vol. 47, no. 5
Primary tabs
Volume XLVI
Karen Luke went to the Contra Costa
Detention Center (Martinez Jail) for a
regularly scheduled visit with her hus-
band last September. She was seven
months pregnant. She was told by jail
officials that she would have to be strip
searched before she could see her hus-
band. Fearing the effect of such a
search on her unborn child, Luke said
she would forego the visit with her hus-
band rather than submit to the strip
search. Jail officials then placed Luke
under arrest and strip searched her.
Shirley Banks went to the Martinez
Jail to visit her fiance on New Years.
Eve. Without her permission and
without any grounds to believe that she
- was carrying contraband, Banks was
forced to remove all her clothing and
submit to a body cavity search.
On June 3, the ACLU filed a lawsuit
on behalf of Luke and Banks against
Contra Costa County, the Contra Costa
County Sheriff's Department and
Sheriff's Department personnel to halt
the practice of randomly forcing jail
visitors to submit to unwarranted strip
searches.
The suit, filed in Contra Costa
Superior Court, contends that the strip-
searching by Sheriff's personnel violates
_June-July 1982
Shirley Banks told an ACLU press con-
ference how~she was strip searched
while visiting her fiance at Martinez
attorney Gary Greenfield,
Jail.
rights of freedom from unreasonable
search and seizure, rights of peveey
and rights of due process.
Slander Suit Stopped
"The dismissal of a $125,000 slander
suit filed against an environmental
group by members of the Pacific Plann-
ing Commission represents another vic-
tory for the ACLU in our fight against
the use of defamation as a tool to chill
political dissent," said ACLU-NC staff
counsel Amitai Schwartz.
Friends of Pacifica, a local organiza-
tion fighting the increasing develop-
ment in Pacifica, was hit with the
slander suit last September after
statements by its chairperson Donald
Warden were published in the Pacifica
Tribune. In an article about the land
use and zoning controversy in the city,
Warden was quoted as saying, "I think
someone is being bought on the Plann-
ing Commission," and questioning the
motives and `good faith'' of members
of the Planning Commission.
Six of the seven members of the Com-
mission sued Warden for slander. The
suit also named the Friends of Pacifica,
alleging that Warden made the state-
ment on behalf of the Friends and that |
the group had ``authorized, ratified and
approved" his statement.
Friends of Pacifica, concerned with
the attack on its free speech rights and
fearing that the suit would have a
detrimental affect on its political activi-
ty, contacted the ACLU for support.
ACLU cooperating attorney Katherine
Crocker of the San Francisco law firm
of Heller, Ehrman, White and McAuliffe
asked the San Mateo Superior Court to
dismiss the case. Crocker argued that
the alleged statement was an expression
of opinion, and as a matter of law not
defamatory; moreover, in the context of
widespread debate on this matter of
public interest, the statement was
privileged.
In May, Superior Court judge Gene
McDonald dismissed the case, agreeing
with the ACLU that statements made
by Warden, and allegedly endorsed by
the Friends, were expressions of opi-
-nion and thus protected under law.
Crocker said that she was pleased
with the judge's decision, but noted the
toll that the lawsuit had already taken
on the Friends of Pacifica. "Perhaps
_the most damaging aspect of this suit is
the real chilling effect it has had on
community members. People in the
community were very much aware of
the suit, and some may have feared that
if they joined Friends of Pacifica they
might have been named in the suit as
well."'
Friends chairperson Warden agreed.
"After. we were sued, new memberships |
cones on p. 6
~ New Years Eve.
According to ACLU-NC cooperating
"Luke and
Banks were forced to submit to strip
searches by officers and employees of
the Contra Costa Sheriff's Department
although there was no probable cause
or reasonable grounds to believe that
either of them was carrying weapons or
contraband. This is in blatant violation
of their constitutional rights. Moreover,
it is a practice which is unnecessary to
maintain the security of the Martinez
Jail."'
Greenfield explained that the suit is
also being filed on behalf of a Contra
Costa County taxpayer who contends
that the strip searches are illegal and
constitute an unjustified expenditure of
government funds.
The suit is being handled by ACLU-
NC cooperating attorneys Greenfield
and Charles Rice of the San Francisco
law firm of Shartsis, Friese and Ginsburg
and ACLU-NC staff attorney Alan
Schlosser.
According to the written Bbtey
manual of the Contra Costa Detention
Center, "Visitors must submit to a
clothed or unclothed body search if re-
quested by a Deputy based on a
reasonable suspicion that the visitor is
concealing contraband or a weapon."
(Emphasis added.)
However, the ACLU contends that
there is an unwritten but established
policy of subjecting visitors to the jail to
random strip searches without such
reasonable suspicion.
Both Luke and Banks were victims of
this practice of strip searching without
reasonable. cause, Greenfield explain-
ed.
Luke said, "I had been strip searched
at the jail once before, when I was six
months pregnant and I didn't want `to
go through that humiliating experience
again.
"But when I told Sergeant Poole
that, fearing the potential danger to my
unborn child, I wished to leave rather
than submit to a strip search, he told
me | was under arrest and had me strip
searched.
"`T was never told the basis for the ar-
rest or the search,'"' Luke said. _
Shirley Banks explained that she was
on a scheduled visit to her fiance on
"They told me they
wanted to make everything right for the
New Year and forced me to undergo a
strip search. I was ordered to bend to
the ground and squat over a mirror
though I told them that a lower back
ailment made such activity extremely
painful.
"My vaginal and anal areas were in-
spected with a flashlight by an officer of
Election Issue: Meet the Candidates _ pp. -
{ACLU
the Sheriff's Department. TI
search resulted in increased pa,
lower back which has required 1 increas-
ed medication and treatment.
"TI was really furious - and that's
when I called the ACLU, " Banks add-.
ed.
Greenfield commented, "In both
cases, the officers' actions were taken
with reckless disregard for the plain-
tiffs' constitutional rights. Strip sear-
ches are only allowable when there are
reasonable grounds to believe that a
visitor is concealing a weapon or contra-
band."
cooperating attorney Gary
, Greenfield
The ACLU is asking the Contra
Costa County Superior Court to award
each plaintiff $100,000 in punitive and
exemplary damages. In addition, the
ACLU is asking for a declaration that
the policy and practice of strip searches
at the Martinez Jail is unconstitutional
and for an injunction against the defen-
dants to prevent them from strip sear-
ching visitors without probable cause.
ACLU-NC. staff attorney Alan
Schlosser added, `This particularly
humiliating and degrading practice of
strip searching has become a routine
part of law enforcement both in Califor-
nia and nationwide. The ACLU believes
that it is imperative to establish the il-
legality of this increasingly Se
practice. |
"Last year we filed two suits in
Alameda County on behalf of women
who were strip-searched by police after
being arrested for minor infractions.
We are also advocating legislation in
Sacramento which will prohibit strip
searches in jail for such persons without
`individualized cause.
"Today's lawsuit is part of our con-
certed effort to prevent other people in
this state - visitors to jails, persons ar-
rested for minor crimes, etc. - from
being subject to the humiliating and
unconstitutional practice of strip sear-
ches,"' Schlosser concluded.
IYOISTH DINNOSTIY,
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_1981 ACLUN_1981.MODS ACLUN_1981.batch ACLUN_1982 ACLUN_1982.MODS ACLUN_1982.batch ACLUN_1983 ACLUN_1983.MODS 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
wb
aos 1
aclu news
june-july 1982
Opposition to Bilingual Ballet Probe
"We believe, first and foremost, that
the U.S. Attorney's investigation is
racially and ethnically discriminatory
and therefore violates both the Voting
Rights Act and the U.S. Constitution.
That the investigation focused solely on
Hispanic and Chinese voters, without
evidence to justify such a racially selec-
tive probe, is a blatant act of
discrimination.
"We will continue to work to expose
and oppose this discriminatory in-
vestigation through legal and political
action on a local, state and federal
level."'
This statement of response to U.S.
