vol. 47, no. 3

aclu CWS

Volume XLVII

April 1982

Book Bans Blasted Fingerprint Rule Challenged

The Vallejo city ordinance that re- limiting mandatory fingerpri = es

quires all persons who seek to canvass _ situations where it is necessary ox

door-to-door for political or charitable pelling law enforcement reason -_ .--

CENSORSHIP IS FOOLISH was the subject of an April Fools Day rally at the San

Francisco Public Library. ACLU-NC Executive Director Dorothy Ehrlich (center)

spoke about ACLU efforts to halt book banning in public schools and libraries. Local

|authors like Ishmael Reed (left) and Tillie Olsen (right) read from works tigi bad been

zensored in schools and the San Francisco-Mime Ir oupe provided -music-fer the]

event which was sponsored by Media Alliance.

Kathy ramet

Green Light for

Los Gatos `Cruiser'

Michael David Aguilar, a 19-year old

Los Gatos resident, was charged by the

police with ``cruising''- or, as a Los

Gatos city ordinance defined it ``driving

for the sake of driving without immediate

destination. . .on the lookout for pos-

sible developments?'

The ACLU-NC, representing Aguilar,

asked the Los Gatos Municipal Court to

dismiss the charges because the ordinance

was unconstitutionally vague and over-

broad and because the state Vehicle Code

prohibits municipalities from creating

their own driving rules. The Municipal

Court refused.

. But on March 24, in response to an

ACLU appeal, the state Court of Appeal

ordered the lower court to dismiss the

case and threw out the Los Gatos cruising

ordinance.

The unanimous appellate court ruling,

written by Justice Marc Poche, agreed

with ACLU arguments that the state

Vehicle Code prohibits local governments

from passing ordinances regulating

driving.

"The Los Gatos ordinance is preemp-

ted by the state code;' explained ACLU-

NC staff attorney Amitai Schwartz.

`"`Driving regulations must be uniform

throughout the state, otherwise motorists

would have to learn new rules each time

they cross a city line. Obtaining a driver's

license would become a nightmare - you

would have to know local rules from all

over the state in order to pass the test?'

The ACLU had also argued that the

ordinance was unconstitutionally vague

and overbroad. According | to Schwartz,

`The ordinance was, in effect, a loitering

law for cars. The city of Los Gatos can-

not use blunderbuss methods to suppress

recreational driving any more than it can

use vague laws to sweep the sidewalks of

other sorts of `undesirables? "'

The ordinance, adopted in 1979,

regulated traffic in 14 downtown Los

Gatos streets. Violation of the ordinance

carried a minimum penalty of $25 for the

first conviction and $50 for subsequent

convictions. City officials said that the

ordinance was passed to prevent young

people in cars from clogging the affluent

downtown shopping district.

Los Gatos Police Sergeant Wayne

Saindon told the press that the Los Gatos

Police Department ``will be disap-

pointed'' with the Court of Appeal rul-

ing. Saindon said that night and weekend

traffic through the business section was

being completely blocked by the young

cruisers. ``Normal people weren't coming

into town any more ' Saindon added.

Aguilar was cited for cruising in

downtown Los Gatos in May and June

1980. He brought his case to the Santa

Clara Chapter of the ACLU. Santa Clara |

Chapter Chair Michael Chatzky said that

in addition to Aguilar, many people had

complained to the chapter that they had

been harassed and stopped without due

cause under the ordinance. Other Los

Gatos residents, wanted the ordinance

changed because they felt the wording

was unconstitutional.

purposes to submit to fingerprinting by

the police is unlawful and must be scrap-

ped, claims an ACLU-NC lawsuit filed in -

the Solano County Superior Court on

March 4.

ACLU is challenging the fingerprint-

ing requirement on behalf of three

organizations - Citizens for a Better En-

vironment, Citizens Action League, and

Greenpeace - who claim that their First

Amendment right to communicate with

` the people of Vallejo is being violated,

and two local taxpayers who claim that

their tax money is being misspent on the

implementation of the unlawful or-

dinance.

ACLU-NC cooperating attorneys Jef-

frey S. Ross of the San Francisco law

firm of Friedman, Sloan and Ross and

Harry Pollack, a Benecia attorney, are

suing the city of Vallejo, the Chief of

Police and other city officials on the

grounds that the fingerprinting,require-

ment violates the constitutional guaran-

tees of free speech, privacy and equal

protection.

Last September, Citizens for a Better

Envronment (CBE), a national, non-

profit public interest group concerned

with vital environmental issues, applied

for a permit to conduct a door-to-door

canvass/fund drive in Vallejo. In Oc-

tober, solely because CBE refused to

comply with the fingerprint requirement,

the city denied the application for the

solicitation permit.

According to coorperating attorney

Ross, ``The right of CBE and other

groups to canvass, obtain and impart in-

formation, and solicit donations is a fun-

damental right guaranteed by the U.S.

and California constitutions.

"The taking of fingerprints as a prere-

`quisite to a solicitation permit affronts

the liberty of the applicant and invades

his or her privacy?'

ACLU-NC staff attorney Alan

Schlosser commented, ``We view this

lawsuit as an important first step in

cent years, there has been a proliferation

of mandatory fingerprinting require-

ments attached to various aspects of daily

life. For example, fingerprinting is often

required to get a job in local government,

to engage in a variety of businesses, to

take the Bar exam and even to cash a

check with a bank. .

``That many Californians resent and

object to this process as an unnecessary

intrusion into their privacy is illustrated

by the great number of complaints that

the ACLU has received in recent years.

against these and other fingerprint re-

quirements;' Schlosser added.

The ACLU is also examining the

privacy violations which may result from

keeping fingerprints ``on file'? for an in- -

definite period. As attorney Ross ex-

plained, "`The fingerprinting require-

ments's invasion of privacy is compound-

ed by the absence of any limitation on the

length of.time the fingerprints can be re-

tained and the absence of any prohibition

on the dissemination of the fingerprints.

`*This form of governmental stockpil-

ing of information on citizens is precisely

the abuse against which the right of

privacy embodied in the California Con-

stitution is directed?' Ross added.

According to Roy Gesley, Canvass

Director for Citizens for a Better En-

vironment, ``Our canvassers provide in-

formation of substantial environmental ~

consequence to residents. In turn, the

response of residents helps CBE staff to

isolate and identify concerns - such as |

rampant industrial pollution, energy pro-

blems or pesticide dangers. In addition,

we obtain support of CBE and our ac-

~ tivities through donations.

- Gesley explained that CBE has done a

great deal of work in the Vallejo area

around the use of dangerous pesticides,

pollution from the oil refineries and other

public health hazards. ``In 1979;' he ex-

plained, ``largely because of testimony by

CBE, the Vallejo City Council decided to

suspend the use of the pesticide 2,4D by

contin en onp.7

Questions About Prop. 8?

see pages 4-5

aclu news

April 1982

by Dorothy Ehrlich

ACLU-NC Executive Director

A battle to save the Bill of Rights is be-

ing waged in Congress. Predictions by the

ACLU about threats to civil liberties are

being realized, with a vengeance.

Tampering with the Bill of Rights - once

just a demagogic theory proffered by na-

tional office-seekers and right-wing

ideolo - is being put into practice. A

review of a series of events over a few

weeks in March illustrates the crisis:

e The Senate approved the Johnston-

Helms Amendment which strips the

federal courts of their authority to issue

busing orders and prohibits the Attorney

General from participating in school

desegregation cases. This was the first

successful attempt to strip the federal

courts of their authority to interpret and

' protect the Constitution.

e The "`Human Life'' Federalism

Amendment, the first significant piece of

anti-abortion legislation to be approved

by a major policy committee, was passed

by the Senate Judiciary Committee.

e The Intelligence Identities Protection

Act cleared the Senate with a 90-6 vote. |

This ``Names of Agents' bill makes it a

"crime to disclose the identity of a covert

FBI or CIA agent or informant even if it

derived from public information. |

e A Senate subcommittee approved an

amendment which would make the Vot-

ing Rights Act of 1965 impossible to en-

force.

