)
The ACLU's 1978 challenge to a Shasta
County School Board's ban on the books of
prize winning poet-novelist Richard Brautigan
resulted ina summary judgment from the supe-
rior court in November 1980 that the ban was
unconstitutional and the books must be re-
turned to the school library. The court refused,
however, to order return of the books for class-
room use. Both sides have appealed the case,
which presents the Court of Apeal with the first
opportunity to clarify standards governing
school censorship, an increasing Practice in
California.
EQUAL RIGHTS
Once again, the right of all California
women-regardiess of economic status-
to reproductive freedom dominated our
equal protection litigation. For no sooner
was the ink dry on the landmark Califomia
Supreme Court decision guaranteeing Medi-
Cal funding for abortion than the state
Legislature, in defiance of the court deci-
sion, cut 95% of state abortion funding
from the Medi-Cal budget, necessitating
yet another ACLU challenge.
In our continuing fight against race dis-
crimination, we participated in a success-
ful defense of the affirmative action admis-
sions policy at UC Davis and, following the
dismantling of the court-ordered school
desegregation pian in Los Angeles, are
pursuing a school desegration case in Palo
Alto.
CDRR v. Myers; CDRR v. Cory;
CDRR v. Unruh; CDRR v. Cory Il
_ (California Supreme Court)
"Once the state furnishes medical care to
poor women in general, it cannot withdraw part
of that care solely because a woman exercises
her constitutional right to have an abortion."
These words-part of a 57-page opinion
written by Justice Mathew Tobriner and handed
down by the California Supreme Court in March,
marked the victorious end of a three-year legal
battle by the ACLU-and the beginning of a
new one-to secure Medi-Cal funding for
abortion.
The case challenged provisions in the state
Legislature's Budget Acts of 1978, 1979 and
1980 which had severely restricted Medi-Cal
funds for abortion. Funding had been main-
tained for the three-year period solely because
of stays issued by the court in the ACLU law-
suits. The challenges meant that since 1978,
100,000 women, including 27,000 teenagers,
each year in California have obtained Medi-Cal
funds for abortions.
In June, the California Legislature, in total
disregard of the Supreme Court ruling, the Cali-
fornia Constitution and the principle of the
separation of powers, again cut Medi-Cal abor-
tion funds from the state budget. The ACLU
filed a lawsuit on July 16 against this year's
budget cuts on behalf of the same coalition of
women's groups, welfare rights organizations,
medical practitioners, and abortion providers.
On July 29 the Supreme Court stayed the bud-
get cuts and remitted the case to the Court of
Appeal where the case was heard in October.
De Ronde v. Regents of the University of
California
(California Supreme Court)
The California Supreme Court upheld in Feb-
ruary the constitutionality of the admissions |
policy of the University of California at Davis
Law School, inwhich "ethnic minority status" is
a consideration in selecting appicants.
AnACLU amicus brief argued that a rejected
white applicant's claim that the admissions pol-
icy was unconstitutional was groundless under
both state and federal constitutional equal pro-
tection clauses and that adoption of his conten-
tion would cripple efforts towards racial equal-
jty, dampen the vigor of the legal profession
and severely undermine the sound develop-
ment of California constitutional law.
In October, the U.S. Supreme Court dis-
missed a final appeal by De Ronde and left the
state high court decision standing.
Hatheway v. Secretary of the Army
(U.S. Court of Appeals)
An appeal by the ACLU on behalf of a former
U.S. Army lieutenant seeking a declaration that
his court martial conviction for sodomy and
subsequent discharge from the military was
unconstitutional was rejected by the U.S. Court
of Appeals in April.
The ACLU argued that the ea was discrimi-
natorily applied to homosexuals and that it was
violative of the lieutenant's right to privacy.
Isbister v. Santa Cruz Boys Club
(California Court of Appeal)
A landmark decision oy the Santa Cruz
Superior Court in an ACLU sex discrimination
case which determined that the Boys Club pol-
icy of excluding girls is illegal and that member-
ship in the cluo must be open to children of
both sexes, was appealed by the Boys Club
management and is pending in the state Court
of Appeal.