Attorney Joseph Russoniello's an-
nouncement about the preliminary
results of his probe of bilingual ballots
was issued jointly by the ACLU-NC,
MALDEF, Chinese for Affirmative Ac-
tion, the Hispanic Coalition of Contra
Costa and seven other civil liberties and
minorities' rights groups on May 28.
Russoniello's Timing
The groups also criticized the timing
both of the probe and the announce-
ment of the preliminary findings as
"highly suspect."' Their joint statement
asked, "Why did he undertake his ef-
fort now, on the eve of the June
primary, just as many organizations are
making a special effort to encourage
minority voters to decide on issues of
vital importance? Why did he choose to
focus on bilingual voters, just as the
Voting Rights Act, which insures the
(Check one) {[-3;-Ifj
( prefer election moteriols
in - KEM...
D haemetin
[LD English
' D Esposo!
s
right of voters to receive language
assistance at the polls, is facing a battle
for extension in Congress?" -
With great fanfare, the U.S. At-
torney announced to the press that the
preliminary results of his investigation
_indicated that at least a quarter of the
of names submitted were of persons
who were permanent residents, aliens,
or otherwise ineligible to vote.
However, according to Morris Baller,
_ an attorney with MALDEF, these
results are "inadequate and_ highly
questionable."
"In San Francisco, for example,"
Baller explained, "`the District Attorney
submitted 35 names of foreign-born
voters to Russoniello, without selecting
out those who requested bilingual
ballots. Of the 35, only three had re-
quested bilingual ballots and those were
the only three investigated by
Russoniello. He found them all to be of
"questionable" status and asked the
San Francisco D.A. to investigate
them.
"The local investigation showed that
two of the three were naturalized
citizens. The other had moved out of
the state.
"Similarly," Baller noted, ``in Contra
Costa, a private check shows that at
least five of the twelve `questionable'
names that Russoniello sent back to be
investigated by the D.A. are those of
naturalized citizens.
"That the accuracy of the INS
records is questionable has already
been established by California
Secretary of State March Fong Eu and
others. These follow-up investigations
serve to underscore that fact, and in-
dicate that the U.S. Attorney's figures
are highly unreliable,'' Baller added.
A number of the signatory groups,
such as the San Francisco Latino Voter
Registration Project, are directly involv-
ed in recruiting voters in the Hispanic
and Chinese community. They vowed
that ``this chilling action by the U.S.
Attorney" would not deter them in their
efforts to "broaden participation in the
democratic process in minority com-
munities for the June primary or any
subsequent elections."
The statement, which received wide
press coverage, concluded that "our
common opposition to this racist in-
vestigation has brought us _ closer
together and strengthened our resolve
to work for the extension of the Voting
Rights Act, and the fight against
discrimination against minorities by
public officials and others."
Special Hearing
Many of the same sentiments were
voiced at a special San Francisco hear- |
ing on the bilingual ballot probe held by
the Assembly Elections and Reappor-
tionment Committee on May 21.
Committee chair Richard Alatorre
called the investigation "`part of a larger
effort to use the minorities of this coun-
try as scapegoats in these troubled
times,'' and said he planned to in-
troduce legislation that will prevent fur-
ther harassment of persons who request
bilingual ballot materials.
ACLU-NC Executive Director
Dorothy Ehrlich testified at the hear-
ings along with Congressman Philip
Burton, Assemblyman Art Agnos,
Harold Yee of the Chinese-American
-Democratic Club and a dozen other
political and community leaders.
Maria Gloria Rodriguez, a registrar
in Walnut Creek and a naturalized
U.S. citizen since 1959, told the
Assembly Committee that she was
shocked to learn from a caller that her
name was on the list submitted to
Russoniello from Contra Costa.
"I was hurt and felt betrayed,'' said
Rodriguez who has been active in elec-
toral politics for many years. "`I felt I
was being treated worse than a
criminal. At least officials tell a
criminal why he is being investigated.
"This is something behind my back.
They seem to want us to turn inward,"
Rodriguez added.
U.S. Attorney Russoniello did not at-
tend the hearings.
Injunction Denied
The lawsuit filed by ACLU-NC and
- MALDFF to halt the probe faced a set-
back on May 24 when U.S. District
Court Judge Spencer Williams ruled
that he "`has no jurisdiction to enjoin or
otherwise control a preliminary in-
vestigation of the U.S. Attorney's of-
fice,"'and denied the ACLU request for
injunction.
Williams did not, however, agree to
the U.S. Attorney's request to dismiss
the claim for damages against
Russoniello for violations of the con-
stitutional rights of bilingual voters. -
ACLU-NC staff attorney Alan
Schlosser who is handling the case with
Ron Vera of MALDEF said that he was
disappointed with the ruling but will
continue to pursue litigation.
"We're not going to let this issue
drop. We feel the court has recognized
we are alleging a valid complaint in
terms of constitutional rights that we
claim have been damaged by this
discriminatory investigation,''
Schlosser said.
(Check one) {[-- If
1 prefer election materials
in - EM...
CPX MTF
CL) English
0) Espofol
Executive Director Ehrlich added,
"Our opposition to this probe is not
limited to the courts. We are continuing
to work on a local level in the nine coun-
ties to prevent the investigation from
going any further.
"In addition, we are working with
ACLU lobbyists in Washington, D.C.
to pursue a Congressional hearing on
this discriminatory probe. We not only
want to see this investigation ended, we
want to insure that government officials
are held accountable for enforcing the
Voting Rights Act - not taking
measures which undermine it,"' Ehrlich
concluded.
A Lasting Gift
The passage of state Propositions 5
and 6 in this month's elections repeal-
ing California's gift and inheritance
taxes "should not affect bequests to the
ACLU Foundation of Northern Califor-
nia' according to ACLU-NC associate
director Michael P. Miller.
"ACLU supporters most want to
know that their dollars are going to sup-
port critical civil liberties work. Tax ad-
vantages are sometimes a reason people
choose to support the ACLU or choose
to name the ACLU in their will, but
they are not a primary reason," said
Miller who coordinates ACLU-NC fund
raising.
"A bequest is a very special gift to the
ACLU. If you are a current ACLU sup-
porter helping our work today, it makes
a great deal of sense that you would
want to help the ACLU continue to be
effective in the decades after your
death. Unfortunately, repression will
most likely outliye us all as individuals
and the need for a strong ACLU will not
go away,"' added Miller.
ACLU Supports
Legal Challenge
to Prop. 8
A legal challenge to Proposition 8,
the so-called Victims Bill of Rights,
which was filed in the state Court of Ap-
peal the day after the measure was pass-
ed by the voters, is being supported by
`the ACLU-NC.
The petition, filed on behalf of
Robert D. Raven, former president of
the State Bar of California, James
Brosnahan, former president of the San
Francisco Bar and Edward Foglia,
president of the California Teachers
Association, claims that the measure
violates the state constitutional provi-
sion that an initiative be confined to a
single subject.
"Exactly what is the subject of the in-
itiative?"" the petition poses, adding
that "if a `subject' can be ascertained,
how do the multifarious components of
the measure functionally relate to that
subject," for example, then "any
moderately skillful attorney could con-
struct a rationale that such diverse
- topics as strip mining, neuropathic ex-
aminers, pensions, and oleomargarine
were germane to `public safety.' "'
The petition, filed by San Francisco
attorneys Ephraim Margolin. and
Stanely Friedman, contends that the
measure has at least twelve subjects, -
the right to bail, safe schools, plea
bargaining, criminal evidence, etc. -
each of which is separate.
Thus, the suit argues, the voters
would not reasonably have understood
that they were overhauling the entire
continued on page 7
to the ACLU
The ACLU Foundation of Northern
California has established an endow-
ment fund "to guarantee the ACLU an
annual income through the best and
_ worst of political and economic periods.
Bequests are the primary source of sup-
port for that endowment," explained
Miller.
ACLU-NC Chairperson Davis (c)
Reimer noted that the number of be-
quests received by the ACLU in nor-
thern California is growing. In the last
year, the ACLU-NC was notified of
eleven bequests. Where the amount is
known, the gifts range from $252 to
$109,000, the latter coming from the
sale of a house left to the ACLU.