In the same period, the more subtle

weapons which allow government to

abuse power were also being finely tuned.

GE a IS

CIVIL LIBERTIES

AN ightmare Come True

An administrative order which requires

parents to provide Social Security

numbers as a condition for their

children's subsidized school lunch was

put into effect. The Director of Selective

Service announced that Social Security

numbers would be reviewed in order to

select names of young men (approximate-

ly 1 million of them) who failed to register

for the draft. These young men face

maximum sentences of 5 years in prison

and a $10,000 fine.

The ACLU even went to court to stop

another loyalty oath requirement from

being enforced. This time it is CETA

workers whose loyalty is to be tested.

Finally, the Senate Judiciary Commit-

tee unanimously passed a new extradition

bill, sponsored by Senator Strom Thur-

`mond, which removes from the federal

courts the determination of the ``political

offense exception'' and hands it to the

Secretary of State. This proposal

sacrifices the due process rights of per-

sons requested for extradition for the pur-

poses of foreign policy.

These examples are not just a coin-

cidence, nor a timing fluke. ``Social .

issues;' we were told, were put on the

back-burner while Congress first address-

ed economic problems. Though these

problems have not yet been solved, the

- `social issues"' agenda is now being push-

ed ahead, so as not to tax the patience of

the forces which selected public officials

to office in 1980.

Fashion-conscious California

The fashion-conscious state of Califor-

nia is never far behind. On March 12, on-

| What are they?

| PROJECT

Who wants them?

Who needs them?

A series of radio

documentaries.

RE EE

_ The series will air throughout the coun-

try beginning in April. The first program, |

Guns, Weapons: The Right to Bear -

Arms, will be broadcast locally on KPFA

(94.1 FM) on Tuesday, April 13 at noon.

The second program, Pressure Groups,

Censorship and the First Amendment,

`will be on Saturday, April 17 at 7 PM.

After that, the series will have a regular

slot on Tuesday evenings at 7 PM.

BILL OF RIGHTS

RADIO EDUCATION

National Endowment of

the Humanities, American -

Civil Liberties Union,

Pacifica Foundation

ly four days before the first scheduled

state execution in 15 years was to take

`place, a federal Court of Appeals panel

in San Francisco granted a stay. Press

statements from San Quentin explained

that they were ``dusting off the gas

chamber'' in preparation of the execu-

tion, despite the fact that there has never

been a federal court review of

-California's new death penalty law.

In the same period, 17 pieces of legisla-

tion which seek to ban and/or frustrate a

woman's choice to have an abortion -

and to hinder groups which advocate that

right - were introduced in the state

legislature.

-Targeting the Courts

Significant changes in the Constitution

are required if the ``new right'' is to reach

its goals, since the Constitution obviously

protects a woman's right to choose, the

right to equal educational opportunities,

and due process. Rather than going

through the complicated process of

amending the Constitution, these forces

are attempting to achieve the same result

through a back-door method known as

``court-stripping?' Thus, they offer

legislation which limits the jurisdiction of

the federal courts to review cases on these

controversial matters. Their proposed

legislation has consequences far beyond

the single issues they seize upon, as they

tamper with the fundamental principles

of judicial independence.

Already, 30 court-stripping bills have

been introduced in Congress on issues

ranging from abortion, desegregation,

the death penalty and school prayer - the

whole new/right social agenda.

Given tbe greater danger posed by

these methods, the ACLU is not alone in

fighting the battle against court-stripping

legislation. David R. Brink, the President

of the American Bar Association, charg-

ed that this kind of legislation would

"`create the most serious constitutional

crisis since our Great Civil War?'

Similar proposals exist in the state

legislature where the independence of the

state judiciary is also under serious at-

tack. Constitutional amendments which

would ban the state courts from requiring

that funds be spent to enforce constitu-

_ tional rights are being considered by both

the Assembly and the Senate. These

measures are a direct response to ALCU's

successful litigation which requires Medi-

Cal funds be provided for poor women to

exercise their right to choose an abortion.

- Constitutional amendments to under-

mine California's safeguard against the

use Of illegally obtained evidence (the ex-

clusionary rule) is being proposed. The

June ballot will even include a constitu-

tional amendment, Proposition 4, to

allow for preventive detention in the

name of "`public safety?'

Fighting on all Fronts

ACLU-NC's activist network - its

Pro-Choice Task Force and Right to Dis-

sent Subcommittee - have quickly risen

to the task of forcefully responding to

these threats. We are working in coali-

tions to fight back against bans on abor-

tions, book censorship, the Gann initia-

tive, and other threats to our basic rights.

Furthermore, litigation is being pro-

posed to respond to those issues where the

ACLU has suffered defeats in state and

federal legislatures, such as the Names of

Agents bill and the state death penalty

law.

There is no doubt that these challenges

require the concerted action of the ACLU

and all its members. While talented lob-

byists represent the ACLU in Washing-

ton, D.C. and Sacramento, their ad-

vocacy must be backed up by the action

`of ACLU's membership. Letters and

visits to legislators and participation in

ACLU-NC Task Forces has never been as

critical. A counterforce to this anti-civil

liberties climate must be bold and visible

during these extraordinary times.

There is an ancient Chinese curse which

goes, ``May you live in interesting times?' -

The new right and their allies in public of-

. fice are making the times very - ``in-

_ teresting'? for minorities, women, the

poor and all of us who oppose their nar-

row, self-serving agenda. A forceful,

well-organized response from us must

make the times "`interesting'' for them.

Field Committee

continued from p. 8

campaign by offering speakers to com-

munity groups, women's groups, gather-

ings of peace and nuclear freeze activists

- as many as we can handle.

`*That the public has access to informa-

tion on the workings of its government is

important to us all}' he added.

Future Meetings

The Pro-Choice Task Force and the

Right to Dissent Subcommittee meet

regularly, usually on the first Wednesday

of each month, at 6 and 7:30 PM.-The

next meetings are set for May 5. Contact

Marcia Gallo at the ACLU-NC office,

415/621-2494 to get involved in the work

of these active committees.

New Structure

A steering committee has been -

established to help guide the work of the

20-member Field Committee, which

oversees the work of the Pro-Choice Task

Force and the Right to Dissent Subcom-

mittee. In addition to Field Committee

chair Peter Hagberg, and subcommittee

chairs Anne Jennings and J.R. Rubin, the

new steering committee also includes Ber-

nice Biggs and Richard Criley.

The next meeting of the full Field Com-

mittee is scheduled for April 15 at 6 PM,

_ just prior to the ACLU-NC Board of

Directors meeting.

Elaine Elinson, Editor

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,

ACLU NEWS (USPS 018-040)

1 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.

Chapter Page g |

aclu news

April 1982

Congress

Despite an increasingly repressive

' climate in Washington, D.C., the nor-

thern California delegation in the House

of Representatives had a commendable

record on national civil liberties legisla-

tion in 1981. Listed below are brief

descriptions of eleven key civil liberties

measures in the first session of the 97th

Congress. ACLU support of the legisla- -

tion is noted bya (+), ACLU opposition

by a(-).

The following ratings are from Civil

Liberties Alert, the monthly newsletter of

the ACLU national legislative office in

Washington, D.C. ACLU members can

subscribe to Civil Liberties Alert by

writing to the ACLU Legislative Office,

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, SE,

Washington, D.C. 20003.

