vol. 47, no. 8

Primary tabs

Volume XLVII


November-December 1982 :


Richmond Marchers Win Permii


An eleventh hour decision by the U.S.


Court of Appeals - following a "`hear-


ing'' conducted over a five-way long dis-


tance conference call - ensured that


protestors demonstrating against racism -


and police abuse in Richmond would


have permission for their October 23


march through the city.


The court order, issued at 8 PM Fri-


day night, just hours before the scheduled


march was about to begin, came in re-


sponse to an ACLU challenge to the


denial of a march permit by the Rich-


- mond Police Department.


The permit victory by ACLU staff


counsel Amitai Schwartz and Alan


Schlosser followed a week of hectic ne-


gotiations and litigation so that the


demonstration, sponsored by the


Richmond NAACP and the Berkeley-


Albany-Richmond-Kensington Chapter


of the ACLU, could proceed..


Donald Cunningh


to City Attorney Malcolm Hunter, but


Hunter refused to reverse the police de-


partment's decision.


On Wednesday, a press conference


was held at the NAACP headquarters in


Richmond to announce that the protest


was going to proceed and that the ACLU


was going to federal court to obtain the


permit.


"*This march is an immediate response


to a long-standing and as yet unresolved


crisis caused by racism in Richmond,''


Macklin told the press conference. ``The


people of Richmond have been pa-


tient .. . that patience has been repaid


with more grieving families, more racist


beatings and abuse."' 3


ACLU Executive Director Dorothy


Ehrlich said that ``a vital First Amend-


ment principle was at stake as the com-


munity was seeking to express its deep


concerns through lawful, peaceable


20-day Wait Over 400 people marched in Richmond to protest racism and police abuse on assembly."'


October 23 only hours after a federal appeals court issued an order ve me "It is ironic that the Richmond po-


On Monday, October 18, Daphne Richn.ond police department's denial Moat) permit. 2 ee lice - the target of the community's


Macklin of the NAACP and James


-Chanin of the B-A-R-K ACLU Chapter


applied for a permit for the Saturday


march and rally. The demonstration was


called by the two groups to protest police


~ abuse in the city and to express com-


munity outrage over the ``chokehold'"'


death of Willie Lee Drumgoole, an un-


armed black man iio died in the Rich-


mond Jail on September 28. Drumgoole


was the fourth black man in two years to


die at the hands of the Richmond Police


Department.


Richmond Police Lieutenant John


Neely denied the permit application,


Book Ban Appealed


With book censorship on the upswing


in classrooms around the country, the


ACLU-NC is still fighting for the lifting


of the ban on five books by prize-


winning poet-novelist Richard Brautigan


from high school classes in Shasta


County.


Last year, the Shasta County Superior


Court ruled in the case of Wexner v.


Anderson Union High School District


that the novels and poetry collections in


question should be returned to the school


library shelves, but not to the classrooms


after the ACLU challenged the school


board's ban.


Both the school board and the ACLU


are appealing the superior court ruling -


the school board arguing that the com-


plete ban should be maintained and the


ACLU that the classroom ban should be


lifted.


The appeal filed by ACLU co-


operating attorney Ann Brick in the


Court of Appeal in October argues that


the prohibition on the use of the books in


classrooms violates the constitutional


rights of the students and the teacher.


Developmental Reading teacher V.I.


Wexner explained that the books have


made a contribution in sparking an in-


terest in reading in his students. ``Many


students are discouraged from reading,"'


he noted, ``because the books available


to them seem dull and uninteresting."'


Wexner attempted to remedy the


problem by providing students with a


wide range of books, including the


Brautigan books. For at least two of his


students, he said, the Brautigan books


played a significant role in encouraging


them to read more, and for another the


books actually marked a turning point in


her educational development.


Brick amplified that theme in her


argument to the appellate court, `"To de-


prive students of this opportunity


because others in the community find the


books distasteful, is not only a violation


of the Constitution, it is a waste of a


potentially valuable educational


resource."'


stating that a city ordinace required ap-


plicants to request a parade permit at


least twenty days before a scheduled


event.


When Macklin and Chanin attempted


to appeal the permit denial to the City


Council, the city clerk told them that all


council members were out of the city and


had canceled their Monday night meet-


ing. The next council meeting would not


be held until the following Monday. The


organizers were caught in a Catch-22


situation: they could not appeal the


march permit until two days after the


scheduled march. :


ACLU attorney Schwartz complained


Tenth Annual


Bill of Rights Day


Celebration


Sunday, December 5


Sheraton Palace Hotel


San Francisco


1982 Civil Liberties Award will be presented to:


Vilma Martinez


Keynote Speaker


Tom Wicker


No-Host Bar 4-5 PM


Tickets $7.00


protest - are the same people who have


the power to deny a permit for the


march,"' she added.


San Jose Hearing


When Schwartz and Schlosser went to


file the suit in U.S. District Court in San


Francisco, they were. told the hearing


would be held that afternoon - in San


Jose. The two attorneys rushed to San


Jose, where Judge William Ingram, after


a brief hearing, refused to grant the


permit.


On Thursday, they filed an appeal in


the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. As


they were told that a decision would not


continued on p. 4


Program 5 - 7


For Tickets see Doo


2 aclu news


nov.-dec. 1982


An Open Letter to Our Members


Can We Meet the Challenge?


George Deukmejian will become Governor on January 3, 1983. He has built much


of his political career on an assault against principles which civil libertarians embrace


- the right to reproductive freedom, the right to be free of overreaching government


surveillance, the right to associate peaceably with others without government


interference or restraint, the right to an independent judiciary.


The Governor is given the broad power and responsibility to ``supervise the official


conduct of all executive and ministerial officers'' of the state. Additionally, he


appoints most executive officers and the state judiciary. He prepares the budget and


has the power to veto the entire budget or individual items in it.


How will George Deukmejian use this authority? A look at some highlights of his


record as an elected official over the last sixteen years reveals the following sobering


information:


ethe Governor-elect sponsored the law to reinstate the death penalty in


California (SB-166, 1977). Since that time he has campaigned for its use, and asked


that the lengthy appeal process be quickened. There are currently 104 people under


sentence of death in California.


ethe Governor-elect wrote the ``use a gun go to prison'' legislation (SB-277, 1976)


which deprives judges of their traditional discretion to insure that sentencing is


tailored to the facts of each crime and the character of the accused.


(R)the Governor-elect has been the perennial sponsor of legislation to permit govern-


ment wiretapping of private phones. In fact, as Attorney General he aggressively


sought state legislation which would have required infiltration of ``extremist'' groups


in order to assess a group's "`potential for violence."


ethe Governor-elect publicly pledged to halt Medi-Cal funding for abortion sought


by poor women in California. As Attorney General he was an aggressive foe against


the ACLU-NC's successful crallenes to the Legislature's cut-off of Medi-Cal


funding for abortion.


- the Governor-elect, as Attorney General, was sharply criticized by the ACLU-NC


and the Bar Association for suggesting a political litmus test for potential appellate


court judges. He sent a questionnaire to judicial candidates asking them to indicate


how they would vote on cases involving his pet concerns such as the death penalty,


ACLU-NC claimed that his probing directly interfered with the existence of an


independent judiciary.


There are, of course, many examples of individuals who, upon their ascent to


power, alter their philosophy about the rights of individuals and the responsibility of


leaders to protect those rights. Such insight may emerge. In the meantime, however,


the ACLU-NC must be prepared to re-double its efforts in order to respond to a


hostile administration in the state capitol.


As, we are already faced with one hostile administration in the White House, we


now have the distinction of responding to two executive branches of government -


both state and federal - that have shown little inclination to defend the Constitution


and the Bill of Rights.


This is not a question of ean politics. There lave been shifts of power from one


party to another before. That is not our concern here. As you know, the ACLU is


non-partisan and does not endorse or oppose candidates for public office. But we will


make certain that, whatever changes may occur in the political arena, the Constitu-


tion does not become a casualty of the new order.


You will find in this issue of the ACLU News a copy of our 1982 docket detailing


the accomplishments of the ACLU Foundation of Northern California's legal


program. While we are proud of these achievements we recognize that this docket


will have to grow in order to respond to the challenges for civil libertarians which are


"The ACLU-NC must be prepared to re-double its efforts


in order to respond to a hostile administration in the


State capitol. "'


which would undoubtedly come before the justices if they were to be appointed.


City Sued Over `Escort' Rule


An ACLU amicus brief challenging


the constitutionality of a 1981 San Fran-


cisco ordinance which establishes a com-


prehensive regulatory system for the


broadly defined category of ``escort ser-


vices' was filed on October 15 in the


state Court of Appeal.


Among other provisions, the ordin-


ance requires that escort services (broad-


ly defined to include all services which


furnish persons to consort with others


for a fee) to maintain a daily register,


open to the police and health depart-


ment, showing names of patrons, their


escorts, the places they went, and the fee


charged.


A taxpayer and an attorney challenged


the ordinance in San Francisco Superior


Court claiming that the ordinance's def-


initions of ``escort service'' and ``escort"


are so broad and so vague as to apply to


every association for compensation -


from babysitting to rental agents - that


it clearly violates the First Amendment


right to freedom of association.