Naming the ACLU Foundation of
Northern California in a will is fairly
simple. Often a `codicil' (an amend-
ment or addition) can be added to an
existing will, ACLU supporters who
_ wish more information on making be-
quests to the ACLU should contact
their attorney or Michael Miller at 621-
2493.
aclu news _ |
8 issues a year, monthly 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 iz
es 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
Elaine Elinson, Editor
and SO cents is for the national ACLU-bi-monthly publication, Civil Liberties.
aclu news
june-july 1982
Sacramento
Battleground of Choice
by Beth Meador
Choice continues to hold its own in
California. Despite a redoubled
legislative onslaught by anti-choice
representatives - including over a
dozen new anti-choice measures - we
manage to hold back the tide of
repressive legislation.
Leading the attack, of course, was
John Schmitz who introduced three
bills: SB 1745 - which he calls a "`fetal
death certificate' bill; SB 1746 -
which states that life begins at concep-
tion and restricts lower state courts
from jurisdiction in matters involving
abortion, and SCA 49 - which would
prohibit judicial mandate of funds not
appropriated by the Legislature. The
first measure failed passage, the second
was sent to interim study which is tanta-
mount to failure, and SCA 49 has not
been set for hearing yet.
Legislative Goulash
But Schmitz is not the only one.
Legislators have introduced a panoply
of measures which would prohibit or
severely restrict reproductive rights:
SB 1807 (Speraw) limits the ability of
school districts to grant release time to
those students who need abortions or
abortion-related services. This bill pass-
ed committee.
SB 1877 (Doolittle) would have pro-
hibited mandatory use of university and
college student fees for abortion ser-
vices. Senator Sieroty refused to hear
the bill in the Education Committee
because it violated the rule against
presentation of the same bill during one
legislative session.
Does Your
Representative
Represent
You?
Where do your elected of-
ficials stand on _ reproductive
rights and ``national security''
issues?
Voting records compiled by
ACLU-NC's Pro-Choice Task
Force and Right to Dissent Sub-
committee provide a com-
prehensive run-down on_ nor-
thern California legislators' ayes
and nays on pro-choice and dis-
sent issues.
You can get your copy of of
this useful factsheet by calling
or writing Field Representative
Marcia Gallo at the ACLU-NC,
1663 Mission Street, S.F. CA
94103; 415/621-2493.
SB 3407 (Leonard), the same as SB
1877, failed passage.
SB 1876 (Doolittle). would make
medical insurance for abortions an op-
tional rider. It was re-referred from the
State Insurance Committee to Health
and Welfare and has yet been set for
hearing. .
AB 3221 (Ivers) to set up a Medi-Cal
abortion reporting system - failed
passage.
AB 3690 (Cortese), the so-called in-
formed consent bill, is set for hearing in
May in the Assembly Judiciary Com-
mittee.
AB 3346 (Wray), which would have re-
quired anesthesizing the fetus during
the abortion, failed passage. (ACLU
took no position on this bill.)
AB 3394 (Sebastiani) makes abortion a
felony. The bill was set for hearing, but
the hearing was cancelled at Sebas-
tiani's request.
SB 2065 (Alex Garcia) renames the
Therapeutic Abortion Act the ``Feticide
Act" and prohibits post 20-week abor-
tions unless performed in a facility by a
physician who will render medical treat-
ment to a surviving fetus. The bill pass-
ed the Health and Welfare Committee
on May 27.
AB 3766 (Sebastiani), the same as SB
1807, was heard in the Assembly
Education. Committee on May 4 and
amended to remove the prohibition as it
applied to contraceptive services. The
bill passed committee as amended.
Medi-Cal Funding for Abortion: In
June, the Senate adopted a 1983 Budget
Act which again includes restructions
on Medi-Cal funding for abortion. The
Schmitz Amendment, almost idential
to last year's, would prevent state of-
ficials from complying with a court
order to provide Medi-Cal funds for any
"purpose not appropriated by the
Legislature.
The 1983 Budget Act is now being
considered by a joint Assembly/Senate
Conference Committee, and must be
enacted before the Legislature recesses
in July.
As you can see, these vicious attacks
on reproductive freedom just keep com-
ing. We must not retreat, nor even rest
for a minute. Write your legislators.
And be sure to thank those who support
choice. They face a very hostile climate
too.
Jailed Woman Juror Appeals
by Kathy Cramer
The ACLU has filed an appeal this.
month on behalf of Carolyn Bobb, the
Monterey juror who was jailed for con-
tempt for refusing to answer sex-_
discriminatory questions during jury
selection procedures in Monterey
Municipal Court in January.
ACLU -NC cooperating attorney
Katherine Stoner is taking the case to
the Court of Appeal following a March
ruling in the Monterey Superior Court
upholding Bobb's contempt charges.
Bobb was initially cited for contempt
when she refused to answer a question
about her spouse's occupation unless
the same question was asked of male
jurors. "I realized that the Municipal
Court judge was only asking the women
jurors about their marital status and
husband's occupation,' Bobb explain-
ed, adding, "it was degrading to me
and all the women in the courtroom."
When she refused to answer, the judge
cited her for contempt, ordered that she
be taken into custody, and later
sentenced her to one day in jail (see
ACLU News, March 1982).
When cooperating attorney Stoner
appealed Bobb's case in superior court,
Judge E.J. Leach, Jr. upheld the con-
tempt charges. Though Leach agreed
that the questions about spousal oc-
cupation should probably have been
asked of both men and women, he
stated that he did not feel constitutional
issues had been raised.
""However,"' Stoner responded, "`we
believe that Bobb's constitutional rights
were clearly violated by the questioning.
What it comes down to is the court of-
ficially promoting sex role stereotyping
- Bobb was entitled to object. Women
get rights on paper, but then continue
to be denigrated in ways like this. The
effect is the same as if they had no
rights at all."'
Carolyn Bobb added, "I think the
court has a blind spot when it comes to
sex discrimination."' Explaining that
Judge Leach's position had been that
she should be objective privately to
the Municipal Court judge since she
had access to him as an attorney, Bobb
said, "I was not there as a attorney - I
was doing my jury duty as a citizen. In-
stead I was insulted as a woman. I
would do the same thing again."
Stoner said that the appeal will draw
parallels to similar cases involving race
discrimination, adding that up till now
the court has been reluctant to accept
these parallels. `Sex discrimination
hasn't come to the courts in this context
before. It challenges deeply ingrained
practices of sex role stereotyping. It
takes years to eliminate this kind of
_ thinking," Stoner said.
Carolyn Bobb has heard from a
number of sources that publicity
around the case has stopped Monterey
judges from asking similar questions.
-"T think this case has made some judges
aware of their unconcious sexism," she
said. :
However, both Bobb and_ Stoner
agreed that they were happy about the
informal charges, "The state has an
obligation to see that this practice is of-
ficially stopped."'
Kathy Cramer, a former student intern
at the ACLU, is a volunteer with the
ACLU News.
Save the Date
October2 3
ACLU-NC ANNUAL
CONFERENCE
For more information, contact Marcia Gallo at 415/621-2494
S.F. Cops on Trial for Street Sweep
The ACLU lawsuit against the San
Francisco Police Department, Ramey v.
Murphy, is scheduled to go to trial in
August in San Francisco Superior
Court. The taxpayers' suit claims that
the San Francisco police have a consis-
tent practice of using an obstruction of
the sidewalks law as a means of jailing
people who could not otherwise be
_ punished by legal means.
According to ACLU-NC staff at-
torney, Amitai Schwartz, `"The statute
in question, Section 647c of the Califor-
nia Penal Code, prohibits malicious
obstruction of the free movement of any
person on any street, sidewalk or other
public place. However, we will argue |
that the San Francisco police frequently
use this law in situations where they
have no facts showing probable cause to
arrest in order to `sweep the streets' of
persons deemed by them to be
undesirable.