Legislation in the House (c)

1. School Desegregation: Collins

amendment preventing the Justice

Department from using any funds in liti-

gation that might result in school busing

for desegregation purposes. It would for-

bid the Department to participate in

almost all desegregation cases. Adopted

265-122, June. ACLU-

2. Legal Services: Wilson amendment

to prohibit all class action lawsuits by the

Legal Services Corporation. Adopted

241-167, June. ACLU-

3. Legal Services: McDonald amend-

ment to prohibit Legal Services from

representing anyone discriminated

against on the basis on sexual preference.

Adopted 281-124, June. ACLU-

4. Legal Services:Final passage of the

$241 million authorization bill. Adopted

245-137, June. ACLU +

5. Abortion: Ashbrook rider to

Treasury Department appropriations bill

cutting off health insurance benefits for

abortions of federal employees unless the

woman's life is endangered. Passed

253-167, July. ACLU-

6. School Prayer: Walker amendment

to the Justice Department appropriations

bill barring the Department from using

funds to challenge state voluntary school

prayer programs. The purpose of this

amendment is to prevent the Department

from enforcing the Supreme Court deci-

sion which declared such programs un-

constitutional. Adopted 333-53,

September. ACLU-

7. Names of Intelligence Agents:

Ashbrook amendment adding a "`reason

to believe' standard to the Intellegence

Identities Protection Act. This makes it a

crime to publish information revealing

the identity of a covert CIA or FBI agent

or informant if there is `"`reason to

believe' that such disclosure will harm

intelligence activities. Adopted 354-56,

September. ACLU-

8. Names of Intelligence Agents: Final

passage of the Intelligence Identities Pro-

tection Act, including a ``reason to

believe' standard of proof in determin-

ing if a crime has been committed by

disclosing the name of an intelligence

agent. Adopted 354-56, September.

ACLU-

9. Voting Rights: Butler amendiient to

the Voting Rights Act extension bill to

permit ``bail out'' cases to be heard by

federal district courts in each state

wishing to come out from coverage under

the Section 5 preclearance provision, in-

stead of by the District of Columbia

federal court. Defeated 132-277, Oc-

tober. ACLU-

10. Voting Rights: Campbell amend-

ment to the Voting Rights Act extension

bill to permit a state covered under the

Section 5 preclearance provision to ``bail

out'' if two-thirds of its counties are eligi- -

ble to bail out. Defeated 128-284, Oc-

tober. ACLU-

11. Voting Rights: McClory amend- -

ment to the Voting Rights Act extension

bill to eliminate a requirement that cer-

tain jurisdictions provide bilingual elec-

tion materials. Defeated 128-284, Oc-

tober. ACLU-

1 AN

CALL

How Northern California Congressmen

voted in comparison to ACLU positions:

Name | + - 4% Rating

Burton, J. (D) 1. O 64

Burton, P. (D) 10. 0 90

Clausen, D. (R) 3.28 24

Coelho, T. (D) Tee 64

Dellums, R. (D) 11 O 100

. Edwards, D. (D) 11 O 100

Fazio, V. (D) 10.1 90

Lantos, T. (D) 3 04

McCloskey, P. (R) 7 2 64

Matsui, R. (D) 9.2 82

Miller, G. (D) il- 0 100

Minetta, N. (D) 102 1. 90

Panetta, L. (D) 9.2 82

Pashayan, C. (R) 12 9

Shumway, N. (R) 0 11 - 0

Stark, EF (D) 11 O 100

In the Senate

1. Abortion: Helms amendment to

prohibit Medicaid payment to victims of

rape arid incest. The amendment limits

funds to women whose lives would be en-

dangered it the pregnancy were carried to

term. Adopted 52-43, May. ACLU-

2. School Desegregation: Johnston-

Helms amendment to the Justice Depart-

ment authorization bill prohibiting

federal courts from ordering busing. The

amendment could also lead to the re-

Opening of existing busing orders. The

vote followed a three month effort by

Sen. Lowell Weicker to delay action.

Adopted 60-39, September. ACLU-

3. Legal Services: Weicker motion to

table an amendment to the Legal Services

appropriations bill which would have cut

the current funding level from $321 mil-

lion to $100 million, thereby virtually

terminating most of the Legal Services

_ program. Adopted 48-33, November.

ACLU + :

FINALLY, on Te

BLACKS, WOMEN

WORKERS, AND THE ) |

H aay HELPED DMF, WIN

CALL' Js ial

YOU...

For the Record

4. Schoo] Prayer: Helms amendment

to the Justice Department appropriations

bill barring the Department from spend-

ing money to challenge state voluntary

school prayer programs, thereby prevent-

ing the Department of Justice from en-

forcing the Supreme Court decision

declaring such programs unconstitu-

"LL

on @1977 LNS

tional. Adopted 58-38, November. .

ACLU- -

Senator + Rating

Cransjon, A S50

Hayakawa,S. 1 2 2"

D.C;

~ tion? Can I be sterilized without my

DRAFT Update

A campaign to eliminate funds for

draft registration from the Selective Ser-

-vice budget has been launched by anti-

draft groups throughout the country, in-

cluding the ACLU.

According to Judy Newman, ACLU-

NC Board member who attended a recent

anti-draft conference in Washinton,

`We are asking that the $10 to $13

million appropriation for draft registra-

tion be cut from the Selective Service

budget on the basis that the funds are a

gross misuse of tax-payers' money. The

almost fact that almost 1,000,000 young

men have not registered clearly shows

that the program is not working?'

The Selective Service budget is part of

the HUD and Independent Agencies

Budget and is therefore reviewed by the

House HUD Appropriations Subcom-

mittee. According to Newman, out of the

eight members of the subcommittee there

are five who may be amenable to cutting

the draft registration funds.

`"`We are urging ACLU members to

write to the Chair of the Subcommittee as

well as your own Representative to vote

in favor of the cuts in the Selective Service

budget?' Newman said.

probability that there will be a vote on the

House floor when the committee submits

its recommendations, we warn our repre-

sentatives that we view their vote on these

cuts as an indication of their position on

the draft?'

Write to:

Edward T. Boland, Chair

HUD Appropriations Subcommittee.

U.S. House of Representative

Washington, D.C. 20515

Honorable (your Representative)

U.S. House of Representatives

Washington, D.C. 20515

This new brochure, How DoI Make

My CHOICE? Questions and Ans-

wers about Abortion, Sterilization,

Birth Control and Reproductive

Rights in California, has just been

published by the ACLU-NC.

The easy-to-use guide to repro-

ductive rights, prepared by Public In-

formation Director Elaine Elinson and

Staff Attorney Margaret Crosby,

answers questions like: Can a doctor

or hospital refuse my request for an

abortion? Do I need my husband's/ |

parents' permission to get an abor-

consent? and many more.

A useful tool for women's centers,

schools, clinics and all those who have

even asked `"`How do I make my

choice?' individual copies are available

free of charge by filling in the coupon

below. (Bulk orders are $10 for 100

brochures.) _

I want to know about reproductive rights in California. |

___Please send me a copy of How Do I Make My CHOICE? i

y --Please send me ____ copies of How Do I Make My CHOICE? Enclosed is 6s :

(Bulk orders are $10 per 100 copies.)

i Name

: Address

: City Zip

NSend to: Pro-choice Brochure, ACLU-NC, 1663 Mission St., S.F. 94103. Make checks}

: payable to ACLU-NC.

"With the - -

aclu news

April 1982

Don't Let the BILL OF RIC

The law and Bret folks are at it again.

Proposition 8, which will appear on the June ballot, is

a sweeping initiative which would undo numerous con-

stitutional guarantees with one fell swoop. Sponsored by

Paul Gann as the so-called Victims Bill of Rights, Proposition

8 is alegal nightmare which must be forcefully opposed by

all who value civil liberties.