The superior court, however, refused


to issue an injunction barring use of the


ordinance and the ACLU supported the


appeal to the Court of Appeal.


The ACLU amicus brief, written by |


cooperating attorney Stephen Cone,


argues that the enforcement mechanism |


in the ordinance violates the California


Constitution's guarantee of privacy.


As Cone argues, `"The city contends


that it is necessary to regulate escort


services for the public health, safety and


welfare because escort services are


closely connected with prostitution and


other illegal activities. Assuming that


such a connection exists, at least to some.


escort services, the fact remains that the


ordinance applies to all escort services


and to all patrons of escort services, in-


cluding those with completely legitimate


motives. -


- **Thus, the privacy rights involved in


this case are, in many instances, those of


innocent individuals engaging in lawful


associational activities,' he said.


Cone noted that the city had not


proven any compelling state interest to


justify these instrusions into an escort


service patron's private life. "`There is


not even a rational relationship between


the city's acquisition of patron informa-


tion and the city's desire to protect


patrons from becoming the victims of


unscrupulous escort services,"' he said.


The ACLU is requesting that the court


hold the ordinance unconstitutional on


privacy grounds and enjoin the city from


enforcing those portions of the ordinance


relating to the retention and monitoring


of patron information. .


Paterson to Nat'l. Post


ACLU-NC Vice Chairperson Eva Jef-


ferson Paterson was elected in October


as a Vice Chair of the national ACLU


Board of Directors. Paterson has served


for three years as the representative of


the Northern California affiliate to the


national ACLU Board.


bound to confront us in the coming years.


Right now I am drafting our budget for 1983. That budget must plan to finance


ACLU-NC's work in the front lines of the battle to preserve civil liberties. We may


end 1982 with a deficit - we may not be able to raise the funds necessary to meet our


budgeted expenses. With that deficit in mind, I fear having to cutback on our


program in the midst of this civil liberties crisis. I don't believe we can afford to take


such a step, and for that reason I am asking all of our supporters to consider making


an additional gift in 1982 to insure that our current program will continue.


You can help us in any of the following ways this December:


eRenew your membership. Almost 7,000 new members came' `to the ACLU-NC in


1981 - joining 12,000 current members. We hope that all of our members will recog-


nize the danger we face and take action by renewing their membership before the end


of the year.


centBill of Rights and Major Gifts campaigns. About 1,000 of you have been asked for


a special tax-deductible donation to the ACLU Foundation of Northern California


through our Bill of Rights Celebration and Major Donor programs. Some of you


have met with Board members and Chapter activists. Others have received telephone.


calls from ACLU volunteers. If you have not yet responded, please do. If you have


already responded and can afford an additional gift from $100 to $1,000, I hope you


will consider this now.


centDecember Special Appeal. Many of you will also receive a special appeal from me


in December in which I will focus in detail on what the election results mean to our


work-in California. Please take the time to read this carefully and consider mailing a


special year-end contribution.


I am asking you because we must rely upon you - our supporters - to insure that


we not cut our program which has so effectively responded to the current threats.


These are unmistakably hard times. They are hard times for the economy. Being an


election year, I know many of you already gave generously to causes and candidates


which you care deeply about. But now that the campaign posters are down and the


ads are off the air, the ACLU-NC has an extraordinary campaign to wage - to save


constitutional rights here in California and across the nation. You have allowed us to |


respond in the past. I trust you will make this extra effort now to insure our effective-


ness in the future.


Dorothy Ehrlich


Executive Director


P.S. Please call if you need special information about tax-deductible gifts to the


ACLU Foundation of Northern California, or about any other questions concerning


your year-end gift. Michael Miller, our Associate Director, or I will be happy to


respond to your questions at (415) 621-2493. Thank you.


aclu news


et issues a year, monthly except bi-monthly in January-February, ee -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 {


Elaine Elinson, Editor Marcia Gallo, Chapter Page ig


ACLU NEWS (USPS 018-040)


1663 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 50 cents is for the national ACLU-bi-monthly publication, Civil Liberties.


Bill of Rights Day


A `Bright Idea' Becomes a Tradition


"Is it only ten years?'' asked Board


member Frances Strauss lifting an in-


credulous eyebrow when asked how she


felt about working on the tenth anniver-


sary of ACLU-NC's Bill of Rights Day


Celebration. `"It seems like both the


event and I have been around alot longer


than that!'' she laughed.


Largely because of the work of


Strauss, organizer of the first and subse-


quent Bill of Rights Day Celebrations,


the yearly ACLU-NC event does seem


more like a venerable institution than a


mere ten-year old.


Fran Strauss (1.), organizer of the first


Bill of Rights Day Celebration a decade


ago, passes on trade secrets to J.R.


Rubin, the 1982 Campaign Committee


chair.


As the annual culmination of the


ACLU _ Foundation's fund-raising


campaigns, the Bill of Rights Day Cele-


bration is,a major focus of attention for-


the ACLU-NC Board, staff, chapters,


activists and friends for many months:


1500 letters go out to supporters, over 75


volunteers from 15 chapters spend many


hours calling potential donors, intense


preparations are made for the program,


press announcements, the site, the


honored guests.


J.R. Rubin, chair of this year's Bill of


Rights Day Celebration, said, ``The


fundraising campaign and the event itself


is a massive organizing effort - with


literally hundreds of people involved.''


Death Penalty


Project Grant


The ACLU Foundation of Northern


`California gave a $1000 grant to the


Anti-Death Penalty Project of the Geor-


gia ACLU in October. Gifts from the


ACLU-NC and other large affiliates


have now secured the funding for the


first year of operation of the Anti-Death


Penalty Project.


_ Patsy Morris, Case Monitor at the


Georgia affiliate, explains, `"The pres-


ence of an attorney in the ACLU of


Georgia office to work with other law-


yers handling death penalty cases will


significantly reduce the number of `em-


ergencies' which we have encountered in


the past. Recruiting new attorneys will be


easier because meaningful assistance will


now be available to them."'


More than 90 people are currently


awaiting death sentences in Georgia. The


ACLU Foundation of Georgia has been


coordinating the massive job of attempt-


ing to secure volunteer counsel for death


row inmates and acting as an ``emer-


gency'' resource for those under sentence


of death.


But it wasn't always like this.


Strauss told the ACLU News that a


decade ago, she and the late Ralph At-


kinson, then Chairperson of the ACLU- |


NC Foundation, were putting their heads


together for fundraising ideas for the or-


ganization.


`"`We had the bright idea,'"' she ex-


plained, ``of putting on a major event on


a day which was very important to all of


- us, the anniversary of the Bill of Rights. -


We wanted to use that event both to


honor outstanding civil liberties leaders


and mobilize support for the ACLU of


Northern California."'


Strauss said that the idea really caught


on with the Board and the staff and "`we


pulled out all the stops,'' her incredulous


eyes now twinkling.


Former Chief Justice Earl Warren


showed up and accepted the first casting


of the annual award which was named


for him. Stanford law professor An-


thony Amsterdam, one of the nation's


leading opponents of the death penalty,


received the first award. Noted muck-


raker and political commentator I.F.


Stone flew in from Washington, D.C. to


give the keynote address.


"We filled the Geary Theater and


raised $20,000,'' said Strauss. ``Once we


saw those results, there was no turning


back and so, we began planning the next


year's event.


"`And that,'' she added, "`is how a


bright idea turned into a tradition."


"This year's Bill of Rights Day Cam-


paign goal is $70,000," said Rubin, chair


of the 1982 campaign. ``As' I've learned


from Fran, it takes alot of people putting


in alot of time to achieve those results."'


`All of these efforts will be rewarded


at our big Celebration on December 5 at


the Sheraton Palace. Noted Chicana


civil rights leader Vilma Martinez will


receive the tenth annual Earl Warren


Civil Liberties Award and the keynote


address on `Civil Liberties and Crime'


will be given by New York Times asso-


ciate editor Tom Wicker.


`The Bluestein Family is sure to raise


everyone's spirits with their American


folk, blues and reggae songs - and the (c)


Lola Hanzel Advocacy Award will be


presented to an outstanding ACLU


volunteer,' Rubin said. Then, with his


eyebrow beginning to lift, he added `"`We


anticipate filling the 1!000-seat Grand


Ballroom at the Sheraton Palace Hotel."'


This year's fundraising efforts have


been greatly enhanced by chapter partici-


pation, particularly in the Campaign


Committee. In addition to Rubin, mem-


bership includes: Berkeley - Peter Hag-


berg; Earl Warren - Rose Bonhag,


Harold Boyd, Michael Coppersmith,


Elizabeth Laurenson, William Ovid,


Larry Polansky, Gerry Roscelli, Leonard


Weiler; Gay Rights - Bill Ingersoll;


Mid-Peninsula - Harry Anisgard, Peter


Giamalis, Ted Mill, Larry Sleizer; Mt.


Diablo - Beverly Bortin, David Bortin,


Barbara Susskind Eaton, Howard Gon-


salves; North Peninsula - Sylvia Block,


Richard Keyes, Sidney Scheiber; Sacra-


mento - Corley, Nanette Kelley; San


Francisco - Bob Teets; Santa Cruz -


L. Ed Clemens, Blanche Greenberg;


Sonoma - Andrea Learned, Barbara


Stirton, Lynn Young; Yolo - Paul


Craig, Richard Guarino, Casey


McKeever, Cindy Parker, Harry Roth,


Rudy Rubio, Makepeace Tsao; Julius


Young; and At Large - Gordon Brown-


ell, Dick Grosboll, William C. McNeill


III, Steven Owyang.