Michael M. v. Superior Court
(U.S. Supreme Court)
California's statutory rape law, characterized
asa `relic of Victorian attitudes towards female
chastity" because it punishes men who have
sexual intercourse with girls under 18 but per-
mits women to have intercourse with boys
under 18, was upheld by the U.S. Supreme
Court in March, despite ACLU amicus argu-
ments that it violates the equal protection
clause of the constitution.
Preston v. Brown et. al.
(U.S. District Court)
In an unprecedented victory in a gay rights
test case against the Army, a settlement agree-
ment awarding money damages and changing
Army policies with regard to gay civilian
employees of defense contractors was con-
cluded by the ACLU and the Army in Novem-
ber, 1980.
The ACLU agreed that the Army's revocation
of a civilian worker's security clearance on the
grounds that he engaged in homosexual activity
was unconstitutional. The case received wide
public attention as a major challenge to the
Army's policy of discrimination against gay civ-
ilians working for defense contractors.
Tinsley v. Palo Alto Unified School District
(California Court of Appeal)
The ACLU has filed an amicus brief in sup-
- port of alegal challenge to California's Proposi-
tion |-the state constititional amendment ap-
proved by voters in 1979 which puts severe
limitations on busing as a remedy for school.
desegregation. The amicus brief argues that
Proposition | is itself state action to promote
segregation, and consequently violates the
federal constitution.
In a separate case in Los Angeles concerning
school desegregation in that city, the ACLU's
position was rejected by the Court of Appeal
inApril. However, inOctober, the U.S. Supreme
Court agreed to hear the Los Angeles case.
In re Dement and Razo
(California Court of Appeal)
In a case which seemingly places a male
inmate's constitutional right to privacy against
the right to equal employment opportunities of
female correction officers, the ACLU is arguing
that neither right need be compromised. The
ACLU filed an amicus brief in May urging re-
versal of a November 1980 superior court order
which removed all female staff from observa-
tional posts located in the boys' living units of a
Stockton juvenile detention center. The ACLU
claims that the. order should be reversed as
there exist alternatives less drastic than restrict-
ing women's employment opportunities-
such as minor structural changes in the living
units-that would both protect the inmates'
right to privacy and retain the normalizing influ-
ence of a coeducational correctional staff.
PRIVACY
Two of the most significant privacy cases
this year involved the successful defense
of the rights of women who seek abortions
or information about reproductive rights
to do so in private.
We also successfully challenged the inva-
sion of privacy of an employee who was
unjustly fired from a company because she
was living with a man to whom she was not
married, and of 5000 subscribers to a polit-
ical newspaper whose names and addresses
were requested bya local district attorney.
Still pending are cases conceming the
privacy of a psychiatric patient and pretrial
detainees. We are also continuing our pur-
suit under the Public Records Act of intel-
ligence files maintained by the state De-
partment of Justice.
ACLU. v. Deukmejian
(California Supreme Court)
AnACLU suit, originally filed in 1976, is seek-
ing the disclosure of criminal intelligence files
of the Law Enforcement Intelligence Unit (LEIU)
maintained by the Organized Crime and Intel-
ligence Branch of the California Department of
Justice.
The ACLU is arguing, on behalf of its mem-
bers, that the records with personal informa-
tion deleted, should be disclosed under the
state Public Records Act and that the public
has a right to know what type of information the
state Department of Justice is maintaining for
the LEIU.
The court heard arguments for disclosure in
1980, but the case was reheard in August
because of the departure of two Supreme
Court justices.
In an amicus brief in support of the hotel
clerk's appeal, the ACLU is arguing that this
vintage legislation is irreconcilable with a mod-
ern concept of privacy which. prevents the
state from delving so deeply into the intimate
affairs of individuals. The ACLU is contending
that the law is overoroad in that it criminalizes
_ constitutionally protected intimate association,
and that the state may not compel a desk clerk
to invade the privacy of hotel guests by condi-
tioning lodging onan assessment of the patrons'
- possible intentions to engage in sexual activity.