"Moreover, this practice of the police
is condoned and encouraged by higher
city officials and amounts to routine
harassment," he added.
The suit was filed in November,
1980. Between August 1 and November
1, 1980 over three hundred people were
arrested under the statute by the San
Francisco police. Though 90% of those
arrested were held in custody, less than
5% were eventually charged with any
crime. This pattern of arrests still con-
tinues, Schwartz noted.
The ACLU is seeking a declaratory
judgment from the court that this prac-
tice is unconstitutional and illegal. The
suit also asks the court to issue an in-
junction restraining the police from en-
forcing Penal Code Section 647c in the
absence of probable cause to believe
that a violation of the code has been
committed.
In May 1979, the ACLU brought a
continued on p. 6
aclu news
june-july 1982
Votins Information
Who is eligible to vote?
The by-laws for the ACLU of Nor-
thern California call for the at-large
Directors of the Board to be elected by
the general membership. The general
membership are those members in good
standing who have renewed their
membership within the last twelve
months.
The label affixed to this issue of the
ACLU News indicates whether you are
eligible or not eligible to vote on the
basis of when your last membership
renewal contribution was recorded.
If you are not eligible to vote, you
may choose to renew your membership
at the same time you submit your ballot
and resume your membership in good
standing.
If you share a joint membership,
each individual is entitled to vote
separately - two spaces are provided
on the ballot.
How are the candidates nominated to
run for the Board of Directors?
The ACLU-NC by-laws permit two
methods of nomination. Candidates
may be nominated by the present Board
of Directors after consideration of the
Nominating Committee's recommenda-
tions. Candidates may also be
nominated by petition bearing the
signatures of at least fifteen ACLU-NC
members in good standing.
Note: Members will note that there
are only eleven candidates running to
fill the eleven vacancies on the Board.
All of these candidates were recom-
mended by the Nominating Committee
and approved by the Board after con-
sideration of their qualifications. There
were no petitions filed by members to
nominate other candidates. Notice was
given in the January-February issue of
the ACLU News that nominating peti-
tions were being accepted by the Board.
Voting Instructions
Candidates are listed below in
alphabetical order. After marking your
ballot, clip it and enclose the ballot and
your address label from this issue of the
ACLU News in an envelope. Your ad-
dress label must be included in order to
insure voter eligibility.
Address the envelope to:
Elections Committee
ACLU of Northern California
1663 Mission Street, Suite 460
San Francisco, 94103 CA
If you have a joint membership, you
may use both of the columns provided,
and each of the members may vote
separately. ~
If you wish to insure the confiden-
tiality of your vote, insert your ballot in
a double envelope with the special mail-
ing label in the outer one. The envelope
will be separated before the counting of
the ballots.
Ballots must be returned to the
ACLU office by noon on July 8, 1982,
You may vote for up to eleven can-
didates.
For your consideration, the following
statements were submitted by the can-
didates for election to the Board of
Directors.
Field Committee continued from p. 8
publicity efforts - like the two full-
page "Stop the Human Life Amend-
ment' ads in Marin papers arranged by
Leslie Paul - keep the momentum
against Hatch's anti-choice amendment
going.
Plans for an emergency rally in U.N.
Plaza in San Francisco on the first day
of Senate debate on the measure have
been made by a coalition of Bay Area
reproductive rights groups; Kathy
Kahn, Winner, Garey and Zeck are
alerting supporters through the Pro-
Choice communications network
telephone tree.
The Right to Dissent Subcommittee
has focused on informing ACLU
members and supporters about the
dangers to civil liberties in proposals
from the Reagan administration in the
name of "national security.'
The Subcommittee monitored the
votes on the "Names of Agents'' bill
passed by Congress early this year, and
urged action through the Dissent
telephone tree against S 1630, the
Criminal Code Revision. That measure
was killed in April; Subcommittee
members worked with the National
Committee Against Repressive Legisla-
tion (NCARL) in urging Senator
Cranston to work against S 1630.
Cranston became a visible opponent of
the measure, sending a `Dear Col-
league"'
_ passage.
letter advising against its (c)
In March, the Subcommittee launch-
ed a media blitz about the threats to the
Freedom of Information Act. Coor-
dinated by Committee chair Rubin, and
featuring Dick Criley, Julius Young,
Hagberg, the Committee spoke on 18
radio stations and 8 television programs
about current moves to gut the FOIA.
In May, the Subcommittee joined
with Media Alliance and other groups
in issuing a statement opposing S 1730,
the Freedom of Information `Act
Reform Bill sponsored by Senator Orrin ~
Hatch.
Encouraged by the success of their
media efforts around the FOIA, the
Subcommittee is setting up a speakers'
panel on dissent issues. A speakers'
training session was held on June 12.
Planning is now underway for the
| 1982 ACLU Conference set for Oc-
tober. Program planning and logistical
work are being coordinated by the Field
Executive Committee composed of
Hagberg, Jennings, Rubin, Criley and
Biggs.
"Last year's conference started us off
on some very successful organizing
work around issues which really came
the fore this year,'' said Criley, ""At this
year's conference, we want to assess our
work and build on the major gains in
, understanding and organizing that we
have made over the year.
"I'd say the Field Committee has got-
ten off to a very good start,'' he added.
Alice M. Beasley
I have been staff attorney for (and
now sit on the board of directors of) the
Legal Aid Society of Alameda County
and the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. I
also serve on the San Francisco Lawyers
Committee and the legal committees of
the ACLU-NC and Equal Rights Ad-
vocates. I have enormous admiration
for the staff and cooperating attorneys
of the ACLU-NC and their record of
achieving significant results in protec-
tion of minority rights in the face of ma-
jority self-interest. Particularly in these
times when civil libertarians are like
reeds hunched in a hostile wind, I
would be honored to be counted among
those who make a difference.
Steve Block.
Now, more than any time in recent
memory, an organized defense of our
civil liberties is urgently needed. I
would very much like to participate in
this effort by serving on the affiliate
Board.
I have worked as a volunteer attorney
with the ACLU-NC and served as Presi-
dent of the Gay Rights Chapter. I have
been general counsel for Gay Rights
Advocates and am currently co-chair of
Bay Area Lawyers for Individual
Freedom (BALIF), the gay and Lesbian
bar association of the Bay Area.
Charles R. Breyer
As a high school student I entered an
American Legion speech contest with a
presentation on the threat to the Bill of
Rights caused by the indifference of the
American public to individual liberties.
I trust that my finish "`out of the
money'' was due to my delivery rather
than the content. Nevertheless, I am as
`concerned today as I was then that
`public sentiment should never dictate
the exercise of an individuals' rights. As
a Watergate prosecutor I witnessed
governmental abuses and feel very
strongly that the Government's exercise
of its power, no matter how "`just'' its
cause, Should never be used to deny to
an individual his or her constitutional
right to espouse unpopular causes.
My qualification for this Board is my
commitment to this ideal.
1982 ACLU-NC Board
Richard Criley
As a member of the ACLU-NC Board
since 1979, I have served as a vice-
chairperson, a member of the Field
Committee, the Field Executive Com-
mittee, the Right to Dissent and
Reproductive Rights Task Forces, and
the Development Committee. I have
_ sought to develop the activism of the
membership at the chapter level on
legislative and community issues to en-
courage ACLU initiatives in creating
local coalition movements on reproduc-
tive rights, the nuclear weapons freeze
and other issues. I have spoken on civil
liberties issues to ACLU chapters,
church, community and political
groups, rallies, conferences, radio and
television programs throughout nor-
thern California. I have been a civil
liberties activist since the 1930s, an
ACLU member since 1959, and a leader
of the Monterey County Chapter of the
ACLU since 1977,
Donna Hitchens
I have served on the Board since
1978, and have been active on the Ex-
ecutive Committee, Personnel Commit-
tee and Equality Committee. As a
member of the Board I have sought to
assist the ACLU in aggressively and
creatively opposing the ever increasing
intrusions on our constitutional rights.