The Bill of Rights Day Celebration is


from 5-7 PM at the Sheraton Palace


Hotel on Sunday, December 5. Tickets


are $7.00 each and are still available by


phoning the ACLU at 415/621-2488.


aclu news


nov.-dec. 1982


Woman Juror


Appeals


In September, the ACLU filed an ap-


peal on behalf of Carolyn Bobb, the


woman juror who was jailed for con-


tempt because she would not answer a


question asked only of female jurors.


Bobb had explained to the Monterey


Municipal Court judge during the jury


selection procedure that she would


answer the question about her husband's


occupation only if male jurors were also


asked about their wives. The judge re-


fused to do so, and ordered Bobb to


answer the question. When she declined,


she was found in contempt and taken


into custody where she was searched and


her property inventoried.


At the sentencing hearing later that


day, Bobb, a Monterey County attorney,


stated that she believed she was entitled


to various due process rights (including


the right to a trial and the right to coun-


sel) and requested a continuance. That


request was denied.


ACLU-NC cooperating attorney


Katherine Stoner requested an annul-


ment of the charges against Bobb in


Monterey Superior Court; however, in


March the superior court upheld the


contempt charge.


The ACLU appeal in the Court of


Appeal is based both on sex discrimina-


tion and due process grounds. As Stoner


explained, ``The chief issue in this appeal


is the right of each female citizen to be


treated by the courts of this state in an


evenhanded manner, free from the de-


bilitating effect of outmoded stereotypes


of dependency. ;


"If the judgment is reversed on the


basis of Carolyn Bobb's due process


claim, I hope that the court will also ad-


dress the equal protection issue. In either


case, Bobb will be vindicated and the


courts of this state will know that such


discriminatory treatment of female citi-


zens in the courtroom cannot be tol-


erated,'' Stoner added.


Zebra Girl KO's Coed Boxing Ban


Shirley `"`Zebra Girl'? Tucker, Cali-


fornia's women's boxing champion, has


won another bout - this time against


the State Athletic Commission. .


With the help of ACLU cooperating


attorneys Trudy Ernst and Suzanne


Mellard and staff counsel Margaret


Crosby, Zebra Girl Tucker dealt a -


knockout blow to the SAC's prohibition


of coeducational boxing matches.


The fight went several rounds before


the SAC rule barring male-female boxing


matches went down on the count.


Tucker, a champion boxer with years


of experience, felt that she was profes-


sionally ready to fight a man, but was


being prohibited from doing so by an


SAC regulation which states ``'No appli-


cant shall be contracted for or engaged in


a contest between a male and a female."'


Tucker, who had been seconded by


the ACLU in a 1978 bout with the SAC


over the length of women's boxing


matches, again turned to the ACLU for


assistance in her latest challenge.


In a series of letters and oral presenta-


tions to the SAC, ACLU attorneys Ernst


and Mellard, both of the San Francisco


law firm of Cooley, Godward, Castro,


Huddleston and Tatum, argued that the


ban on coeducational boxing matches


was in violation of the equal protection


Shirley ``Zebra Girl'? Tucker knocked


out the State Athletic Commission's pro-


hibition on coed boxing matches.


guarantees of the federal law and state


constitutions.


"The state may not draw distinctions


between the rights it grants to men and


those it grants to women, unless the dis-


tinction is necessary to further a com-


pelling state interest,'' Ernst explained.


"There is no such interest here,'' she


added.


"`Moreover,'' Ernst continued, `"`the (c)


California Constitution explicitly pro-


hibits exclusion from a profession based


on sex. The SAC regulation seems to be


a variation of the objection that has been


raised whenever women have first sought


to enter a traditionally male field - and


is based on the generalization that most


women cannot fight most men competi-


tively and safely. -


"It is exactly this kind of generaliza-


`tion that cannot constitutionally be


made,"' Ernst told the Commission.


ACLU staff attorney Margaret Cros-


by pointed out, ``Tucker is a profession-


al boxer - boxing is her source of in-


come and support for her two children. -


She cannot be deprived of her potential


earnings because of a discriminatory


regulation."'


On November 5, Mellard travelled to


Los Angeles to reiterate the ACLU argu-


ments to the SAC. There, under threat


of an ACLU lawsuit, the SAC abrogated


its regulation barring coed boxing


matches - and ``Zebra Girl'? Tucker


may well be on her way to another


championship.


4 aclu news


nov.-dec. 1982


Richmond March Permit


continued from p. I


_ be made until the following day, copies


of the law suit were delivered to the


ACLU affiliate in Washington, D.C., in


case a last minute appeal to the U:S.


Supreme Court was necessary.


On Friday evening, the ``hearing'' on


the appeal took place over the telephone


with Schwartz and City Attorney


Malcolm Hunter presenting _ their


positions to federal judges Cecil Poole


and Arthur Alarcon.


The late night order from the appellate


court allowed the march and rally to pro-


ceed on the sidewalks of Richmond in-


stead of the street.


The spirited march and rally was at-


tended by 400 persons. Though over 100


reserve officers provided security for the


demonstration under the supervision of


Lt. John Neely, there were no incidents


or arrests.


Rule Challenged


`The ACLU is continuing to challenge


the constitutionality of the 20-day rule


for march permits in Richmond. The


case, NAACP v. Richmond, is still


pending in U.S. District Court.


Schwartz explained, ``The 20-day time


period is an arbitrary condition placed


on people who are seeking permits for


lawful political protests.


some logic for regularly scheduled events


like a Thanksgiving Day or circus par-


ade, when - know far enough


It may have |


US POSTAL SEAViCE


STATEMENT OF OWNERSHIP) USACE MENT. AND CIRCULATION


ACLU NEWS


OF ISSUE


monthly/bi-mon


[elo] qo


A [ OF ISSUES PUBLISHED 8.


moe 5


thly -


2 DATE OF FILING


27 Sept. 1982


INUAL


Demonceators prec connmninity


outrage at police abuse in Richmond.


in advance exactly when the event will


be.


"But - as the Richmond NAACP


march so clearly illustrates - when it is


imposed in such a way as to prevent a


timely protest to a current political situa-


tion, the regulation becomes a burden-


some and unnecessary barrier to the ex-


ercise of First Amendment rights,"'


Schwartz added.


My. County, Stete and ZIP


$ OF KNOWN OFFICE OF PUBLICATION (S/rgat, C


e U8


Code) (Not printers)


"a. COMPLETE MAILING ADORES:


ACLUCNC 1663 Ai


fornia 94103


JUSINESS OFFICES OF


A hearing on the 20-day regulation is


expected shortly.


- Cunningham


a iG


TOTAL AMOUNT OF BONDS, MORTGAGES OR OTMER SECURITIES (If t


Ben Ginden


Ben Ginden, a member of the


Santa Clara Chapter board of direc-.


tors, died on October 2 after a three


year battle with cancer.


A native of Des Moines, Iowa,


Ginden began working at the age of


nine and later became a merchant sea-


man. After migrating to California,


el net prove run shown in A)


17,500 19,500


EDITOR. PUBLISHEN, BUSINESS.


11 I certify that the statements made by


me above are correct and complete - lias DU E hilor


he became a successful businessman


Vic Ulmer said, ``Ginden was a life-


long worker for civil liberties and


human rights and was respected by all


(See Instruction on reverse) _


( ) Individual $20


(


( ) Joint $30


and an additional contribution of $----


This is a gift membership from


who worked with him as a man who


had the courage of his convictions."'


]


for Claus


Join the ACLU


B.A.R.K.


BOARD MEETING: (Fourth Thursday


each month.) Contact Joe Dorst, 415/


654-4163 for meeting time and place.


CAMPUS ACLU: A U.C. Berkeley


group open to students, faculty, and


staff interested in civil liberties - on-


campus talks, rallies, and events. Con-


tact Liz Zeck, 415/848-4038, for more


information.


EARL WARREN


BOARD MEETING: (Third Wednesday


each month.) Wednesday, December 15;


Wednesday, January 19. 7:30 p.m.,


Sumitomo Bank, 20th and Franklin


Streets, Oakland. Contact Barbara Litt-


win, 415/452-4726.


CORRECTION. Congratulations


should have been offered to Dennis


Rothaar, the new Earl Warren Chap-


ter Secretary, in last month's Election


Results listing.


FRESNO


BOARD MERTING: Wednesday, De-


cember 15; Wednesday, January 19.


Contact Scott Williams, 209/441-1611.


GAY RIGHTS


BOARD MEETING: (Last Tuesday


each month.) Tuesday, December 28;


Tuesday, January 25. 7:00 p.m., ACLU


office, 1663 Mission, San Francisco.


Contact Doug Warner, 415/621-2493.