Cathy R. v. Deukmejian
(California Supreme Court)
On behalf of a teenage girl, adoctor, a family
planning counselor, a teacher, a social worker, |
a psychotherapist, a foster parent and Planned (c)
Parenthood, the ACLU challenged a new state
law which required all "child care custodians,
medical and non-medical practitioners" to re-
port to the police all instances of consensual
sexual activity by unmarried teenage girls.
_ A stay on the reporting requirement was
obtained in March; however, in May the Legis- _
lature finally repealed the measure, rendering
the case moot.
De Lancie v. McDonald
(California Supreme Court)
The ACLU again argued before the California
Supreme Court that the San Mateo County Sher-
iff's practice of covert electronic monitoring
and recording of conversations between pris-
oners awaiting trial and their visitors as well as .
between prisoners, violates the California Con-
stitution's guarantee of privacy.
In October 1979, the Court of Appeal agreed
with ACLU arguments that constitutional rights
of privacy cannot be denied prisoners. The
case was argued before the supreme court in
1980, but because of the departure of two
justices from the court, it was reheard in August.
Kilgore v. Younger
(California Supreme Court)
The abosolute privilege accorded to state-
ments by high government officials does not
mean that the Attorney General can publicly
- accuse an individual of "organized crime con-
nections" with total immunity, claimed the |
ACLU ina friend of the court brief.
The ACLU is supporting the efforts of the
plaintiff in his suit against former state Attorney
General Evelle Younger for publicly naming him.
in a press conference as an individual asso-
ciated with organized crime.
Manning v. Municipal Court
(California Court of Appeal)
A hotel desk clerk in Oakland has been
charged with an 1872 law which makes it illegal
for a hotel employee to provide lodgings to
adults who subsequently, in the privacy of their
rented rooms, engage in sexual contact un-
sanctioned by law. _
People v. Avalon Memorial Hospital
(Los Angeles Superior Court)
.A section of the state Health and Safety
Code which required fetal death certificates,
including extensive personal and medical data
about the mother, to be placed on public
record following the termination of pregnan-
cies over 20 weeks, was ruled unconstitutional
by the Los Angeles Superior Court, in February.
The ACLU had challenged the statute, which
was being used to prosecute a major abortion
provider, aS an unconstitutional intrusion of
patients' privacy and a measure which inhib-
ited those wishing to exercise their constitu-
tional right to have an abortion.
Ramo v. Secretary of the Navy
(U.S. Court of Appeals)
AUS. District Court ruling that in the case of
the surveillance of a worker in an overseas
military law project, the Navy and the FBI have
legitimately denied access of their records and
were not required to produce them is currently
pending on an appeal by the ACLU under the
federal Freedom of Information Act.
Schults v. Superior Court
(Galifornia Court of Appeal)
In an amicus brief, the ACLU defended the
privacy rights of a 94-year-old Oroville welfare
recipient and her two-year-old daughter who
were ordered to submit to blood tests, pre-
sumably to establish that an unreported male
allegedly living in their home is the father of the
child.
The ACLU argued that the blood tests are
involuntary bodily intrusions which constitute
an unlawful search and seizure and a violation
of the state right to privacy of both the mother
and the child. The Court of Appeals rejected
the ACLU arguments in February and the Cali-
fornia Supreme Court denied hearing.
Shields v. Household Finance Corporation
(Alameda County Superior Court)
In 1975, an assistant manager at Household
Finance was fired from her job simply because
she was living with her boyfriend. In December
1980 as a result of an ACLU lawsuit, she was
compensated for her dismissal and the com-
pany has agreed that personal living arrange-
ments of an employee may no longer be used
as a criterion to discriminate against that person
in any employment related matter.
Vail v. Superior Court
(California Court of Appeal)
The Court of Appeal ruled in July that dis-
closure to the Alameda County District Attorney
of the names and addresses of 5,000 subdscrib-
ers to the Republican newspaper would be an
intrusion of the constitutional rights of privacy
and freedom of association of innocent by-
standers who have been accused of no wrong-
doing, inagreement with an ACLU amicus brief.