Because the Gann initiative is being touted as the sim-

ple solution to crime. It is not. It is an irresponsible

answer to a serious question. It s supporters are playing

on everyone's fear of being a victim of crime to try and

create a groundswell of support for the measure. They are

hoping that people will overlook the fact this measure will

not stop crime - but it will be expensive, overburden the

courts, and play havoc with the constitutional rights of us

all.

There are many reasons to oppose the Gar initiative:

e The legality of so many changes in the law being embodied | in one initiative is

questionable.

e The profound changes proposed by the Gann initiative would be difficult to un-

do. Because so many of the provisions require a 2/3 vote of the Legislature for change,

many of the provisions are virtually immune from the normal legislative process.

e Its implementation would be extremely expensive. According to Gerald Uelmen,

Vice-President of the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice, "Most significant is the

concealed cost of these changes, which would result: in a need for twice as many

judges, twice as many prosecutors, twice as many public defenders andtwice asmany -

risons.'

. e The initiative is drafted so sloppily that it would make some sections of state law

incompatible with other sections of state law and with federal law. For example, the in-

_ itiative would repeal a section of the evidence code which states that rape victims need

not give their telephone number and address in open court and another section that

allows young children not to testify if they are incapable of expressing themselves or of

understanding the duty of a witness to tell the truth. 0x00B0

But, most significantly, the Gann initiative would seriously undermine our

hard-won constitutional rights. The ACLU and other groups will oppose the spon-

sors of this measure who wish to sacrifice our fundamental rights for the so-called rights

of victims. That is why we examine here these basic. constitutional issues:

The Gann initiative proposes amendments to the state Constitution, the Penal Code

`and the Welfare and Institutions Code. It is a panoply of false remedies. Various sections

of the initiative would play havoc with the constitutional principles of presumption of

innocence, the right to a fair trial, privacy and freedom from cruel and unusual punish-

ment.

Proposition 8 would make an accused person

"Guilty Until Proven Innocent?'

The wording of the preamble to the Gann initiative indicates that the sponsors in- -

tend to do away with the long-held notion that a person is innocent until proven guilty

- and that only those found guilty should be punished for committing crimes.

The initiative would repeal the section of the state Constitution which provides the

right to bail and allows the court to release a person on his/her own recognizance (OR).

In addition, the preamble states that victims have a right to expect that persons "who

commit felonious acts . . . will be appropriately detained in custody, tried by the

courts and sufficiently punished.' (Emphasis added.) The clear implication is that

somehow confining a person and restricting their movements is not punishment.

Although people are often not guilty of the crimes they are accused of, they

would nonetheless be punished by jailing prior to trial and acquital, just as surely as a

convicted person is pubic' by such confinement after trial.

Bail

Not only does the measure allow the courts to deny bail, it requires a court hearing :

before anyone charged with a serious felony can be released on bail. Serious felonies

range from burglary to murder, including assault. If all these cases required court hear-

ings before bail was allowed, already crowded court calendars would become even 0x00B0

more overourdened.

Vote NOonP

Proposition 8 would grant "super-citizenship"'

_ to crime victims.

The initiative purports to establish rights for victims. This is a unique and disturbing -

notion. Not because victims should not have rights, but because under our state and

federal constitutions, all persons currently enjoy equal rights regardless of their status.

Because a person becomes a victim of a crime, should not be grounds for granting

"super citizenship" to her or him.

Restitution

The measure would create a victim's "right to restitution" for financial loss from

"wrongdoers:' Our system of law already provides mechanisms for people who have

suffered damages at the hands of another to recover their losses.

The fact that a person causing the loss is a criminal does not bar any victim from su-

ing to recover loss. Furthermore, the Legislature has already established a Victims

Assistance Program, a program supported by the ACLU, to aid those who suffer losses

as a result of crime.

Putting more people in prison for a longer period of time will not improve a victim's

chances of recovering a loss. Considering the compensation paid for work in prison, it

would, infact, make it more difficult. To establish a constitutional right to restitution may,

therefore, very well add to the burden already being borne by bexpayel

Schools

Aseparate broveicn of Proposition 8 would grant a constitutional right for students

and employees of public schools "`to attend campuses which are safe and peaceful?'

Students and school staff, as well as all other people, already have that right. It this just a

move to convert public schools into security camps staffed by guards instead of

~ teachers on the pretext of providing "safe" schools? Or, as the Sacramento Bee points

to

aclu news

April 1982

IGHTS BecomeaVICTIM

Proposition8

Michael Mi ler

out, will this provision be used to argue that "`students lawfully may refuse to attend an

unsafe school . . . resulting in the effective end of the compulsory school attendance

law?'

Proposition 8 would open the door for illegal searches.

The "Right to Truth in Evidence" section of the initiative would allow, and even

seem to encourage, lawlessness in the investigation of crime. It would provide that no

relevant evidence be excluded in any adult or juvenile criminal proceeding, regardless

of how it was obtained.

This would mean that evidence gathered in violation of the California Constitution,

including its declaration of rights, would be used against an accused person. In its prac-

tical effect, police and prosecutors could violate the state Constitution with virtual im-

punity and with the knowledge that the evidence that they might obtain by breaking

constitutional law could be used in court.

Would you be willing to hand to the police the option of breaking your front door

down or searching through your personal files without a warrant? And if we allow the

police to coveniently ignore the law in their quest for en nStNS evidence, who then

would be mindful of upholding it?

Proposition 8 would undermine the right to a fair trial.

The initiative would amend the Constitution to require that any prior felony con-

viction of any person, whether adult or junvenile, be used in subsequent criminal pro-

ceedings for the purpose of impeachment or enhancement of penalty. A prior felony

conviction that is "an element of any felony offense" would be presented to the trier of

fact in open court. It is difficult to see how a Pie elon conviction could be an element

of a charged offense.

It seems that the sponsors are attempting to fashion a measure that would allow

and even require prejudicial information to be given in open court regardless of its

relevance. This completely sabotages the concept of a fair trial.

A provision supposedly aimed at curbing habitual criminals proposes that anyone

convicted of a serious felony who has been previously convicted of a serious felony

shall have his or her sentence enhanced by five years for each such prior conviction, ex-

cept in the case of life or death sentences.

Unbiased hearing

Sections added to the Penal Code would give victims the right to oie and testify

at all sentencing, probation and parole hearings of adults and juveniles. Moreover, the

court is directed to consider the statements of the victims and the victim's next of kin in

making their decision.

At present, our judicial system represents a scrupulous attempt to eliminate as

much as possible the individual, personal vengeance that arises in criminal confronta-

tion. That is why "the people' prosecute accused offender.

Our system is designed so that convicted persons are punished under the law. It is

difficult to see what a victim's statement could add to this process.

Proposition 8 would remove legitimate

grounds for defense.

The measure would abolish the defense of diminished capacity. It would also pro-

hibit introduction - until the moment of sentencing - of any evidence aimed at show-

ing that the person lacked the capacity to form the mental state required for the commi-

sion of the crime. |

Therefore, a person who had a brain tumor that caused seizures and erratic

behavior who, while in the throes of such a seizure, hit and killed another person,

would be unable to introduce that evidence to show that he was not guilty of first

degree murder. The only hope for the accused would be that the time of sentencing,

the jury would consider his mental state and impose a sentence lesser than that impos-

ed for first degree murder. ;

A person pleading not guilty by reason of insanity would have to prove that he or

she was incapable of knowing the nature of his or her act and incapable of

distinguishing right from wrong at the time of the offense.

Proposition 8 will not solve the crime problem.