MARIN


BOARD MEETING: (Third Monday


each month.) Monday, December 20;


Monday, January 17. 8:00 p.m., Fidelity


Savings, Throckmorton Street, Mill


Valley. "


PUBLIC FORUM: The Draft - at-


torney Charles Johnson, author of Don't


Sit In The Draft, will speak on Wednes-


day, December 8 at the Mill Valley Com-


munity Center, Sunnyside and E.


Blithesdale, Mill Valley. Contact Milton ~


Estes, 415/383-6622.


MID-PEN


BOARD MEETING: (Last Thursday


each month.) Thursday, December 30, |


FORUM: (Fourth Tuesday each month,


_alternating board meetings and forums.)


Tuesday, January 25. Contact Richard


Criley, 408/624-7562.


MT. DIABLO


BOARD MEETING: (Usually third


Thursday each month.) Contact 415/


939-ACLU for December meeting


schedule and holiday celebration plans.


NORTH PEN


BOARD MEETING: (Please note day


change to third Monday each month.)


Monday, December 20; Monday, Jan-


uary 17; 8:00 p.m. Contact Richard


Keyes, 415/367-8800.


SACRAMENTO


Name ELECTION RESULTS: Congratula: hardship discharges and other aspects


tions to Mary Gill, chapter president, of military law. -


Address Paul Jorjorian, vice-president; Don Tar- Other speakers include military and


anto, secretary; and Myra Schimke, draft law specialists from CCCO,


City Zip treasurer. A Separate Peace and the NLG Mili-


BOARD MEETING: (Third Wednesday


Calendar ===


of the Assembly Criminal Justice Com-


mittee, will present an informal talk at


the regular board meeting on Wednes-


day, January 19, 7:30 p.m. All board


meetings are held at the New County


Administration Building, 7th and I


Streets, Hearing Room I, Sacramento.


Contact Mary Gill, 916/457-4088


(evenings).


SAN FRANCISCO


BOARD MEETING: All members in-


vited to the regular meeting of the chap-


ter board, Tuesday, November 30, 6:00


p.m., at ACLU, 1663- Mission, San


Francisco. Enjoy wine and sandwiches,


and meet your chapter board members.


For more information, and RSVP, con-


tact Chandler Visher, 415/391-0222.


VACANCIES now exist on the San


Francisco Chapter Board. Contact


Chandler Visher, number above, for


more information.


SANTA CLARA


BOARD MEETING: (First Tuesday


each month.) Tuesday, December 7;


Tuesday January 4. 7:30 p.m., Com-


munity Bank Building, San Jose. Con-


tact Vic Ulmer, 408/379-4431 (evenings).


SANTA CRUZ


BOARD MEETING: (Second Wednes-


day each month.) Wednesday, December


8; Wednesday, January 12; 8:00 p.m.


Louden Nelson Center, Santa Cruz.


- Contact Bob Taren, 408/429-9880.


SONOMA


ANNUAL DINNER now being planned


for January. Contact Andrea Learned,


707/544-6911 or 707/546-9516


(evenings) for more information.


BOARD MEETING: (Third Thursday


each month.) Thursday, December 16;


Thursday, January 20. 7:30 p.m. Center


for Employment Training, 3755 Santa


Rosa Avenue, Santa Rosa. Contact An-


drea Learned, number above.


STOCKTON


_ ANNUAL HOLIDAY FUNDRAISER


is scheduled for Sunday, Decem-


ber 5; 4:00 to 7:00 p.m. For more in-


1 listed in ``Who's Who in the West,"' 8:00 p.m. Contact Harry Anisgard, 415/ formation, contact Bart Harloe, 209/


i and internationally known by rose 856-9186. 946-243].


: : fanciers for his development of `"The


16,650 18.718 Living Fence."' MONTEREY YO LO


ee a eS Santa Clara Chapter chairperson BOARD MEETING / PUBLIC ANNUAL DECEMBER SOCIAL is


now being planned - contact Julius


Young, 916/758-5666 (evenings) or


Casey McKeever, 916/666-3556.


(evenings).


| Draft Law Seminar .


Robert Rivkin, author of the


ACLU's Rights of Military Person-


nel, will be a featured speaker at an |


all day training session on military


counseling sponsored by CCCO.


The seminar, which will be held


on Saturday, December 4 from 9-4:30


at the New College of Law in San


Francisco, will deal with conscien-


tious objection, courts martial pro-


ceedings, medical, homosexuality and


tary Law Task Force.


For more information and regis-


each month.) Wednesday, December 15,


7:30 p.m. Michael Ullman, chief counsel


Return to ACLU-NG, 1663 Mission St., S.F. 94103


tration, call CCCO at 415/556-0500.


The Annual Report of the |


ACLU Foundation of Northern California


It is not too soon to say that the massive assa.lt on civil liberties emanating from


the White House is already having a major impact on peoples' rights in northern


California.


Though the administration's attack on key legal and political principles upon


which our constitutional system is based affects all freedoms for everyone, it is clear


that it is the most vulnerable sectors of society- minorities, women, the poor, the


institutionalized-whose rights are the first to be sacrificed.


Several key cases in our 1982 Legal Docket illustrate this very clearly:


@ scapegoating immigrant workers for the country's economic ills, the INS


committed wholesale violations of workers' rights during their euphemistically


named "Operation Jobs."


@ while the Voting Rights Act was battling for extension in Congress, the U.S.


Attorney instituted a discriminatory probe of Chinese- and Spanish-speaking voters


in nine northern California counties. :


@ as Senator Jesse Helms and other anti-choice forces tried to pass federal


legislation making abortion equivalent to murder, there were increased attacks on


reproductive rights in the state: the Legislature cut Medi-Cal funds for abortion from


the Budget Act, the Attorney General sought to resurrect the 20-week limit on all


abortions, and anti-choice groups disrupted operations at clinics.


_ @ the so-called" crackdown on crime," lauded by law-and-order politicians from


here to Washington, brought Proposition 8 to California-a massive overhaul of the


criminal justice system which erodes many basic due process rights, from the


presumption of innocence to the exclusionary rule. :


These attacks have not gone unanswered. For every move by the government to


limit our liberties, the ACLU and others have risen to defend our basic rights.


This defense has not always been easy. Rising voices of dissent have provoked


attempts by authorities to limit that dissent as well. Again, our cases are telling:


@ the ACLU-NC had to go to court more than six times in as many months to


ensure that political activists could not be illegally barred from First Amendment


activities at shopping centers by burdensome and unnecessary regulations.


@ it took an order from the federal court for demonstrators against racism and


police abuse in Richmond to secure their legitimate right to hold a peaceful march.


@ the offices of the Libertarian Party newspaper and bookstore were ransacked


during a destructive police raid, in retaliation for the Party's political campaign to


abolish the vice squad. :


@ a gay community newspaper was sued for $20 million libel by two San


Francisco police officers after the paper ran a story about alleged police brutality ~


against the gay community.


But these and many other voices of dissent have not gone unheeded-nor


unprotected. The tenacity of the ACLU to constantly struggle against infringements


of our traditional freedoms and to face new threats with the strength of our history


and expertise is well documented in the legal docket which follows.


The wide ranging effect of our work is reflected in the many ACLU-NC supported


cases which were brought to the U.S. Supreme Court and the California Supreme


Court this year.


Three ACLU-NC staff counsel, Margaret Crosby, Alan Schlosser and Amitai


Schwartz, have for six years shared responsibilities for directing this remarkable legal


program, assisted by Pat Jameson and Gwen Owens. The staff counsel currently


handle over 100 active cases with the help of 80 dedicated private lawyers who


donate their services as ACLU cooperating attorneys. -


Moreover, for every case which appears on the docket, there are hundreds of civil


liberties conflicts which are resolved administratively. ACLU's Complaint Desk,


staffed by ten volunteer lay counselors, receives more than 200 phone calls per


week. Assisted by the staff attorneys and ten law student interns who clerk for the


legal department during the course of the year, the counselors often provide the


advocacy necessary to resolve a particular grievance.


In addition, the ACLU's public information program, ably directed by Elaine


Elinson, alerts the public to the action taken and the issues championed by ACLU


litigation through the media and our own publications.


We predicted a tremendous political fallout from the current administration's


policy of turning back the clock on civil liberties. Now, in 1982, we unfortunately


have more than predictions to go on. It is a sobering reality, but-as our impressive


docket indicates-one that can, and must be met by an emboldened and strength-


ened ACLU. We are counting on your continued support to allow us to resist the


massive challenges which will confront us in 1983.


Dorothy M. Ehrlich


Executive Director


Davis Riemer


Chairperson


LEGAL


DOCKET


1982 (c)


/


The ACLU Fights


for the Rights of...


.." Women


CDRR v. Unruh


(California Court of Appeal)


For the fifth year in arow, theACLU filed


a successful lawsuit to challenge the Legisla-


ture's cut off of Medi-Cal funds for abortion


through the 1982-83 Budget Act. The Legis-


lature's restriction of state funds for abor-


_ tion came in total disregard of the land-


-mark 1981 California Supreme Court ruling


which stated, "Once the state furnishes


medical care to poor women in general, it


cannot withdraw part of that care solely


because a woman exercises her constitu-


tional right to have an abortion."


The suit, filed in July, had to proceed


with the same urgency as in previous years


because of the proposed August cut-off


date for abortion funding, By the end of July,


the court reaffirmed its earlier rulings and


ordered that the funding be maintained.