In pursuit of a consumer fraud case against
the publication, formerly the official organ of
the local Republican Party organization, the
Alameda District Attorney asked for and ob-
tained an order requiring the disclosure of all
suoscribers. The ACLU argued that the First
Amendment precludes the government from
discovering whether an individual subscribes
to political publications.
DUE PROCESS
From the due process cases outlined
below, it is clear that the preservation of
basic constitutional rights-against unrea-
sonable searches, presumption of inno-
cence, etc.-against increasingly aggres-
sive police forces made bold by official
governmental pronouncements against
crime, is an important task for the ACLU.
Perhaps no case illustrates this better
than the ACLU's challenge on behalf of two
East Bay women who were strip searched
after being arrested for dog license infrac-
tions. Other cases challenge the San Fran-
cisco police practice of sweeping the
streets of "undesirables," the defense of
an innocent man who had to spend the
night in jail because of a police computer
-error, and the defense of a young man
cited for the vaguely defined offense of
"cruising."
Bazile v. Alioto
(U.S. Supreme Court)
In March 1981, the U.S. Supreme Court de-
clined to review a lower court ruling that the
_city of San Francisco must pay attorneys' fees to
_ the Northern California Police Practices Project
in the 1974 suit which halted the city police
department's unconstitutional stop-and-search
practices in their investigation of the "Zebra"
murders.
The Project, jointly sponsored by the ACLU,
NAACP `Legal Defense Fund and MALDEF,
brought a civil rights suit in federal court along
with other groups on behalf of all black males
who claimed their civil rights had been violatd
or would be violated by the police search
tactics. The federal district judge had ordered
the unconstitutional searches stopped and -
$25,000 in attorneys' fees to be paid to the
project.
receive financial assistance for the costly resi-
dential education their children require.
The goal of the lawsuit is to force San Fran-
cisco education officials to abide by the provi-
sions of the Education for All Handicapped
Children Act, and to stop the practice of break-
ing up families of seriously handicapped chil-
dren who want to obtain the publicly-funded
special education which the law guarantees.
Jamison v. Farabee
(USS. District Court)
In a settlement constituting a breakthrough
for the rights of mental patients, voluntary
patients in all public and private licensed men-
tal health facilities in California for the first time
have the right to refuse psychotropic drugs, as
a result of new regulations from the California
Department of Mental Health generated by an
ACLU lawsuit.
The ACLU lawsuit is still seeking to extend
this right to refuse to involuntary mental patients.
People v. Aguilar
(California Court of Appeal)
The ACLU is representing a young man cited
for "cruising" in violation of a Los Gatos city
ordinance. The ordinance which defines cruis-
ing as "driving for the sake of driving without
immediate destination .. .at random but on the
lookout for possible developments," is being
challenged as overbroad and unconstitutional.
The Superior Court upheld the ordinance and
the case is now before the Court of Appeal.
a wo and fet
colo 25218
People v. Gregory Joseph S.
(California Court of Appeal)
Saimeron v. Glover
(US. District Court, District of Columbia)
The right to silence in a pre-custody situation
was the primary issue in the ACLU appeal on
behalf of a boy convicted of obstructing a
police officer because he refused to answer
the officer's questions about an incident in
which the boy was suspected of harassing a
neighbor.
In February, the Court of Appeal upheld the
`right to silence but affirmed the conviction on
the ground that the conduct constituted ob- -
struction.
People v. Mayberry
(California Supreme Court)
The ACLU has filed an amicus brief in sup-
port of an appeal by an airlines passenger who
was convicted of transporting marijuana after
his bags, along with the luggage of all other
passengers coming from Florida to San Diego,
were sniffed by a police dog. The ACLU is
arguing that such exploratory surveillance by
narcotics sniffing dogs is unconstitutional.
The friend of the court brief contends that
sniffing all luggage is arbitrary and unreason-
able, that such a practice violates reasonable
expectations of privacy, and that the court
should not condone police practices which
subject every person's effects to surveillance
by the police without a warrant or probable
Cause.