No one is disputing that crime is a serious problem. It is so serious, in fact, that it is

vital for those who make the law to carefully study the causes of crime - poverty,

unemployment, social and economic injustice - so that the issue will be dealt with

responsibly and effectively. There is nothing inconsistent with laws that both provide

protection from crime and respect the constitutional rights of all of us. But Proposition 8

does not do that.

Proposition 8 would make fundamental changes in our system of justice that

would profoundly affect the fairness of every criminal trial in California. The

`Gann initiative must be rejected if we are to preserve our fundamental civil liber-

ties. -

This analysis was prepared by ACLU News editor Elaine Elinson and ACLU-NC

Legislative Advocate Beth Meador

Join the Campaign

i

: | want to help defeat Proposition 8. a

el

Enclosed is my donation of $ . (Make checks payable to the ACLU-NC and ear- g

g mark for "No on Proposition 80x00B0') .

: a

: C11 want to volunteer on the campaign. Please contact me. 5

g CII can distribute literature. Please send me __ copies of this special ACLU NEWS and

# analysis of Proposition 8 (in brochure form). ;

5

0x00A7 Name ;

: Address i

ict, | aS Zip :

1 Telephone (dey) (eve) _ i

i

t

i

: Send to: ACLU-NC, 1663 Mission St., San Francisco, CA 94103 i

aclu news

April 1982

`Plain Smell' Doctrine Under Attack

by Mason Drukman

It is August 8, 1979. We are at the bag-

gage off-loading area in the San Diego

International Airport. Led by narcotics -

officers Cooper and Flores, Corky, a

trained San Diego Police dog, is random-_

ly sniffing travellers' luggage from

American Airlines flight 683 originating

in Miami. Corky stops at a brown suit-

case bearing the name tag of Joseph

Patrick Mayberry. He scratches and bites

the bag.

Officer Cooper confronts Mayberry

as he claims his bag. Stating that he

could easily get a search warrant if

necessary, Cooper extracts oral and

written consent from Mayberry to

search the suitcase. Cooper discovers

hash and two plastic bags of marijuana

in the suitcase. Mayberry is arrested

and charged with illegal transportation -

and possession of marijuana and con-

centrated cannabis (hashish).

Did Corky's sniffing constitute an

unconstitutional search of Mayberry's

property? The ACLU-NC claims it did

and, along with the ACLU of Southern

California and the California At-

torneys for Criminal Justice, argued

this position in an amicus curiae brief

before the State Supreme Court.

Corky's Concentration

Mayberry was found guilty of

transporting marijuana by the San

Diego Superior Court. He appealed

and in March 1981, in a unanimous

opinion entitled ``Corky's Concentra-

tion Concerning Canabis'' (sic) the

Fourth District Court of Appeal over-

turned his conviction. In June, 1981,

the state Supreme Court agreed to hear

a petition from the Attorney General

to reverse the Court of Appeal deci-

sion.

In his petition the Attorney General

contended that making use of a dog's

sense of smell did not constitutionally

involve a _ search, that the odor

molecules had simply escaped from the

luggage into the air where Corky could

sniff them. This assertion, which may

be called the ``plain smell'' doctrine, is

derived from the ``plain view' doc-

trine, which holds that police, while

otherwise engaged in legitimate law en-

forcement activities, may seize alleged-

ly incriminating objects if such objects

are within their plain sight.

Hyper-technical

In an amicus brief ACLU

cooperating attorney Thomas W. Corn

of the Sacramento law firm of

Blackmon, Wasserman, Bucker and

Ruthenbeck,labeled this

"`frivolous.'' Corn argued that using a

specially trained dog is using a ``sense-

enhancing device,'' which in this in-

stance is no different, for example,

from using an x-ray machine. Such

devices can only be employed when

police have probable cause.

``The Attorney General is seeking to

use a hyper-technical definition of

what constitutes a `search' in an at-

tempt to circumvent the constitutional

guarantees against arbitrary and un-

warranted governmental intrusion into

personal privacy,'' Corn added.

The police justified their exploratory

surveillance (with the airport's

knowledge and permission the Nar-

cotics Task Force had been dog-

sniffing luggage from Florida over the

argument -

entire year) by pinpointing Florida as a

major source of drug traffic into San

Diego.

Citing the Court of Appeal decision,

Corn pointed out that of 1,825 flights

from Florida in 1979 less than one per- -

cent were found to have illegal drugs

on board. ``Such information,'' he

argued, ``cannot amount to a

reasonable suspicion that passengers

on airplane flights from Florida are

engaged in criminal activity.''

Even the description of Florida as a

`"`major source' of drugs i is, Corn con-

tended, open to question. He suggests

that every large population center in

the country may be so described and

noted the ironic fact that Mayberry

hadn't even come to San Diego from -

Florida: he started from Dayton, Ohio,

and picked up flight 673 in Dallas.

Corn stated that the San Diego

police were operating with nothing

more than curiosity as a basis for their

search of in-coming Florida baggage

and that mere curiosity cannot be per-

mitted as grounds for invading an in-

dividual's constitutionally protected

rights. ``Any other result,'' he

declared, ``would allow the police to

use trained dogs to sniff closed con-

tainers or anything else at random-on

the street, at the bus station, and

anywhere else people congregate. Such

police activity poses a grave threat to

individual privacy within our society."'

A ruling from the California

Supreme Court is expected in the near

future.

Fremont Police Order Innocent Man

to Pose in Public for Mug Shots

The Fremont Police Department's

policy and practice of requiring suspects

`to be photographed violates the Fourth

Amendment prohibition against un-

lawful search and seizure and must be

stopped, claims an ACLU-NC lawsuit

filed on March 24 in the Alameda County

Superior Court.

The suit was filed on behalf of Richard

Ronald Chavez who was forced by the

police to pose for ``degrading, humiliat-

ing and embarassing'' photographs

under the illumination of a floodlight on

a Fremont street.

Chavez, a Fremont social worker, was

stopped by police officers as he drove in-

to the parking lot of the Straw Hat Pizza

Parlor last May. Chavez was detained,

pat-searched and interrogated about

several recent crimes in the neighbor-

hood. Although he was not formally

placed under arrest, Chavez was told that

he would have to remain with the police

while they radioed for a police

photographer to come the parking lot.

When the photographer arrived,

Chavez was required to stand against a

wall under the illumination of a flood-

light and forced to pose for photographs

in various positions. Numerous

customers and bystanders gathered to

watch as the photography session became

a public spectacle.

According to ACLU-NC staff at-

torney Amitai Schwartz, ``The photo-

- graphs of Chavez were taken illegally,

without his consent, without a warrant

and without probable cause for arrest.

Moreover, we have reason to believe that

the photographs were developed and

printed and that copies were

disseminated within the Fremont Police

Department and to persons outside the

department.

"`Chavez was never arrested or charged

-with any crime connected to this deten-

tion outside the pizza parlor. We are su-

ing the city and the police department for

damages because Chavez was unneces-

sarily made to suffer a loss of liberty,

humiliation, degradation, loss of reputa-

tion, invasion of privacy and emotional

distress?'

According to the suit, it is the policy

and practice of the Fremont Police

Department to require criminal suspects

to submit to photographs in the field

whenever a police officer believes the cir-

cumstances justify that photographs are

warranted. 5

`"`This iliegal and unconstitutional

practice violates the Fourth Amendment

prohibition against actions that restrict

liberty and privacy without a warrnat or

probable cause?' Schwartz explained. ``In

addition, the police photography sessions

stigmatize the suspect in public.

``When the Fremont police lack pro-

bable cause to make an arrest, they treat

the suspects like have police records

although they have not even been ar-

rested ' Schwartz added. :

In addition to damages, the ACLU

-NC is asking the court to order the

police department to return to Chavez all

the originals, negatives and copies of the

photographs taken of him. The suit also

asks the court to enjoin the Fremont

Police Department from enforcing any

person to submit to having a photograph

taken in the absence of a warrant, con-

sent or probable cause for arrest.