The continuation of funding means that


100,000 women-including 27,000 teen-


agers-each year in California have access


to Medi-Cal funds for abortion.


Margolis v. Deukmejian


(Sacramento Superior Court)


In July, the ACLU filed a suit challenging


the constitutionality of the state's 1967


Therapeutic Abortion Act which establishes


an absolute 20-week time limit for the


performance of any abortion. The suit, filed


on behalf of doctors who perform abortions


and their patients, disputes an interpreta-


tion of the act by the state Attorney General


that the 20-week time limit be enforced


unless prosecutors conclude that the fetus


was not viable or the life or health of the


pregnant woman was in danger.


The ACLU is arguing that the Attorney


General's interpretation, which clashes with


the guidelines of the state Department of


Health Services, violates several U.S. Su-


preme Court rulings and that the Attorney


General does not have the power to rewrite


the law.


People v. Gomez


(Contra Costa Superior Court)


When an anti-choice group invaded a


Planned Parenthood clinic, disrupted clinic


operations, and assaulted clinic staff mem-


bers, they were charged with trespass and


assault. The clinic invaders attempted to


defend themselves with the "necessity


defense," arguing that they had to disrupt


the clinic to prevent the greater harm of


=


abortion which they claimed was murder.


The ACLU opposed their defense, arguing


that the jury could not find that abortion is


murder since it is a constitutionally pro-


tected right.


The judge agreed that the "necessity


defense" did not apply to the clinic invaders


and they were subsequently found guilty of


illegal trespass and assault.


Bobb v. Monterey Municipal Court


(California Court of Appeal)


When a woman juror refused to disclose


her husband's occupation, a question asked


only of female members of the jury panel,


she was held in contempt of court and sent


to jail. The ACLU sought an annulment of


the contempt charges on the grounds of


sex discrimination, but in March, the su-


perior court upheld the ruling.


The ACLU filed an appeal on the wo-


man's behalf in September in the Court of


Appeal.


In re Dement and Razo


(California Court of Appeal)


In acase which seemingly places a male


inmate's right to privacy against the right to


equal employment opportunities of female


corrections officers, the ACLU is arguing


that neither right be compromised. The


ACLU filed a joint amicus brief with Equal


Rights Advocates last year, urging reversal


of a 1980 superior court order which re-


moved all female staff from observational


posts located in the boys' living units of a


Stockton juvenile detention center.


The ACLU argued that there exist al-


ternatives less drastic than restricting wo-


men's employment opportunities-such as


minor structural changes in the living units-


that would protect both the inmates' privacy


and retain the normalizing influence of a


coeducational corrections staff. A decision


is pending in the Court of Appeal.


Isbister v. Santa Cruz Boys Club


(California Court of Appeal)


A landmark decision by the Santa Cruz


Superior Court in 1980 determined, in


agreement with ACLU arguments, that the


Boys Club policy of excluding girls was


illegal and that membership in the club


must be open to children of both sexes. |


However, the Boys Club appealed the de-


cision, and the case is pending in the Court


of Appeal.


Miller v. California Commission on the


Status of Women


(California Court of Appeal)


In 1976, the California Commission on


the Status of Women was sued by an anti-


ERA group which charged that the Com-


mission had unlawfully used public monies


to gather support for the ERA. In the 1982


trial, the plaintiffs broadened their attack (c)


on the Commission, maintaining that the


Commission should be restricted to a


"passive and objective informational role."


The judge ordered the Commission to limit |


activities to "technical and consultative


advice," free of any advocacy.


In December, the ACLU filed an amicus


brief in the Court of Appeal on behalf of the


Commission, arguing that the Constitution


does not prohibit the Commission from


adopting positions on women's issues, ad-


vising the public of those positions and


lobbying before the Legislature i in support


of women's rights.


...Minorities


and advancing minority cnadidates instead.


The city's program was targeted at eliminat-


ing the gaping racial imbalance in the city


workforce and within the fire department


which was entirely white.


Tinsley v. Palo Alto Unified School District


(California Court of Appeal)


The ACLU filed an amicus brief in sup-


port of a legal challenge to California's


Proposition 1-the state constitutional


amendment approved by voters in 1979


which puts severe limitations on busing as


a remedy for school desegregation. The


amicus brief argues that Proposition 1 was |


itself state action to promote segregation


and consequently violates the federal con-


stitution.


As the U.S. Supreme Court determined


this year in Crawford (the major Los Angeles


school busing case) that Proposition 1 was


valid, Tinsley is scheduled to be reargued in


the state Court of Appeal in mid-1983.


_., Gays


Olagues v. Russoniello


(U.S. District Court)


Brinkin v. Southern Pacific


(U.S. District Court)


-A discriminatory probe of persons who


seek bilingual election materials initiated


by the U.S. Attorney in nine northern Cali-


fornia counties just weeks before the spring


election registration deadline was chal-


lenged by the ACLU and MALDEF ina class


action suit on behalf of Chinese and Spanish


speaking voters. The suit argues that the


investigation is in violation of the Consti-


tution and the federal Voting Rights Act.


In August, the federal judge dismissed


the ACLU's request for an injunction halting


the investigation, but allowed the case for


damages to proceed. The dismissal is on


appeal inthe Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.


In addition, as one of the nine counties,


`Monterey, is covered by Section 5 of the


Voting Rights Act (requiring preclearance


before any changes can be made in their


voting procedures), the ACLU sought a


separate injunction prohibiting Monterey


County from proceeding with the inves-


' tigation. As aresult of that action, Monterey


County has agreed to seek clearance from


the Justice Department in Washington for


this investigation.


International Molders v. Nelson


(U.S. District Court)


In April, the Immigration and Natur-


alization Service (INS) carried out a highly-


publicized nationwide swoop on worksites


euphemistically called "Operation Jobs."


In August, the ACLU, MALDEF and other


public interest law firms filed suit against


the INS, charging that in northern California


INS agents violated the constitutional rights


of employees and employers by illegally


entering worksites without warrant or con-


sent, by detaining workers simply because


they looked Hispanic without any reason-


able suspicion that they were working


illegally and by depriving those detained,


often with violence or threats of violence, ,


of their due process rights.


One week after the suit was filed, two of


the employer plaintiffs were again raided


by the INS in retaliation.


In September, the federal court judge


issued an injunction against the INS stating


that INS officers could not enter business


premises without warrants or consent. The


INS appealed the order, and in October


the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a


stay of the injunction.


Hiatt v. City of Berkeley


"(California Court of Appeal)


Echoing the arguments of the Reagan


administration against affirmative action


programs, the Court of Appeal struck down


the City of Berkeley's affirmative action


program. The ACLU filed a friend of the


court brief in defense of the city's program


against a suit by eight white firemen who


sued the city for denying them promotion


In June, the ACLU filed a suit against


Southern Pacific and the railway clerks


union on behalf of a gay employee who was


denied the contractual 3-day funeral leave


when his lover of 11 years died. The suit


claims that the denial of benefits is dis-


criminatory under California statutory and


constitutional law, both for using the stand-


ard of marriage as a requirement for benefits


and for discriminating against homosexuals


who are prohibited from achieving the


legal status of marriage.


Adolph Coors Co., et al. v.


Howard Wallace, et al.


(U.S. District Court)


The ACLU is representing Solidarity, a


gay rights group that produced a leaflet


supporting the boycott of Coors beer, out-


lining Coors' objectionable labor policies


and political activities. The Northern Cali-


fornia coordinator of the AFL-CIO Coors


Boycott Committee, in the course of a


successful effort to prevent KQED television


from holding a special`'Coors Day" auction,


gave the Solidarity leaflet to KQED officials.


Coors is suing the boycott committee


and Solidarity, claiming that the KQED


action constituted restraint of trade and


violated antitrust laws. Because Solidarity' s


only involvement was the production of a


leaflet, the ACLU contends that Coors


clearly is attempting to use the legal process


to chill free speech.


oa Labor


Pittsburg Unified School District v.


California School Employees Association


(California Court of Appeal)


An amicus brief by the ACLU in the


Court of Appeal argues that four school


employees involved in alabor dispute were


exercising First Amendment rights when


they engaged in peaceful, non-obstructive


informational leafleting at the private bus-


iness offices of two school board members.


The board members obtained a pre-


liminary injunction in superior court pre-


venting the union members from such in-


formational picketing.


U.S. v. Butterworth


(U.S. District Court)


officers, were selected for prosecution


based on their advocacy of union policies


(including the right to strike) in violation of


the First Amendment.


The arguments raised in the ACLU brief


_in support of a pre-trial defense motion for


an evidentiary hearing were accepted by


the judge and an evidentiary hearing was


held in November, 1981. The case is now


on appeal in the Ninth Circuit Court of


Appeals.


,..Demonstrators


NAACP v. City of Richmond


(U.S, District Court)


In October, when the Richmond police


denied a permit to the local NAACP and


ACLU for a march protesting police abuse


and the "chokehold" death of an unarmed


black man inthe Richmond City Jail because


the organizers did not give 20 days advance


notice, the ACLU went to federal court to


obtain permission for the demonstration.