Iam currently the Directing Attorney |
of the Lesbian Rights Project and a
Staff Attorney with Equal Rights Ad-
vocates, Inc. Over the last 15 years I
have been active in a number of civil
rights and civil liberties struggles, and
_ have tried to contribute to efforts to
combat oppression based on race, sex,
economics, age and political expres-
sion.
Lisa Honig
I have served on the ACLU-NC
Board since 1980, am currently a
member of the Budget-Management
Committee and serve as the acting
Treasurer/Secretary of the organiza-
tion. As a professional fundraiser, I am
well aware of the need for the ACLU to
expand its fundraising capabilities and
am committed to participating in that
effort. I was first made aware of the
value of the ACLU 15 years ago, when I
sought the organization's assistance in
challenging dress codes that
discriminated against female high
school students. Since that time, my
understanding of the principles for
which the ACLU stands has grown, as
has my committment to upholding
those principles in the face of increas-
ingly serious threats.
Steve Mayer
I have served on the Board of the
~ ACLU-NC for the past three years and
am an active member of the Legal Com-
mittee. I have worked closely with the
staff as a cooperating attorney on
Preston v. Brown, a successful lawsuit
challenging the Army's denial of a high
level security clearance to a gay civilian
employee of an Army contractor. In ad-
dition, I participated in the defense of
the Daily Californian, U.C. Berkeley's
student paper, when it was enjoined by
_a federal court from printing an article
about the H-bomb.
I am a director of the San Francisco
law firm of Howard, Rice, Nemerovski,
Canady and Pollack, where I have handl-
ed a number of civil liberties cases in-
cluding Zurcher v. Stanford Daily
(challenging the search of a student
newspaper for evidence of crime com-
mitted by others) and Minnick vy.
California Dept. of Corrections (defen- "
ding the department's affirmative ac-
tion hiring program).
1 of Directors Elections
Drucilla Ramey
I first became active in the ACLU-NC
in connection with sex discrimination
issues ten years ago, and subsequently
served on and chaired numerous com-
mittees, culminating in my three-year
term as Chair of the Board. Having
found that a newborn daughter can
change your perspective, I stepped
down from that post last year, but I am
eager to reinvolve myself in the substan-
tive issues that first brought me to the
ACLU. I hope to be active on the |
Equality Committee, and am _ par-
ticularly concerned with issues affecting
equal employment opportunity for
women, an area in which I have
litigated and taught extensively.
ae
Davis Riemer
In the past 12 years I have served as
Earl Warren Chapter Board Member,
President and Affiliate Representative;
Affiliate Board Member at large, and
Treasurer; I am currently Chairperson
of the Affiliate Board.
There are many threats to our
freedoms that are obvious, and many
that are emerging in ways not so clear to
the general public. Additionally, a
number of issues will come before us in
the next several years that will be dif-
- ficult in the extreme.
My. committment is to financial
development and organizational
`strength, so that the able, dedicated
people we have on our staff, our Board
and in our chapters do not lack
resources to meet the challenges, and
have an organization that enables them
to do their best work.
Frances C. Strauss
My participation in the life of the
ACLU has spanned three decades. I
have served on the Illinois Division
Board; helped organize the San Fran-
cisco Chapter; was its representative to
the Affiliate Board, succeeded by two
terms as a member-at-large; organized
the `Complaint Desk" (1972); ran the
Bill of Rights Program and Fund-
Raising Campaigns (1973-1979); served
on the Affiliate's Executive Committee;
have been and am a member of the
Budget/Management and Develop-
ment Committees.
The current subtle encroachments on
civil liberties - against the courts, pro-
choice issues, preventive detention,
etc., demand "`eternal vigilance,'"' and
confirm my conviction that the ACLU is
absolutely necessary for protecting the
Bill of Rights. -
It would be a privilege to again serve
on the ACLU-NC Board.
BALLOT
Alice Beasley
Steve Block
Charles Breyer
Richard Criley
Lisa Honig :
Steve Mayer
Drucilla Ramey
Davis Riemer
Linda Weiner
Donna Hitchens
Frances Strauss -
aclu news
_ june-july 1982
Linda Weiner
I have been a member of ACLU for
10 years, having served on the ACLU-
NC Board for 3 years and the S.F.
Board for 5 years. I have chaired the
Officer Nominating Committee;. co-
chaired the Equality Committee and
served as affiliate representative to the
National Biennial Conference. I am
dresently a member of the Executive
Committee.
ACLU faces enormous challenges in
the next few years, fostered by an at-
mosphere concerned with simplistic
repressive solutions to very complicated
problems. To combat this, ACLU-NC
must work not only in the courtroom,
but in the legislature as well. If elected,
I will continue my past and present
work in civil liberties and social justice
with the Board of ACLU.
ean ae ee ee eee es os en
foo Of BW ooo Boe oo
i DO (c) oo a Boe 8
i
i
a
f S
a
a
i
i
a
a
a
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
a
J
aclu news
6 -june-july 1982
Tobriner:
by Jerome B. Falk, Jr.
The values we of the ACLU cherish
lost a great friend in April with the
death of Justice Mathew O. Tobriner,
who only a few months earlier had
retired from the Supreme Court of
California. He was that unbeatable
combination: a great judge and a warm
charming and altogether wonderful
human being. I cherished his friend-
ship.
I had originally thought to sum-
marize here some of Justice Tobriner's
many lasting contributions to the cause
of civil liberties. But no mere recitation
could possibly do. justice to a judicial
career that includes pathbreaking opi-
nions in virtually every field of law, in-
cluding affirmative action, freedom of
speech, the right to counsel, school in-
tegration, the right of privacy, rights of
_ gays to employment, the right of in-
digent women to Medi-Cal abortions,
freedom of religion - you see, the list
goes on and on.
Suffice it to say that on a court of
many great judges, past and Present,
Mat Tobriner stood second to none in
his contribution to our law. He has
enriched our law with a body of work
which is notable for its craft, scholar-
ship, elegance of language and - most
of all - for its progressive vision of a
just society observant of and bettered by
the rule of law.
But I want to focus on another facet
of this remarkable man: his capacity to
enrich the lives of everyone with whom
he comes into contact, and to inspire
them to greater levels of achievement
and community service.
Justice Tobriner inspired by his in-
tense devotion to his work. At an age in
life when others looked to expand their
leisure activities, he assumed the role of
a Senior Justice at the Court, shoulder-
ing his share of its massive workload
and then some. Except for his notorious
addiction to chocolate in all forms, his
life could fairly be described as ascetic:
long days at the Court, Monday
through Saturday, followed by evenings
of more work and study at home. A lit-
tle hike on Mt. Tamalpais on Sunday,
perhaps a little more work on a draft
opinion, and then return for another
week of work. It was a grueling pace,
from which he never shrank.
Justice Tobriner also inspired by his
interest in and concern for others. A'
young lawyer who had the good fortune
to meet Justice Tobriner soon learned
that, no matter how occupied he was
with Court work, he always had time to:
inquire about what that young lawyer
was doing, to express interest in any ac-
tivity of a pro bono or public service
nature, and in that warm and positive
manner that is so uniquely his, offer
just the right combination of praise and
encouragement. No one who can
remember what it was like to begin a
demanding career in any field will fail
to appreciate the impact such an ex-
pression of interest and encouragement
has on young men and women who,
while perhaps nowhere near as worthy
as Justice Tobriner made them feel,
now had what seemed like an obligation
to match his words of praise with their
own deeds.
And, finally, Justice Tobriner has in-
spired us by his vision of a just society,
tolerant of the rights and individuality
of each citizen. That vision finds ex-
pression in Justice Tobriner's opinions.
: J mene. Mathew. Tobriner
1904-1982
That sensitivity is illustrated by Gay
Law Students v. Pacific Telephone and
Telegraph Co., an opinion of which he
is rightly proud, which held that a
public utility may not engage in
discriminatory employment practices
on the basis of sexual preference.