Time for the ACLU?

Can you spare some time to provide

valuable assistance to people seeking

redress for violation of their civil liber-

ties? ACLU-NC's Complaint Desk is staf-

fed by dedicated volunteers who

answer as many as 200 phone calls a

week from people seeking legal as-

sistance, referrals, and advice (some of

these calls lead to cases undertaken by

the ACLU). It's a chance to learn about

the practical application of civil liber-

ties principles and about the workings

of the ACLU-NC.

If you're interested, and can spare

as little as one day a week on a

regular or sporadic "on-call" basis,

call Fonsa Hassell at the ACLU office,

621-2493.

ACLU Joins Nuclear

Freeze Campaign

by Kathy Cramer

Stating that ``The presence and pro-

liferation of nuclear weapons is inherent-

ly antagonistic to the maintainence of

civil liberties}? the ACLU-NC Board of

Directors voted at their March meeting to

endorse the nuclear weapons freeze cam-

paign. The proposed November ballot in-

tiative, which calls for a freeze on the

testing and deployment of nuclear

weapons, is currently being circulated

throughout the state.

The recommendation to support the

initiative was originally presented by the

Ad-Hoc Committee on Civil Liberties

and the Nuclear Freeze at the February

board meeting. As some concern was ex-

pressed about whether civil liberties issues

were at stake, the board decided to hold

the matter over to allow members further

time to consider it.

The proposal of the ad-hoc committee

stated, ``The actual use of nuclear

weapons will inevitably destroy all civil

liberties. It is the ultimate example of the

arbitrary use of the death penalty?'

The policy passed by the Board also ex-

pressed concern over the possibility of in-

creased governmental surveillance and

suppression of rights in the name of na-

tional security: `"Governmental secrecy

has led to denial of access to vital infor-

mation and suppression of dissent, mak-

ing impossible informed citizen debate

and consent on an issue critical to our

survival?'

Neil Horton, presenting the committee

proposal said, `"This resolution reflects

the ACLU's continuous fight against the

repression which comes with war pre-

paration:'

The ACLU-NC's involvement in the

campaign is being coordinated with

Californians for a Bilateral Nuclear

Weapons Freeze, the organizers of the

initiative drive. The ACLU-NC Shop-

ping Center Project has filed suits on

behalf of the nuclear freeze campaign to

allow them to gather signatures at Santa

Rosa Plaza and Southland Shopping

Center (Hayward).

The ACLU-NC joins with the ACLU

of Southern California, the San Fran-

cisco Bar Association, 23 locals of the IL-

WU, and many other political, church,

and public interest groups in endorsing

the nuclear freeze initiative.

Kathy Cramer is a graduate student in

social work at San Francisco State and

an intern in the ACLU-NC Public In-

formation Department.

aclu news

April 1982

How Your wotod Works for Civil Liberties

Have you ever wondered how the

ACLU-NC can carry over 100 active

cases on our legal docket without ever

charging anyone a fee? Or why you get a

letter in the mail asking you to join the

ACLU when you'ye been a member for

20 years? Or how much of your member-

ship money goes to support local work

and how much goes to the fight for civil

liberties nationwide? Michael Miller,

Associate Director of the ACLU-NC,

answers these and many other questions

about how your membership and dona-

tions support the ACLU:

Your Membership Money

When you join the ACLU, you auto-

matically become a member of the na-

tional ACLU, the ACLU of Northern

California, (ACLU-NC, called the ``af-

filiate'') and your local chapter where

one exists. It does not matter if you join-

ed in response to a letter from the na-

tional or the ACLU- NE Ou still

belong to both. -

Your dues are split roughly 50-SO bet-

ween the national and the ACLU-NC.

2.5 percent of your dues are put into a

special fund to support work of affiliates

which are so small or exist in such a

hostile climate (e.g. Mississippi) that they -

need extra help from all of us to keep go-

ing. Your local chapter receives a portion

of your dues from the ACLU-NC share.

Renewals

Your dues are renewable on the an-

niversary date of your joining. If you do

not respond to the first renewal an-

nouncement, you will receive a second,

then a third and then a fourth notice.

Your renewal month stays the same from

year to year even if you pay early or late,

much like. magazine subscription re-

newals. If you join the ACLU in Febru-

ary, your renewal date will always be

February, even if you do not pay until

March in subsequent years.

Special Fund Appeals

Twice a year you will be asked for an

additional membership gift. You will

receive these special fund appeals

through the mail from the national

ACLU. They may be signed by a celebri-

ty, for example, last year Kurt Vonnegut

wrote about censorship and the ACLU's

work. These membership gifts are shared

the same as your annual dues.

Tax-Deductible Gifts

Because a significant part of the

ACLU's work is lobbying before city

councils, county boards of supervisors,

the California Legislature, and the na- |

tional Congress, your ACLU dues are

not tax-deductible. You may therefore be

asked by the ACLU Foundation of Nor-

thern California (sister to the ACLU-NC)

to make a tax-deductible gift over and

above your membership a and con-

tributions.

Major Gifts and Bill of Rights

The ACLU Foundation ef Northern

California conducts two annual fundrais-

ing drives: the Major Gifts Campaign

and the Bill of Rights Day Campaign.

Members may be asked to support one or

the other, but not both, and the appeal is

made only once a year. These campaigns

support the ACLU legal program in nor-

thern California exclusively. There is also

a national ACLU Foundation for mem-

bers who wish to make tax-deductible

gifts to the national office.

Confusion About Your Support

Many members welcome the oppor-

tunity to make the larger contributions to

ACLU that tax-deductibility affords, in

addition to membership dues. This dual

track of contributions, however, can

cause confusion when members are not

sufficiently alerted to the difference bet-

ween them and believe that their tax-

deductible gifts are being credited as

dues. If these records become confused

(and we do make mistakes), please write

or call us so we can make corrections. Let

us know about duplicate mailings of

newsletters or no mailings at all or any

mistakes on your mailing labels.

Other Sources of Support

Membership income accounts for 35

percent of the ACLU's support in nor-

thern California. The annual Major Gifts

and Bill of Rights Campaigns add

another 40 percent. Grant-making

foundations contribute about 10 percent.

Bequests and a new endowment fund

made up from bequests account for 7

percent. (Contact ACLU-NC executive

director Dorothy Ehrlich for information

about making a bequests.) Occasional at- .

torney fees awarded by court order pro-

vide an additional source of income.

All That Mail

In order to recruit new members, the

ACLU `"`trades'' mailing lists with other

organizations. The strict confidentiality

of the ACLU's membership is never bre-

eched. The stuffing and addressing are

done by bonded mailing houses. The

other organization never sees the actual

list which goes from the ACLU to the

mailing house and back again.

However, you do see the mail resulting

from these trades. You may even get new

ACLU membership mailings even

though you are already a member. The

cost of cross-checking our membership

list with other lists is high - higher than

the cost of sending you the unnecessary

mailing. The ACLU's various direct mail

programs are cost effective and provide

an important source of support for civil

liberties. You can request that your name

not be traded. Just drop us a line. (Other

organizations and magazines which have

your name must honor a similar request).

If you have further questions about

membership, donations or other ways

you can support the ACLU, please con-

tact: Membership Department, ACLU-

NC 1663 Mission St., S.F 94103.

"Book Review

Alexander Meiklejohn, Teacher of

Freedom. Edited by Cynthia Stokes

Brown. Meiklejohn Institute, PO Box

674, Berkeley, CA 94701; Cloth

$13.95, Paper $7.95.