On the eve of the scheduled march, the


U.S. Court of Appeals issued an order allow-


ing the march to proceed. The ACLU is now


challenging the 20-day notice requirement


in U.S. District Court.


International Committee Against Racism v.


City of Sacramento


(Sacramento County Superior Court)


Last year, the ACLU filed suit against the


City of Sacramento charging that the police,


without lawful justification, subjected par-


ticipants in a "March Against Racism' to


detention, 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, which is in the discovery stage,


seeks an injunction prohibiting police from


a repeat performance, destruction of police


photographs and records of the event, and 0x00B0


damages for violation of the marchers' free-


dom of speech and assembly.


The Ad Hoc Committee for Nuclear


Disarmament March in Novato v.


City of Novato


(U.S. District Court)


The Ad Hoc Committee for Nuclear


Disarmament March planned a June rally


and march in Novato. The Novato City


Manager and Chief of Police told the group


that in order to secure a permit for the


march they would have to obtain insurance


and pay fees for additional police protec-


tion- provisions which were economically


burdensome for the small committee. The


ACLU is representing the committee in a


suit challenging the imposition of fees on


First Amendment rights. Novato has no


ordinance for levying such fees and has


imposed them arbitrarily on some groups,


like the Ad Hoc Committee, but not on


others.


Ce . Students


McKamey v. Mt. Diablo Unified School


District


(Contra Costa Superior Court)


An ACLU amicus brief inthe U.S. District


Court supported the defense of five air


traffic controllers who were criminally


charged for participating in the PATCO


strike. This was the first time ever that the


federal government sought criminal penal-


ties under the federal employees strike


ban.


The ACLU argued that the five defend-


ants, all of whom were union organizers or


High school students in Mt. Diablo


Unified School District are still being sub-


jected to aschool board prohibition on Ms.


magazine in their school libraries.


An ACLU suit on behalf of students,


teachers, parents, a taxpayer and the Ms,


Foundation, challenges the school board's


decision to restrict access toMs. to students


who could obtain written permission from


a parent and ateacher-a restriction which


Legal Docket


the ACLU argues is tantamount to censor-


ship.


The suit, originally filed in 1980, is pend:


ing in superior court.


Wexner v. Anderson Union High School


District


(California Court of Appeal)


The ACLU's 1978 challenge to a Shasta


County School Board ban on the books of


prize-winning poet-novelist Richard Braut-


igan resulted in a summary judgment from


the superior court in 1980 that the ban was


unconstitutional and the books must be


returned to the school library. The court


refused, however, to order return of the


books to the English classes where they


had been previously used.


The ACLU appealed that decision in


February, arguing that the superior court


erred in holding that the books may be.


banned from classroom use. The school


board appealed the order to return the


books to the library. Oral arguments are


expected early next year.


... Prisoners


DeLancie v. McDonald


(California Supreme Court)


In a landmark prisoners' privacy rights


case, the California Supreme Court ruled in


July that the monitoring of detainees' con-


versations for the purpose of gathering


incriminating evidence was illegal.


The ACLU, representing a detainee, his


wife and his lawyer and local taxpayers,


had argued in the Supreme Court that the


San Mateo County Sheriffs practice of


electronically monitoring and recording


conversations between prisoners awaiting


trial and their visitors violated the California


Constitution's guarantee of privacy. The


July high court decision is the first one in


the, country to determine that inmates'


conversations 1 may be monitored solely for


security reasons-and not for the purpose of


obtaining evidence against them.


Diaz and Prisoners Union v. Watts


(Solano County Superior Court)


Despite a superior court injunction in


1981 ordering prison officials at the Cali-


fornia Medical Facility in Vacaville who


censored, destroyed and shut down the


_ prisoner run newspaper there to allow the


paper to resume publication and cease '


harassment of the inmate editor, the ACLU:


has had to go back to court several times to


challenge continued acts of censorship by


prison officials.


In each instance, the court has agreed


with ACLU arguments and ordered the


officials to cease harassment of the prison


paper.


In August, a State Department of Cor-


rections directive shut down the Vacavalley


Star and all other state prison newspapers.


After a week of litigation and negotiation,


political pressure forced the Department


to reverse the order.


The final outcome of this case is pending


in the California Supreme Court in another


prison newspaper censorship case, Bailey


v, Loggins.


Harris v. Pulley


(U.S. Court of Appeals)


TheACLU filed an amicus brief on behalf


of a Death Row inmate in an effort to block


the first state execution in 15 years. The


_ appeal, made on behalf of Robert Alton


Harris, by the ACLU and the State Public


Defenders Office, argued that California,


unlike every other state, lacks the proce-


dural protections necessary to ensure that |


there is a meaningful basis to distinguish


the few cases in which the death penalty is


imposed from the many where it is not.


In September, the Court of Appeals


reversed the death sentence and sent the


case back to state court for a far-ranging


review of the state death penalty law, halting


executions in the state for an indefinite


period.


ACLU 1982


People v. Spain


(U.S. District Court)


Gomes v. The Observer


(California Court of Appeal)


The appeal of the conviction of a Black


Panther Party member for offenses rising


out of the 1971 uprising at San Quentin


Prison was supported by the ACLU in an


amicus brief arguing that the shackling of


the defendant during the trial and improper


contact between the judge and a juror


were in blatant disregard of the due process


rights of the defendant.


In June, the U.S. District Court judge


_issued a writ of habeas corpus stating that


the defendant's constitutional rights had


been violated by the trial judge's improper


contact with the juror during the 1975-76


murder conspirary trial and ordered that he


be retried or the charge be dropped.


As the government appealed the ruling,


the ACLU filed an amicus brief in November


in the federal appeals court on the same


issues.


`Torrey v. County of Alameda


(Alameda Superior Court)


On behalf of a former inmate of Santa


Rita who was forcibly raped by another


inmate in the presence of two deputy


sheriffs, the ACLU is suing Alameda County


and the Sheriff's Department claiming that


the systematic indifference to prisoners'


rights and safety at the jail and the sub-


sequent endangerment of prisoners is a


violation of the constitutional guarantee of


freedom from cruel and unusual punish-


ment.


The case will go to trial next year in


superior court.


Mendoza v. County of Tulare


_ (California Court of Appeal)


In a suit against poor prison conditions


at the Tulare County Jail, the ACLU rep-


_ resented plaintiff inmates on appeal after


the trial judge dismissed the complaint. -


The Court of Appeal reversed. the lower.


court decision in January and held that the


suit was properly brought as a class action


suit on behalf of all present and future in-


mates of the jail and also as a taxpayers suit.


... The Press


Pera v. Bay Area Reporter


(San Francisco Superior Court)


When two San Francisco police officers


filed a $20 million libel suit against the Bay


Area Reporter, the ACLU defended the


newspaper and its publisher, editor and a


reporter against the libel action. The BAR, a


local newspaper covering events of interest


to the gay community, was sued for its


coverage of an open meeting in which


several persons spoke about alleged police


brutality against gays.


InApril, after the judge had twice granted


ACLU motions to dismiss the case with


leave for the defendants to amend, the


police officers dropped their multi-million


dollar suit against the paper.


Falzon v. Schell _


(San Francisco Superior Court)


A San Francisco police inspector initi-


ated a libel suit against a man who wrote a -


letter to a Bay Area paper stating that the


police officer did not properly investigate


the murder of a gay man. After the ACLU


launched its defense of the author of the


letter, the inspector dropped his libel suit.


The ACLU successfully appealed a libel


judgment against a small family-run news-


paper which was threatened with closure


because of ajury verdict that the paper had


to pay $170,000 damages to a police officer


who was the subject of a critical editorial.


Prior to the October decision in which


the appellate court reversed the judgment


in its entirety, at an earlier proceeding the


ACLU won a stay. of the money judgment,


arguing that until all appeals had been


exhausted, forced payment of damages in


a libel suit operates as an unconstitutional


prior restraint of the press.


McCoy et al. v. :


The Hearst Corporation et al.


(California Court of Appeal)


Final briefs in the appeal of a1.6 million


dollar libel judgment against two former


San Francisco Examiner reporters, Raul


Ramirez and Lowell Bergman were filed by


the ACLU in the Court of Appeal in January.


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


aseries of articles published in 1976 about


a controversial murder trial in which a 19-


year-old Chinatown youth was convicted.


The case strikingly documents the po-


tential of libel suits to limit journalist inquiry


into the activities of public officials. Oral


arguments in the case are expected in 1984.


... Patients


Doe v. Naylor


(Court of Appeal)


A patient whose personal medical re-


cords were confiscated by a state investi-


gator during an investigation of her psy-


chiatrist for Medi-Cal fraud, is being sup-


ported in her suit against the state by the


ACLU. An amicus brief filed by the ACLU


and the Northern California Psychiatric So-


ciety argues that the patient's right to pri-


vacy guaranteed by the state Constitution


was violated by the scope of the state in-


vestigator's search.


Jamison v. Farabee


(U.S. District Court)


In a major case for mental patients'


rights, the ACLU is seeking to extend the


right to refuse psychotropic drugs to in-


voluntary mental patients. A trial in federal


court has been scheduled for May 1983.


An earlier settlement in the same case


resulted in new regulations from the State


Department of Mental Health allowing for


the first time voluntary mental patients in


all public and private licensed mental health


facilities in California to refuse such medi-


cation.


ae Disabled


Christopher T. v.