A few years ago, I took my two young
children over to the Tobriners' home
during the Christmas holiday season for
the purpose of indulging the Justice's
addiction with a pound of chocolate-
covered orange peel - a delicacy mat-
ched only by sins of a far more serious
character. The Tobriners greeted us
warmly; and, as we sat for a chat, Mrs.
Tobriner hurried around the house
scooping various small objects into two
sizeable containers which had
mysteriously appeared. As we left, they
presented the children with these con-
tainers, which were filled with various
candies - mostly chocolate - from
their vast collection. As we walked back
to the car, Suzie, then age eight,
whispered: ""This is a very good deal.
We came here to give them a small box
of chocolate; and leave with three times
Inspired by Vision of a Just Society
asmuch.". _
That incident now strikes me as ap-
propriately symbolic of any dealings
one might be fortunate to have had with
both Justice and Mrs. Tobriner. One
inevitably came away with more than
one brought. That observation applies
_ hot only to personal contacts, but to the
presentation of cases before the
Supreme Court. As I learned on more
than one occasion, counsel submits
written and oral arguments to the Court
and, on the filing of a Tobriner opinion,
receives far more than the sum of
counsel's arguments and analysis.
The center of Justice Tobriner's pro-
fessional life for nearly 21 years was the
Supreme Court of California. It was,
when he joined it, a Court of great
distinction; and it is, today, a Court of
preeminent distinction. Though many
share credit for that achievement,
Justice Tobriner's work plays _pro-
minently in the Court's national reputa-
tion as courageous, progressive and
scholarly.
All of us know that the Court - and
all of the Judiciary - are under attack
from those whose vision of justice dif-
fers radically, and (I regret to say) from
those who see the potential to advance
their own political careers at the ex-
pense of an independent and impartial
judiciary. That threat poses a challenge
for all of us to meet.
The past 21 years of the Supreme
Court's achievement and its present
stature are, in part, Justice Tobriner's
legacy. Preservation of the Court
against this assault can be our most
meaningful tribute to him.
Jerome B. Falk, Jr., Vice President
_and Director of the San Francisco law -
firm of Howard, Rice, Nemerovski,
Canady and Pollack, is the Vice
Chairperson of the ACLU of Northern
California.
8 ee
i i
i WHOM DOYOUTRUST? - |
a( ) Presidential Counselor Edwin Meese: The ACLU is a 4
a `"`criminal's lobby.'' a
: (_) California Lt. Gov. Mike Curb: ``The ACLU has almost !
3 become a lobbying force for the criminals.' 5
a() Former Chief Justice Earl Warren: ``The ACLU has 5
i stood four-square against the recurring tides of !
4 hysteria that from time to time threaten freedoms }
; everywhere. :
i i
s s 8 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_1981 ACLUN_1981.MODS ACLUN_1981.batch ACLUN_1982 ACLUN_1982.MODS ACLUN_1982.batch ACLUN_1983 ACLUN_1983.MODS 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 g
: Join the Fight for Your Rights :
i i
i
; Enclosed is my new membership contribution for: yA
i i
'( ) Individual $20 ( ) Joint $30 :
: and an additional contribution of $ 1
3 ( ) This is a gift membership. a
i a
a
: Name(s) '
i i
# a
i i
' Address t
a a
i... ` i
g City ZIP i
a : 8
0x00A7 Return to: ACLU-NG, 1663 Mission St., San Francisco 94103 ;
heck eee eee
_ pretext to
Pacifica
continued from p. 1
stopped coming in. I think this is exact-
ly what the Planning Commission
wanted. Hopefully, our victory in the
court will turn this around," he added.
The victory in Pacifica comes on the -
heels of the announcement by San
Francisco police officers that they are
dropping libel suits against reporters
and the editor of the Bay Area Reporter
(see ACLU News, May 1982).
Two San Francisco police officers
who claimed they were libeled ina BAR
story about alleged police brutality
against the gay community, dropped
their $20,000,000 suit in April after a
successful defense was mounted by
ACLU-NC_ cooperating attorneys
Robert Lewis and Lynn Pasahow of the
San Francisco law firm of McCutcheon,
Doyle, Brown and Enerson and ACLU
staff counsel Schwartz.
A second libel lawsuit against BAR
guest columnist Randy Schell bya S.F.
Police Inspector was also dropped after
an ACLU defense.
"The victories for Friends of Pacifica
and the Bay Area Reporter are very
significant - but in the current climate
we cannot afford to be complacent,"
said Schwartz. `We are still defending
two former San Francisco Examiner
reporters, Raul Ramirez and Lowell
Bergman, against a million dollar libel
suit by police officers. We are also
representing a small family-run
newspaper in San Leandro threatened
with closure by libel suit from a police
officer who was the subject of a critical
editorial.
"Fortunately, the courts have
responded to our First Amendment
arguments - but we must continue to
check police and other public officials
who are trying to silence critics or chill .
political dissent by slapping defamation
suits on their opponents,'' Schwartz ad-
ded.
Street Sweep
continued from p. 3
similar lawsuit against the S.F. Police
Department Ramey v. Gain) charging
that the police were using a city or-
dinance, Police Code 20a and 20b, as a
sweep. the streets of
"undesirables."'
As a result of that lawsuit, the San
Francisco Board of Supervisors repeal-
ed the offending ordinance and replac-
ed it with one that gave the police less
discretion in picking up persons who
were allegedly obstructing the sidewalk.
Arrests for obstruction dropped
dramatically at first. However, in the
summer of 1980, the ACLU began
receiving complaints that the police
were picking up large numbers of peo-
ple for ``obstruction'' under the aegis of
the state penal code. These findings led
to the filing of Ramey v. Murphy.
The trial was originally scheduled to
begin in May, however, because of the
crowded court schedule, the Presiding
Judge put the trial over until August.
@
aclu news
_ june-july 1982
Prop. 8
criminal justice system. Moreover, the
voters were not afforded an opportunity
to accept some features of Proposition 8
and reject others.
The petitioners are asking the court
to prevent the measure from going into
effect pending a full review of its con-
stitutionality.
According to Margaret Crosby,
ACLU-NC staff attorney who authored
the letter to the Court of Appeal sup-
porting the request for a stay of the
measure, "The ACLU, along with
many other groups, worked very hard to
oppose Proposition 8 because it strips
away many constitutional and statutory
rights from all people in the state while
offering no solution to crime.
"As the petition points out, this
measure represents such a drastic and
far-reaching change in the nature and
operation of the criminal justice system
that it must be considered a revision of
the state constitution rather than a
mere amendment to it,'"' she continued.
"The ACLU is supporting this
challenge to Proposition 8 and will con-
tinue to work to insure that our fun-
damental rights are not eroded by this
dangerous, hodge-podge measure
which only offers the false hope of sim-
ple solutions to a very complex pro-
blem,"' Crosby added.
continued from p. 2
Help Wanted! -
Four volunteers, all men, showed up on the
afternoon of December $1 to help with the
mailing of more than 2200 copies of the
Union's January "News." If you can lend the
Union a hand stuffing envelopes on the after-
noon of the last day of ANY month, please
telephone EXbrook 2-8255, or just drop
around to the office.
_ Right NOW the Union needs volunteers to
help address and stuff envelopes for a large
"Crisis I" mailing. It is an important job and
the Union is badly in need of help. If you live
in San Francisco, this is YOUR chance act-
ually to DO something for the Union besides
sending in your dues.
from the ACLU News,
February 19951
The times have changed, but
the need for the ACLU has not.
We're still putting out member-
ship mailings, in fact more than -
ever. If you have four daytime
hours a week, you can help the
ACLU grow by opening the new
ACLU membership applications
we receive. You can help our
membership and fund raising in
other ways too. Call Michael
Miller. Oh, yes, we no longer
have the EXbrook exchange, so
call (415) 621-2493.
Dean Hides School Paper,
the ``Stye's'' the Limit
by David Sweet
"Satire," author Philip Roth once
wrote, "is moral rage transformed into
comic art.'' The staffers of Pigstye, the
student satirical magazine at UC-Santa
Cruz, would certainly agree. And, after
their experience with censorship by
university authorities, they could add to
Roth's insight that satire and comic art
can sometimes lead to moral rage.