Read a book on the history of civil

liberties, or on the ACLU, and the

name Alexander Meiklejohn appears

over and over, either in quotation or

citation. He was an early explorer in

the territory when the term itself was

taking hold, and was part of that splen- -

did small group (Helen Salz, Charles

Hogan and Ernest Besig) which

brought the ACLU of Northern

California into being.

An admirable introduction to

' Meiklejohn and his writings is a new

collection entitled Alexander Meikle-

john, Teacher of Freedom, edited by

Cynthia Stokes Brown and with an in-

troduction by Ann Fagan Ginger. The

book (available in both cloth and

paper) contains a biographical sketch (c)

and assessment of his philosophical

thought, and a selection of his

writings.

`His writings, both as regards educa-

tion and civil liberties, show both the

man and his times; one who responded

forthrightly to the challenges of the

day, with a passion for the freedom of

thought and speech embedded in the

First Amendment. His answer to the

question ``Should teachers be permit-

ted, be encouraged, be directed to

discuss. the relative merits of

Capitalism and Communism as plans

for America?'' (in 1938) went beyond a

simple affirmative; he called for an

"adequate supply'' of teachers who

`would fearlessly espouse an unpopular

view, seeing the controversy as critical

for its day.

Some questions in our society seem

never to be laid to rest; if Mr. Scopes is

still alive, he has considerable justifica-

tion for spending his time laughing.

Other questions are less easily disposed

of, even though they lay quiescent. The

activities of the witch-hunters, going

back to the days which saw the forma-

ining Coen' Meiklejohn, ACLU-NC Founder

tion of the ACLU, never quite disap-

pear from the scene, and need to be

constantly fought. Some of the

writings of Alexander Meiklejohn dur-

ing the virulent days of what some of

us called ``The House Un-American

Committee'' are still valuable tools in

confrontations which, in different

forms, are still likely to afflict us.

How comfortable Meiklejohn would

be with today's ACLU is an open ques-

_ tion. There would be those who sup-

port and those who argue with his con-

cept of ``private''? and ``public''.

speech, as in the case of libel for exam-

ple. But even the limited canvass of this

book makes one thing clear: even those

who disagreed with him would have to

listen very carefully, and in so doing

would find their commitment to free

speech both sharpened and ee

ed.

Author and film critic Irving Cohen

served on the ACLU-NC Board of

Directors for 9 years and is active inthe -

Marin County Chapter.

`Official Privilege'

~OK'edby Court

The California Supreme Court ruled in

February that when former Attorney

General Evelle Younger publicly accused

an individual of ``organized crime con-

nections?' he did so in the ``proper

discharge of an official duty'' and

therefore is absolutely privileged from

liability.

In an amicus brief, the ACLU argued

that the absolute privilege afforded to

statements of high government officials

would not apply if the officials inten-

tionally violated statutory safeguards

protecting the confidentiality of criminal

history information, or knowlingly

deprived an individual of fundamental

constitutional rights to privacy or due:

process of law.

The ACLU's argument, presented to

the high court by cooperating attorney

Floyd J. Siegal, was in support of Gerald

Kilgore's attempt to amend his complaint

against former state Attorney General

Younger, who, while campaigning for

governor, released a crime study to the

press which listed Kilgore and 92 other

individuals as being ``associated with

organized crime?'

The court's 4-3 opinion, written by

Judge Frank Richardson, denied Kilgore ~

the opportunity to amend his complaint,

holding that the absolute privilege of

Civil Code Sectioon 47 (1) afforded -

Younger immunity, even if his action

violated statutory protection.

The court found that ``Younger's

alleged activity, though it may well have

been taken to produce a popular and ap-

pealing law enforcement image, . . . was

not outside the scope of his official

duties. No California case . . . denies to

a high-ranking state official, `such as the

Attorney General, immunity from civil

liability for publications made in the

course of his policy making functions,

whether or not they are claimed to be

made in violation of other statutory pro-

visions?"

However, commented ACLU-NC

staff attorney Alan Schlosser, ``The court

did not address the ACLU argument that

the absolute privilege should not im-

munize even a high government official

from liability for willful violations of

fundamental constitutional rights?'

In a dissenting opinion, Chief Justice

Rose Bird wrote, ``I cannot agree that the

Attorney General, with his extensive

powers over the enforcement of all state

laws, has an obsolute privilege to publish

defamatory statements in violation of the

state Constitution or statutory law. "'

Fingerprints

from p. 1

all public agencies. This was a major vic-

tory for CBE and the people of Vallejo.

We want to continue alerting the public

to health hazards in this area and believe

that the residents have a right to know.

`The imposition of a fingerprinting re-

quirement for people who want to engage

in the CBE's informational and fundrais-

ing work has a chilling effect. Many can-

vassers do not want to participate if they -

have to be fingerprinted;' Gesley added.

The suit, Citizens for a Better Environ-

ment y. City of Vallejo, asks that the

court declare the fingerprinting require-

ment of the solicitation ordinance un-

constitutional and enjoin the city from

enforcing it.

aclu news

April 1982

Abortion, FOIA Under the Hatch-et

Under the ``Human Life'' Federalism

Amendment, a simple majority of Con-

gress or any State legislature could cut off

the right to abortion. The Supreme Court

would be unable to review abortion laws

and fetal rights would preempt other con-

stitutional rights.

The Amendment (S.J. Resolution 110)

is an extremist measure in sheep's

clothing.

This statement, part of a letter sent by

ACLU-NC Executive Director Dorothy

Ehrlich to Senators Alan Cranston and

S.I. Hayakawa on March 15, sums up the

reasons why the ACLU, in California and

nationally, and hundreds of other groups

` working in support of reproductive

freedom are targeting the defeat of the

proposed constitutional amendment S.J.

Res. 110, also known as the Hatch

Amendment.

The amendment cleared the Senate

Judiciary Committee with a 10-7 vote on

March 10, and may be debated on the

Senate floor at any time.

`"We've got to stop the Hatch Amend-

ment on the Senate floor?' Pro-Choice

Task Force chair Anne Jennings em-

phasized, ``and our chances of doing so

are good if we step up our efforts. The

Judiciary Committee vote has just ac-

celerated our campaign?'

Action Alert

An urgent Action Alert on the amend-

ment was sent to more than 300 Task

Force supporters on March 12, asking

that letters by written to both Senators

urging them to oppose the amendment.

(Write to Senator Alan Cranston and

Senator S.I. Hayakawa at the Senate Of-

fice Building, Washington, D.C., CA

94102.)

On March 23, Jennings, Ehrlich, Field

Representative Marcia Gallo and repre-

sentatives from five other Bay Area pro-

BOARD MEETING: (Fourth Thursday

each month.) Thursday, April 22; 8:00

p.m. in Berkeley. Contact Joe Dorst,

415/654-4163.

speak at U.C. Berkeley Women's Center

on Wednesday, April 21, noon. Contact

Marcia Gallo, 415/621-2494.

EARLWARREN

BOARD MEETING: (Third Wednesday

each month.) Wednesday, April 21; Wed-

nesday, May 19; 7:30 p.m. Sumitomo

| Bank, 20th and Franklin, Oakland. Con-

tact Barbara Littwin, 415/452-4726.

GAY RIGHTS

BOARD MEETING: (Usually the se-

cond Tuesday each month.) Call Steve

Block, 415/772-6114, for confirmation;

meetings held at ACLU-NC, 1663 Mis-

sion Street, San Francisco. -

MARIN

BOARD MEETING: (Third Monday

each month.) Monday, April 19; Mon-

day, May 17; 8:00 p.m. Fidelity Savings,

Throckmorton Street, Mill"Valley. Con-

tact Bill Luft, 415/453-6546.