San Francisco Unified School District -


(U.S. District Court)


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 disabled children who were


being denied educational benefits accorded


them by law.


In violation of the provisions of the


Education for All Handicapped Children


Act, parents of handicapped children in


San Francisco and elsewhere have been


forced to give up custody of their children


in order to receive financial assistance for


the costly residential education their chil-


dren require.


In March, the District Court granted the


plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judg-


-ment compelling the school district to


assume the cost of residential placements


for the two plaintiffs and to return both


children to the legal custody of the parents.


Sa


And for the


... Freedom


of Expression


Shopping Center Project


Ever since the 1979 landmark ruling by


' the California Supreme Court in Robins v.


Pruneyard, the right of political activists to


conduct free speech activities at privately


owned shopping centers has been estab-


lished. That decision determined that as


shopping centers have become the modern


day equivalent of the town plaza, mall


owners must allow access to activists for


leafleting, petitioning and other free speech


activity. However, the court also stated that


activity may be regulated by reasonable


"time, place, and manner' restrictions.


Along with the increasing political ac-


tivity at shopping centers has come the


increasing use of burdensome and un-


necessary "time, place and manner' regu-


lations imposed by the malls on that activity.


This year, the ACLU-NC launched its Shop-


ping Center Project, staffed by attorney


Martin Fassler, to assist a wide variety of


groups throughout northern California in


challenging these unreasonable restrictions


and to gain access to the malls.


The work of the Project has been ex-


tremely successful. From Sacramento to


Santa Clara the ACLU won injunctions


against holiday bans, expensive insurance -


bonds and deposits, limitations on soliciting


donations and approaching shoppers, and


other burdensome restrictions. A major


victory came in August, when the ACLU


negotiated a settlement with the Taubman


Company, a huge shopping mall manage-


ment firm, allowing access for political


campaigners.at five Bay Area shopping


centers. The guidelines in the settlement


are now being used as a basis for other


groups in negotiations with other malls


throughout the state.


Below are the lawsuits which the ACLU


filed throughout the year to secure these


important free speech rights. In addition to


these cases which actually went to court,


" there were numerous other settlements


reached through negotiations.


Californians for a Bilateral Nuclear Wea-


pons Freeze v. Southland Shopping Cen-


ter (Alameda County Superior Court)


California Water Protection Council v. Vallco


Fashion Plaza (Santa Clara Superior Court)


Californians Against Waste v. Birdcage Walk


(Sacramento Superior Court)


Sonoma County Nuclear Weapons Freeze


v. Santa Rosa Plaza (Sonoma County


Superior Court)


West Contra Costa Coalition against U.S.


Intervention in El Salvador v. Homart


Development Company (Contra Costa


Superior Court). "


West Contra Costa Coalition Against U.S.


Intervention in El Salvador v. Taubman


Company (Contra Costa Superior Court)


Contra Costa Coalition Against U.S. Inter-


vention in El Salvador and NOW v. Sun


Valley (Contra Costa Superior Court)


In all of the above cases the ACLU was |


able to win immediate injunctions allowing


access to the malls.


Franklin v. Stanford


(California Court of Appeal)


In 1972, during the height of the Viet-


nam War, Stanford University professor -


Bruce Franklin was fired for speeches he


`made during campus protests. This year,


after a decade of hearings and litigation,


the ACLU has filed its challenge to Frank-


lin's dismissal in the state Court of Appeal.


The ACLU challenge allows the appel-


late court to consider for the first time in


this lengthy case whether, as the ACLU is


arguing, Franklin's constitutional rights were


violated by the Stanford firing.


Right to...


- Citizens for a Better Environment, et al. v.


City of Vallejo


(Solano County Superior Court)


In Vallejo, a city ordinance requires that


all persons who seek to canvass door-to-


door for political or charitable purposes


must submit to fingerprinting by the police.


An ACLU suit, filed in March on behalf of


Citizens for a Better Environment, Citizens


Action League and Greenpeace, argues that


the ordinance is unconstitutional as it vio-


lates the canvassers' privacy and their First


Amendment right to communicate with


the people of Vallejo.


University of California Nuclear Weapons


Lab Conversion Project v. Lawrence Liver-


more Laboratory


(California Court of Appeal)


In 1980, in an unprecedented First


Amendment case, the ACLU convinced


the Alameda Superior Court that Lawrence


Livermore Laboratory must allow anti-nu-


clear 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 that deci-


sion to the state Court of Appeal, where it is


now under consideration.


Carr v. Warden and Friends of Pacifica


(San Mateo Superior Court)


When Friends of Pacifica, an environ-


mental group, was sued by members of the


city Planning Commission for slander based


- onastatement made by the organization's


chair and reported in a local newspaper


during the campaign for a local growth


control initiative, the ACLU defended the


group.


In May, the San Mateo Superior Court


dismissed the $125,000 slander suit. The


judge agreed with the ACLU argument that


statements made by the chairperson of


Friends of Pacifica during the campaign


were expressions of opinion and thus pro-


tected under law. This victory against the


use of defamation to chill political expres-


sion was especially important for the Friends


of Pacifica as the unjustified slander alle-


gations had a potentially chilling effect on


members and those who wish to associate


with the group.


Polzkill v. City of Pacific Grove


(Monterey Superior Court)


ACLU-NC is representing the Pacific


Grove Property Rights Committee, defend-


ants in a suit which also names the City of


Pacific Grove and the Registrar of Voters for


Monterey County. The suit challenges a


ballot initiative, placed on the ballot by the


Property Rights Committee, proposing con-


trols on property development. Because


the County Clerk mistakenly told the group


to file with his office (thinking it was a


county-wide initiative), the initiative had to


be forwarded to the City Clerk's office,


delaying its arrival to the eleventh day of a


ten-day filing period.


~The plaintiff claims the initiative is im-


proper because it covers more than one


issue and is demanding that it be removed


from the ballot because of this impropriety


and because of the delay in filing. The


ACLU is supporting the Property Rights


Committee because this suit is an attempt


to interfere with the initiative process and


because such frivolous lawsuits have a


chilling effect on First Amendment rights.


The 1982 Legal Docket was written


byACLU News editor Elaine Elinson.


anteRng


s 1 2 "6,


S @ e ,


= g euro


S i g


9 " = 6


o r= ) =


5 = : :


Zz 2


N and g { e


4 %


4 (c), yen


NM we 4 ymo%


Cisco Sv


`an vauaeace (aes 20


Saylor v. City of San Francisco


(San Francisco Superior Court)


During the 1980 election campaign, the


ACLU filed a taxpayer suit challenging a


San Francisco ordinance which prohibits


posting political signs on public property


while permitting the posting of commercial


advertising,


City officials agreed that the ordinance


was unconstitutional and a new law took


effect this year.


... Privacy


Schmid v. Lovette


(California Court of Appeal)


The use of a McCarthy era loyalty oath'


by the Richmond School District was struck


down by a superior court ruling last year


after an ACLU challenge. The ACLU repre-


sented a teacher who objected to signing


the oath disavowing membership in the


Communist Party when applying for a job


with the school district.


Although the Legislature subsequently


repealed the oath requirements, the Rich-


mond School District has appealed the


award of attorneys fees to the ACLU.


Cohen v. Superior Court


(California Court of Appeal)


In October, the ACLU filed an amicus


brief in the Court of Appeal challenging the.


constitutionality of a San Francisco ordi-


nance passed in 1981 establishing a com-


prehensive regulatory system for the very


broadly defined category of "escort serv-


ices." The ACLU is asking that the ordinance


be struck down because the consitutional


guarantee of privacy is violated by its re-


quirement that escort services maintain a


daily register, open to the police and health


departments, showing the names and ad-


dresses of patrons, their escorts, times and


places where escort services took place


and the fee charged.


Manning v. Municipal Court


(California Court of Appeal)


In July, the Court of Appeal ordered all


charges dismissed against an Oakland hotel


desk clerk who was prosecuted under 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. The court agreed with


ACLU arguments that the law, which in-


cluded language so vague and overbroad


that its enforcement infringes on the right


to privacy, was unconstitutional and struck


down the statute.


Franchise Tax Board v. Barnhart


(San Francisco Superior Court)


The ACLU is representing our former


lobbyist and other lobbyists in an audit of


poena from the Franchise Tax Board on the


grounds that the subpoena seeks confi-


dential files protected by the First Amend-


ment and by the California Constitution's


guarantee of privacy.


... Freedom


of Information


ACLU v. Deukmejian


(California Supreme Court)


The California Supreme Court ruled in


September that the ACLU could have only


limited access to criminal intelligence files


of the nationwide Law Enforcement Intelli-


gence Unit (LEIU) maintained by the state


Department of Justice. The ACLU had ar-


gued, in a case which originated in 1976,


that the records, with personal information


deleted, should be disclosed under the


state Public Records Act as the public has


the right to know what type of information


the state is monitoring for the LEIU. Evi-


dence from disclosures in other states indi-


cate that the records include political sur-


veillance of organizations and individuals.


The court denied access to the ACLU to


the most current and comprehensive re-


cords, the index file cards, on the grounds


that "administrative inconvenience" out-


weighed the public's right to know pro-


claimed by the Public Records Act.