When the November issue of Pigstye
hit the UC-Santa Cruz campus, Porter
College Provost Phillip Nelson accused
the Pigstye staff of slander and libel. He
was incensed over a caricature of -
himself on the front cover and a lam-
`poon of his administrastive policies in-
side. In response to Nelson's accusa-
tions, Pigstye editor John Amsterdam
-said that the satire piece, which alluded
to racial segregation at UC-SC and.
ridiculed the Chancellor, was simply
that - satire. It could only be con-
sidered libelous if it damaged Nelson's
or the Chancellor's reputations or their
livelihood. The editor also argued that
because Pigstye is known on campus as
a magazine of satire, no one could
possibly regard the piece as a statement
of fact. In the December issue of
Pigstye, Amsterdam admitted that us-
ing Provost Nelson's name was a
_ "regrettable mistake by the editors.'
_ He did not, however, make the formal
retraction or apology which Nelson
demanded.
Then, one Monday last March,
ACLU cooperating attorney Bob Taren
received a phone call from Amsterdam.
He told Taren that Nelson had im-
pounded the March issue of Pigstye
before it was distributed on campus and
then left for the spring break. Taren
tried calling other University officials.
Finding them gone for the spring break
ask for a mandatory injunction order-
ing the University to allow distribution
of Pigstye.
Once the UC-Santa Cruz Chancellor
learned what Nelson had `done, he scur-
ried around to find the hidden issues of
Pigstye. After a thorough search of the
campus and a phone call to Nelson, he
found them in the bathtub of a faculty
restroom. The confiscated Pigstye
issues, 300 in all, were then returned to
editor Amsterdam before the Thursday
court date. _ 2
Amsterdam subsequently dropped
the suit. Said Taren, `""The case was
clear-cut. Nelson didn't have a
chance."'
David Sweet, a Bay Area journalist, is a
volunteer with the ACLU NEWS.
po a a a a ees eee eee
A Lawyers Training Conference
Representing
Draft Non- Registrants
Agenda: :
prosecution
e Analysis of defenses
more.
Force
0x00A7 Saturday, July 31
' 9:30 AM to 5:30 PM
e Outline of new Selective Service law and procedures
e Assisting non-registrants through indictment and other initial stages of
e Presentation of affirmative political and religious defenses~. . . and
' Sponsored by: ACLU-NC, CCCO, NLG Military Law Task
ACLU Tries to Keep
Hotel Rooms Private
by Mason Drukman
Do you have a right to privacy when
you are a guest in a hotel? Is the hotel
desk clerk responsible for what guests
do in the seclusion of their rooms?
In April 1980, police officers arrested
Gail Manning, a desk clerk at the S.P.
Hotel in Oakland, and charged her with
violating an 1872 statute, Section 316 of
the Penal Code.
Section 316 states that "`Every person
who keeps a disorderly house, or any
house of public resort, by which the
peace, comfort or decency of the im-
mediate neighborhood is habitually
disturbed, or keeps an inn in a
@ :
disorderly manner, and every person
who lets an apartment or tenement
knowing that it is to be used for the pur-
pose of an assignation or prostitution is
guilty of a misdemeanor."'
The Oakland police officers,
reputedly believing that the S.P. Hotel
was a _hostelry where prostitutes
regularly took paying clients to engage
in illicit sex, kept the hotel under fre-
quent watch. On the night of April 30,
they followed a couple into the hotel,
believing that the couple intended to
engage in illegal sex in one of the hotel's
rooms. Apparently lacking sufficient
evidence to arrest either of the pair, the
police arrested Manning instead under
Section 316.
Manning challenged the constitu-
tionality of Section 316. in the
Oakland-Piedmont Municipal Court.
Boalt Law School ,
U.C. Berkeley :
Her challenge was denied and her ap-
peal is being supported with an amicus
curiae brief from the ACLU and
California Attorneys for Criminal
Justice.
ACLU-NC staff attorney Margaret
Crosby explained, ""The courts have
long recognized that people bring an
expectation of privacy to their hotel
room, and that what goes on in hotel
rooms is no business of the state. This
1872 statute is hopelessly out of date
and unconstitutional."
The proscription of ``assignations''
- a vague term nowhere defined in the
Penal Code - is particularly objec-
tionable, the ACLU brief argues. That
Gs
t
Vo
prohibited conduct is virtually identical
to "private consensual sexual behavior"'
which has been repeatedly protected by
decisions of the State Supreme Court.
References to prohibited "`lewd acts"'
found elsewhere in the Penal Code are
confined to sexual exposure or contact
in a genuinely public place, where
others might become unwilling spec-
tators to conduct they regard as offen-
sive. A hotel room is not such a public
place, Crosby asserted.
"Not only is Section 316 out of date,
its utilization will in the end do just the
opposite of what the Penal Code is
designed to do. When Victorian prin-
ciples of propriety are enshrined in an
archaic law like Section 316, and when
such a_ statute is enforced only
sporadically against an unlucky few like
Gail Manning, the only lesson is
disrespect for law enforcement,"
Crosby said. :
Beyond the principle of hotel room '
privacy is the question of whether a
desk clerk should be held accountable
for what goes on behind the closed
doors of such rooms. The ACLU brief
argues that as Manning had no connec-
tion with any alleged sexual illegalities,
she cannot therefore be considered a _
pimp, a panderer or even the keeper of
a "`disorderly house.'' By requiring her
to discriminate among guests as to their
marital status and sexual intentions she
is in effect being conscripted into acting
"as a first line of defense' for the
government. "`As it stands, Section 316
requires hotel clerks to become
eavesdroppers, voyeurs or informants
on intimate affairs to escape the poten-
tial for prosecution,'' Crosby said.
"We believe that such a requirement
is unconstitutional. Clearly, we do not
-want to establish the kind of society
g Fee: includes conference and a manual on non-registration defenses g where hotel desk clerks are forced to
f and the draft $45 (standard fee); $40 (if you sign up before July 16); $20 g Speculate concerning our sex lives,"
i ; : g Crosby concluded.
g (law students) For more information: _ 4 Mason Drukman, a freelance political
Call CCCO, 415/566-0500 1251 2nd Ave., S.F. 94122 | and legal writer, is a volunteer with the
too, he called the Board of Regents
lawyer, who agreed with Taren that
Nelson's seizure of Pigstye violated the
First Amendment. A court hearing was
arranged for that Thursday. On behalf 1
of editor Amsterdam, Taren planned to
Pal SOMEONE RACES Gt PRE Ree te EEO CER WO Ra FR eRe
aclu news
june-july 1982
The Field Committee
In June 1981, representatives of
ACLU-NC's 15 chapters met for the
first time as the new Field Committee.
Their goal: to increase the activity and
effectiveness of ACLU chapters and
members on priority issues.
Today, the Field Committee and its
.Rro-Choice Task Force and Right to
Dissent Subcommittee are looking back
. 'ONeea year of activity and ac-
complishments, with hundreds of let-
_ ters written, scores of telephone calls
made, numerous events, forums, and
media appearances - and more ACLU
supporters involved in action cam-
paigns than ever before.
"The current field program concept
- to focus on one or two `top priority'
civil liberties concerns which lend -
themselves to effective membership ac-
tion - has: successfully brought
together veteran civil libertarians and
new ACLU supporters," said Peter
Hagberg who has chaired the Field
Committee since its inception.
Created by an ad hoc chapter/board
planning committee early in 1981, the
Field Committee is charged with setting
affiliate-wide membership organizing
goals and overseeing the work of issue-
specific subcommittees. At its first
meeting in June, 1981, the Committee
chose its issues - reproductive rights
and freedom of expression - after
B.A.K.
BOARD MEETING: (Fourth
Thursday each month.) Thursday,
June 24; 8:00 p.m. in Berkeley.
for location and for information on
the chapter's summer meeting
schedule.