Christopher T. v. San Francisco Unified
_ School District, et. al.
(U.S. District Court)
In December 1980, the ACLU-NC joined the -
national ACLU's Children's Rights Project and
Legal Services for Children in a class action suit
on behalf of handicapped children who are
being denied educational benefits accorded
to them by law.
Parents of handicapped children, in San
Francisco and elsewhere, have been forced to
relinquish custody of their children in order to
People v. Blacklock
(Santa Clara Municipal Court)
People v. Spain
(U.S. District Court)
The ACLU is representing a woman charged -
under a Santa Clara city ordinance which pro-
hibits loitering near business establishments
without the express or implied permission of
the business.
The defense is based on a challenge to the
city ordinance as overbroad and unconstitu-
tional because it confers discretion on business
owners to arbitrarily exclude persons from
public places.
Design by Glama Graphics
1663 Mission St., San Francisco, CA 94103.
oa SS) eee Ee ee ee Ee ee ee es es ae
i I wish to support the legal work of the ACLU Foundation.
| am enclosing a tax-deductible contribution of $
to the ACLU Foundation.
a Name
. Address
A Telephone
: City State `Zip
i Please make all checks payable to the ACLU-NC Foundation and mail to
The conviction of a Black Panther Party mem-
ber for offenses rising out of a 1971 uprising at
San Quentin Prison was upheld by the State (c)
Court of Appeal despite the ACLU amicus con-
tention that the shackling of a defendant to his
chair during the trial and the improper contact
between the judge and the jurors were in bla-
tant disregard of the due process rights of the
defendant. These same arguments on behalf of
Spain are being made in support of a habeus
corpus petition currently pending in federal
district court.
Ramey v. Murphy
(San Francisco Superior Court)
For the second time in recent years the ACLU
is suing the San Francisco Police Department
for using an obstruction of sidewalks law as a
means of jailing people who would not other-
wise be punished by legal means.
The suit, filed in November 1980, is seeking
an injunction and a declaration that the discrim-
inatory enforcement by the police of Section
647c of the Penal Code to sweep the streets of
"undesirables" is unconstitutional and illegal.
The case should come to trial in early 1982.
A 1979 suit, Ramey v. Gain, achieved the
discontinuance of a city ordinance, Police
Code Sections 20a and 206, which had also
been used by police to harass and arrest per-
sons on the street.
Two children, who were kidnapped and
hidden from their father despite his having
custody rights, by the U.S. Marshal Federal Wit-
ness Protection Program, were returned to him
in May after an ACLU-NC lawsuit.
The successful suit claimed that the children,
who were being hidden by the program with
their mother and her boyfriend, a federal wit-
ness against the Hell's Angels, had been
denied their inherent right to maintain a natural
child-parent relationship, and their First Amend-
ment right to liberty and family life; the same
rights were denied the father.
Tom v. City of San Francisco |
(San Francisco Superior Court)
An innocent man was arrested and impris-
oned on his way to a friend's house because
the police computer system (PIN) erroneously
transmitted information to the arresting officer
that he was a "wanted man."
The ACLU filed suit last October representing
the innocent victim, claiming that his improper
arrest and detention violated the Fourth Amend-
ment-the right to be free from unreasonable
searches and from warrants issued without
proper cause-and Is seeking a declaration of
his innocence, damages, and the destruction
of his arrest record.
Torrey v. Houchins
(Alameda Superior Court)
On behalf of a former inmate of Santa Rita
who was forcibly raped by another inmate
while in the presence of two deputy sheriffs,
the ACLU is suing Alameda County and the
Sheriff's Department claiming that the system-
atic indifference to prisoners' rights and safety
at the jail and the subsequent endangerment of
prisoners is a violation of the constitutional
guarantee of freedom from cruel and unusual
punishment. The case will likely go to trial inthe
spring. The California Court of Appeal is pres-
ently considering a related matter concerning
the degree to which Mr. Torrey must disclose
his private sex life in pretrial hearings.
The ACLU-NC Foundation 1981 Annual
Report was prepared by ACLU News editor
Elaine Elinson.