Ramo v. Secretary of the Navy


(U.S. Court of Appeals)


In October, the Court of Appeals upheld


a federal court ruling that in the case.of the


surveillance of a worker in an overseas


military law project, the Navy and the FBI


legitimately denied access to major por-


tions of their records and were not required


to produce them. The ACLU had appealed


the lower court decision under the Freedom


of Information Act.


...Be Free from


Unreasonable


Search and


Seizure


Penny v. Fremont, Scott v. Oakland


(Contra Costa Superior Court)


When a Fremont mother of four with no


previous arrest record was strip searched


after being detained for failure to pay a dog


license fee, the ACLU filed suit for damages


and to halt the practice of strip searching


persons detained for minor infractions with-


out probable cause. At the same time, a


similar suit was filed against Oakland police


for strip searching a young woman under


similar circumstances despite the fact that


authorities had been informed that her


father was en route to the jail with bail


CA 94103.


Please make all checks payable to the ACLU-NC


Foundation and mail to 1663 Mission St., San Francisco,


their lobbying activity by challenging a sub- money.


ye ee en


I wish to support the legal work of the ACLU Foundation.


| lamenclosing a tax-deductible contribution of $


to the ACLU Foundation


|


i


1 Name


| Address


| City State Zip


i


i


i


i


j


j


ae


Luke v. Contra Costa County


(Contra Costa County Superior Court) _


In June, the ACLU filed a lawsuit on


behalf of two women visitors to the jail in


Martinez who were subjected to unwar-


ranted strip searches. One of the women


was 7 months pregnant. The suit contends


that the Contra Costa Sheriffs policy of


randomly forcing jail visitors to submit to a


strip search violates the visitors' right to


freedom from unreasonable searches. The


ACLU is seeking damages and an injunction


to prevent strip searching of visitors without


probable cause.


Chavez v. City of Fremont


(Alameda Superior Court)


The ACLU filed suit on behalf of an in-


nocent man who, although charged with no


crime, was detained by police and forced


to pose for police photographs on a public


street, against his will. The ACLU suit, filed


in March, asks for damages and an injunction


to stop the Fremont Police Department's


policy and practice of requiring suspects


who are not arrested to be photographed


on the street in violation of the Fourth


Amendment.


People v. Mayberry


(California Supreme Court)


In May, the California Supreme Court


upheld the conviction of an airlines pas-


senger who was charged with transporting


marijuana after his bags, along with the lug-


gage of other passengers coming from Flor-


ida to San Diego, were sniffed by a police


dog. The ACLU had argued in an amicus


brief that such exploratory surveillance by


narcotics-sniffing dogs was illegal as it con-


stituted an arbitrary and unreasonable


search and violated reasonable expecta-


tions of privacy.


Tom v. City of San Francisco


(San Francisco Superior Court)


An innocent man was arrested and im-


prisoned on his way to a friend's house be-


cause the police computer system (PIN)


erroneously transmitted information to the


arresting officer that he was a "wanted


man."


In a suit which is now pending in super-


ior court, the ACLU is representing the


innocent victim, claiming that his improper


arrest and detention violated the Fourth


Amendment prohibition against unreason-


able searches. The suit seeks a declaration


of the man's innocence, damages and de-


struction of his arrest record.


Libertarian Party of S.F. v.


Murphy et al.


(U.S. District Court)


On behalf of the Libertarian Party of San


Francisco, the ACLU is suing the San Fran-


cisco Police Department for damages as a


result of a police raid on the party's head-


quarters, the Libertarian Bookstore and a


Libertarian newspaper. The suit, filed in


August, claims that the police raid, which


destroyed books and files as well as equip-


ment used to put out the newspaper, was


in retaliation for the party's 1979 political


campaign to abolish the Vice Squad.


..-Wue Process


Brosnahan v. Brown


(California Supreme Court)


Immediately following the June election


in which Proposition 8, the so-called Victims


Bill of Rights, was passed by a slim margin,


the ACLU filed anamicus brief in support of


_ achallenge to the measure. The suit argued


that as the proposition, a massive overhaul


of the state criminal justice system, deals


with 12 separate subjects- from limitations


on bail to plea bargaining to repealing the


state Evidence Code - it violates the state


constitutional provision that an initiative


be confined to a single subject.


Se FEES


Legal Docket


The ACLU's amicus brief argued that


substantive provisions of Proposition 8 are


unconstitutional.


In September, the state Supreme Court


upheld the adoption of Proposition 8, open-


ing the door for a wave of lawsuits to chal-


lenge the constitutionality of each of the 12


separate issues covered in the proposition.


People v. Aguilar


(California Court of Appeal)


In March, the Court of Appeal struck


- down a "cruising" ordinance in Los Gatos


which defined the violation as "driving for


the sake of driving without immediate desti-


nation ....at random but on the lookout for


possible developments," on the grounds


that such a local ordinance was preempted


by the statewide California Vehicle Code.


TheACLU represented a young driver cited


under the ordinance and had argued for


the ordinance to be declared unconstitu-


tional and overbroad.


This session, the state Legislature passed


a law making local regulation of cruising


permissable.


Ze


People v. Blacklock


(California Court of Appeal)


The ACLU, representing a woman who


was charged under a Santa Clara ordinance


which prohibits loitering near business es-


tablishments without the permission of the


business, is challenging the ordinance as


overbroad and unconstitutional as it confers


discretion on business owners to arbitrarily


exclude persons from public places.


The superior court upheld the ordinance


on its face and the woman was convicted in


municipal court. The appeal is pending


In re Reed


(California Supreme Court)


In an amicus brief on behalf of a man


who, because he was convicted of a misde-


meanor for masturbating in a public rest-


room, is now required to register with the


police for life as a"'sex offender," the ACLU


is challenging the sex offender registration


provision of California Penal Code. The


ACLU is arguing that the sex offender regis-


tration is unconstitutional in that it violates


due process and equal protection and that


it constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.


Ramey v. Murphy


(San Francisco Superior Court)


In alengthy and complex trial in August,


the ACLU presented its challenge to the


San Francisco Police Department's practice


of using an obstruction of sidewalks law as


a means of detaining persons who would


not otherwise be punished by legal means.


The suit is seeking an injunction and a


declaration that the bad faith enforcement


WS


by the Police of Section 647c of the state -


Penal Code is unconstitutional. Evidence


shows that 94% of the people arrested.


under 647c have their charges dropped at


their first appearance in court and that less


than one in 200 persons is convicted of


obstruction.


Closing briefs were submitted in Octo-


ber and a decision is expected shortly.


Kilgore v. Younger


(California Supreme Court)


In an amicus brief before the California


Supreme Court, the ACLU argued that the


absolute privilege accorded to statements


by high governmeni officials does not mean


that the Attorney General can publicly ac-


cuse an individual of" organized crime con-


nections" with total immunity. The friend


of the court brief was in support of a plain-


tiff in a suit against former state Attorney


General Evelle Younger who named the


man in a press conference as an individual


associated with organized crime.


In February, the state high court dis-


agreed with the ACLU arguments and ruled


that as the Attorney General's accusations


were a proper discharge of his official duty,


he was privileged from liability.


Page: of 8
Clip Image

In collections

Details
Title

vol. 47, no. 8 (December, 1982)

Creator

American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California

Date

1982 November-December

Identifier

ACLUN_0515

Genre

newspapers

Physical description

40.5 x 28 cm

Publisher

San Francisco (Calif.): American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California

Preferred citation

ACLU of Northern California News vol. 47, no. 8, 1982 November-December; PER ACLUN; California Historical Society.

Rights statement

In Copyright

Publication rights

Copyright (or related rights to publicity and privacy) for materials in this collection, created by the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California, was not transferred to the California Historical Society (CHS). Permission for reproduction or publication of materials in this collection beyond that allowed by fair use must be secured from the copyright holder.

Topical subject(s)

Labor rights
Vietnam War, 1961-1975
Sex workers
Searches and seizures
Privacy, Right of
Criminal justice
Voting rights
Freedom of information
Freedom of expression
Educational equity
Contempt of court
Conscientious objectors
Capital punishment
Air Trafiic Controller's Strike, U.S., 1981
Reproductive rights
Affirmative action
Cruising (driving)
LGBTQ rights
Immigrant rights

Named subject(s)

AFL-CIO
Bergman, Lowell
Brautigan, Richard
Brick, Ann
Crosby, Margaret
George Deukmejian
Ehrlich, Dorothy
Estes, Milton
Franklin, Bruce
Gallo, Marcia
Grosboll, Richard
Miller, Michael
Paterson, Eva
Ramirez, Raul
Riemer, Davis
Schlosser, Alan
Schwartz, Amitai
Stone, I. F.
Strauss, Fran
Warner, Douglas
Warren, Earl
United States. Federal Bureau of Investigation
Hearst Corporation

Geographical subject(s)

Sacramento (Calif.)
Monterey (Calif.)
San Quentin (Calif.)
Santa Rosa (Calif.)
Monterey County (Calif.)
Vacaville (Calif.)
Fresno (Calif.)
Oakland (Calif.)
Berkeley (Calif.)

Collection identifier

PER ACLUN