EARL WARREN
BOARD MEETING: (Third
Wednesday each month.) Wednes-
day, July 21, 7:30 p.m., Sumitomo
Bank, 20th and Franklin, Oakland.
Contact Barbara Littwin, 415/452-
4726. There will be no _ board
meeting in August.
GAY RIGHTS
ANNUAL MEETING now being
planned for August. Contact Bill In-
gersoll, 415/348-8342.
MARIN
BOARD MEETING: (Third Mon-
day each month.) Monday, June 21,
8:00 p.m., Fidelity Savings,
Throckmorton Street, Mill Valley.
Contact Bill Luft, 415/453-6546.
There will be no board meetings in
July or August.
MID-PEN
BOARD MEETING: (Fourth
Thursday each month.) Thursday,
June 24, 8:00 p.m., All Saints
Episcopal Church, S55 Waverly
Street, Palo Alto. Contact Harry
be no board meetings in July or
August.
ACLU members racing to participat
Contact Joe Dorst, 415/654-4163, -
Anisgard, 415/856-9186. There will -
reports from all ACLU-NC chapters.
Two working subcommittees, the Pro-
Choice Task Force and the Right to
Dissent Subcommittee, chaired by
Anne Jennings and Jake Rubin respec-
tively, began meeting last summer.
Legislative and legal threats from
those who would eliminate reproductive
rights and public dissent provided plen-
ty of opportunity for action during the
past year for both teams.
in the Annual Conference.
MONTEREY
PUBLCI FORUM: Tuesday, June
22, 8:00 p.m. A public showing of
"The Last Epidemic" followed by an
informal discussion of the Bilateral
Nuclear Weapons Freeze. Monterey
Library, Madison and Pacific Streets,
Monterey. Contact Richard Criley,
408/624-7562. Planning is underway
for the August public forum, to be
held Tuesday, August 24; contact
Richard Criley, number above, for
more information.
BOARD MEETING: Tuesday, July
27, 7:30 p.m. Monterey Library.
MT. DIABLO
BOARD MEETING: (Third Thurs-
day each month.) Contact 415/939-
ACLU for information on _ the
chapter's summer meeting schedule.
NORTH PEN
PUBLIC MEETING on the Bilateral
Nuclear Freeze Initiative is now be-
ing planned; contact Richard Keyes,
415/367-8800 for more information.
BOARD MEETING: (Third Tues-
day each month.) Tuesday, July 20,
8:00 p.m. The August board
meeting may be changed to coincide
with the Public Forum now being
planned. Contact Richard Keyes,
number above, for information.
SACRAMENTO
BOARD MEETING: (Third
Wednesday each month.) Wednes-
day, July 21; Wednesday, August 18;
7:30 p.m. New County Administra-
tion Building, 7th and I Streets,
Hearing Room 1, Sacramento.
Contact Cliff Anderson, 916/451-
5025.
NOMINATIONS are needed to fill
Calendar
CHAMPAGNE BRUNCH: The an-
The 1981 ACLU Conference, spon-
sored by the Field Committee in Oc-
tober, served as the launching event for
the new reproductive rights organizing
effort.
Over 100 ACLU members and
friends came for a weekend of inspira-
tion and information, including
regional meetings, ``how to''
workshops and noted speakers Helen
Rodriguez-Trias, Esther Herst,
Suzanne Lynn and Eva Jefferson Pater-
son.
"On to Apple Pie Day" was the rally-
ing cry following the conference. Work
in support of this annual event com-
memorating the U.S. Supreme Court
decision legalizing abortion (and known
as Apple Pie Day because pro-choice
legislators are awarded apple pies) in-
cluded gathering thousands of
signatures on pro-choice petitions,
recruiting lobbyists, and sponsoring
public forums. The Monterey
Reproductive Rights Coalition, led by -
Rosemary Matson, established a mon-
thly newsletter, held educationals, and
designed and produced the first
"Choice is As American as Apple Pie'"'
T-shirts, and a successful forum was
organized by the Stockton chapter. -
Apple Pie Day itself - January 21 -
attracted nearly 500 activists, one-third
of them from the ACLU, to Sacramento
current vacancies on the Sacramento
Valley Chapter Board. Members are
encouraged to submit nominations
as soon as possible to Nominations
Committee, P.O. Box 160423,
Sacramento, CA 95816.
SAN FRANCISCO
BOARD MEETING: (Last Tuesday
each month.) Tuesday, June 29; 6:30
p.m. A July meeting is tentatively set
for Tuesday, July 27. Contact
Richard Weinstein, 415/771-8932,
for more information.
SANTA CLARA
BOARD MEETING: (First Tuesday
each month.) Tuesday, July 6; Tues-
day, August 3; 7:30 p.m. Communi-
ty Bank Building, San Jose. Contact
Vic Ulmer, 408/379-4431.
SANTA CRUZ
BOARD MEETING: (Second
Wednesday each month.) Contact
Bob Taren, 408/429-9880 for more
informatior on the chapter's sum-
mer meeting schedule.
SONOMA
BOARD MEETING: (Third Thurs-
day each month.) Thursday, July 15,
7:30 p.m. Center for Employment
Training, 3753 Santa Rosa Avenue,
Santa Rosa. Contact Andrea Learn-
ed, 707/544-0876.
ANNUAL PICNIC is being planned
for August. Contact Andrea
Learned, number above, for in-
formation date and place.
STOCKTON
- A Year of Action
for the largest-ever pro-choice lobbying
day in California's capital. Coor-
dinators Margot Garey, Liz Zeck, Rose
Bonhag, Sally Smith, Julius Young, Pat
McDonald, Beverly Bortin, Bernice
Biggs and Matson were responsible for
the large ACLU turn-out and the many
weeks of preparation.
Fueled by their January success, the
Pro-Choice Task Force turned their at-
tention to developing a Speakers
Bureau and a communications network
in addition to strengthening local coali-
tions.
The Speakers Bureau, directed by
Mary Hackenbracht, Dick Grosboll
and Karen Winner sponsored a
speakers training session in March and
now members are speaking on pro-
choice issues. at colleges, community
centers, and other groups around the
region.
When the Hatch "Human Life'
Federalism Amendment, S.J. Res. 110,
passed the U.S. Senate Judiciary Com-
mittee in March, hundreds of letters,
telegrams and phone calls to California
Senators Alan Cranston and S.I.
Hayakawa urging their `"`no'"' vote on -
the proposed amendment were
generated by Task Force members.
Public events - such as the one in
Berkeley organized by Bonhag, Zeck,
Beth Nelson and Florence Piliavin and
continued on p. 4
f
nual breakfast of the Stockton
Chapter is scheduled for Sunday, Ju-
ly 4, 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m., $5.00.
`Contact Bart Harloe, 209/946-2431,
for more information. :
BOARD MEETING: (First Tuesday
each month.) Tuesday, July 6,
Contact Bart Harloe, number above, (c)
for more information.
YOLO
ELECTION RESULTS: Con-
gratulations to re-elected chapter
president Julius Young, vice-
ipresident Casey McKeever, treasurer
Marilyn Olmstead, and secretary
Nadine Noelting. ; 2
`VOLUNTEERS NEEDED: Yolo
`County Chapter members concerned
`about civil liberties and interested `in
`volunteering to work with the
`chapter are encouraged to contact
Julius Young 916/758-5666.
Pro-Choice Task
Force
Wednesday, July 14, 6:00 to 7:30
p-m., ACLU-NC, 1663 Mission
Street, San Francisco. All reproduc-
tive rights activists are encouraged to
attend. Contact Marcia Gallo,
415/621-2494, for more informa-
tion.
Right to Dissent
Subcommittee
Wednesday, July 14, 7:30 to 9:00
p-m., ACLU-NC, address above.
Regular meeting of ``national securi-
ty''/freedom of expression organiz-
ing group - all interested in protec-
ting the right to dissent are invited to
attend. Contact Marcia Gallo,
number above, for more informa-
tion.