ANNUAL MEETING: Planning is now

under way for a Marin annual meeting in

June. Check this Calendar next month

SPEAKER: Mary Hackenbracht of _

ACLU's Pro-Choice Task Force will

choice organizations met with Hayakawa

aide Edwin Myers and Cranston aide

Maggie Shandry urging ``No'' votes on

S.J. Res. 110 or any other version of a

``human life'? amendment which comes

before the full Senate. Both aides noted

that constituent pressure, particularly

_personal letters, is important.

Task Force members are now planning

an ``emergency rally'' with members of

other reproductive rights groups timed

for the day the Senate begins debate of the

Hatch Amendment. The rally will be held

at United Nations Plaza in San Francisco

on the afternoon and evening of the first

day of Senate debate on the measure.

The Task Force Speakers Bureau held

a ``Speakers Training Workshop'' on

March 20 where over a dozen members

practiced their public speaking skills. Lin-

da Baker, Dick Grosboll, Mary Hacken-

bracht and Karen Winner planned the

event with assistance from Kathy

Cramer, and formed a coordinating team

for the Speakers Bureau. The Bureau was

officially launched on April 4 when

Grosboll spoke at Temple Beth El in

Berkeley on the legal issues involved in

reproductive rights. Hackenbracht will

- speak at the U.C. Berkeley Women's

Center on April 21, and Len Karpman

will address his physician colleagues in (c)

May.

The Task Force is also sponsoring a

letter-writing party on Monday, April 26,

to respond to 17 new measures introduced

in the California Legislature which would .

restrict or deny a woman' s right to

choose.

Reports from ACLU chapters at the

April 6 Task Force meeting indicated the

high level of activity around northern

California. A successful East Bay pro-

gram on reproductive rights with a

dance/theater performance by Keriac and

Company and a legislative update from

Ehrlich and Assembly member Tom

Bates was held on March 28, thanks to the

efforts of Rose Bonhag, Beth Nelson,

Florence Piliavin and Liz Zeck. In Yolo

County, chapter chair Julius Young sent a

special ``alert'' to members on the Hatch

Amendment. Leslie Paul launched a

`*Stop the Human Life Amendment'' ad

campaign in Marin County, and

Rosemary Matson and the Monterey

County Reproductive Rights Coalition

are organizing ``working committees"' in

Carmel, Salinas and other areas in the

county. The Gay Rights Chapter newslet-

ter, produced by Bill Ingersoll, recently

published a piece on the ``choice'' issue

and its relevance to lesbians and gay men.

Another Hatch Act

"*If we let Senator Hatch's S 1730 pass

in Congress, we'll see the beginning of the

end of the Freedom of Information Act}'

was. the message that members of the

Right to Dissent Subcommittee brought

to the public through a HENS. campaign

in March.

The campaign, which reached the au-

diences of eight television stations and

eighteen radio stations in Northern

California, highlighted the threats to the

Calendar,

B-A-K for further details. :

EDITOR NEEDED for the Marin

Chapter newsletter. Long hours, no pay, .

great satisfaction. Contact ave Luft,

415/453-6546.

MID-PEN

BOARD MEETING: (Fourth Thursday

each month.) Thursday, April 22; 8:00

p.m. All Saints Episcopal church, 555.

Waverley Street, Palo Alto. Contact

Harry Anisgard, 415/856-9186.

FORUM: Current Threats to Civil

Liberties, with guest speaker Richard

Criley, sponsored by the ACLU-Mid

Peninsula Chapter, the Unitarian

Church, WILPF, and People Against

the Draft. Thursday, April 29, 7:30

PM. Call 494-0541 (Palo Alto) or

346-7350 Miriam Rothschild, S.F:)

MONTEREY

~ BOARD MEETING: (Fourth Tuesday

each month.) Tuesday, April 27; 7:30

p.m. Monterey Public Library. Contact

Richard Criley, 408/624-7562.

MT. DIABLO

BOARD MEETING: (Third Thursday

each month.) Thursday, April 15; Thurs-

day, May 20. Contact 415/939-ACLU.

SPEAKERS BUREAU has been set up

by the chapter for talks to high school,

college and adult education social studies

classes. Cail 415/939-ACLU.

NORTH PEN

BOARD MEETING: Please note date

change: Meetings will be held the third

Tuesday of each month, rather than the

third Monday. Tuesday, April 20, 8:00

p.m. Allstate Savings and- Loan Com-

munity Room, Concar Drive and Grant

Street, San Mateo.

Please contact Richard Keyes, 415/

367-8800 for site of the Tuesday, May 18

meeting.

SACRAMENTO

BOARD MEETING: (Third Wednesday

each month.) Wednesday, April 21; Wed-

nesday, May 19; 7:30 p.m. New County

Administration Building, 7th and I

Streets, Hearing Room 1, Sacramento.

Contact Cliff Anderson, 916/451-5025.

SAN FRANCISCO

BOARD MEETING: (Last Tuesday

each month). Tuesday, April 27; 6:30

p.m. Contact Richard Weinstein, 415/

771-8932; meetings held at ACLU-NC,

1663 Mission Street, San Francisco.

SANTACLARA

BOARD MEETING: (First Tuesday

each month.) Tuesday, May 4; 7:30 p.m.

Community Bank Building, San Jose.

Contact Vic Ulmer, 408/379-4431.

UNTIL SHE TALKS: Js the Grand Jury

379-4431.

_ ing Professor, Boalt Hall. Contact Larry

Pippin, 209/477-7698.

public's "right to know"' contained in S

1730 which was amended in January to

include provisions proposed by the

Reagan administration. Among other

things, the bill would revise the Freedom

of Information Act to restrict the role of

the federal judiciary in reviewing

withholdings of information on ``na-

tional security'' grounds. It would also in-

crease to the cost of using the FOIA by

permitting agencies to charge for the pro-

cess of reviewing eae prior to

release.

""We're hopeful that this campaign has

made northern Californians in general,

and elected officials in particular, more

aware of the threat to civil liberties posed

by S 1730," said J.R. Rubin, chair of the

Right to Dissent Subcommittee.

Rubin, Dick Criley, Peter Hagberg,

and Julius Young found themselves

before cameras and microphones

numerous times explaining ACLU's con-

cerns about efforts to ``take the teeth

out"' of the Freedom of Information Act.

Letters signed by Elinson in the Bay

Area, and chapter leaders Andrea Learn-

ed in Santa Rosa, Michael Manlin in

Monterey and Paul Jorjorian in Sacra-

mento resulted in appearances on KGO-

TV's AM Weekend, KPIX-TV's ``Cinco

Dias en Revista;' and other TV talk shows

and interviews on KGO-AM, KFRC,

KPFA, KDIA, KSFO, KROY, KFBK and

many other radio stations in the Bay

Area, Santa Rosa, Monterey and

Sacramento.

In addition, Free Speech Messages on

the Freedom of Information Act were

taped by Santa Clara Chapter member

Marilyn Spiller, ACLU-NC program in-

terns Linda Baker and Bill Henry, and

volunteer Amy Segal.

`""We're determined to keep the

momentum going;' said Rubin, ``and are

now going to extend our successful media

continued on p. 20x00B0

System Misused? Don't miss this

thought-provoking film, Friday, April

16, 7:30 p.m., at De Anza College,

Forum 3. Contact Vic Ulmer, 408/

SANTA CRUZ

BOARD MEETING: (Second Wednes-

day each month.) Wednesday, May 12;

8:00 p.m. Louden Nelson Center, Santa

Cruz. Contact Bob Tarin, 408/429-9880.

SONOMA

BOARD MEETING: (Third Thursday

each month.) Thursday, April 15; Thurs-

day, May 20; 7:30 p.m. Center for Em-

ployment Training, 3753 Santa Rosa Ave- |

nue, Santa Rosa. Contact Andrea Learn-

ed, 707/544-0876.

STOC KTON

ANNUAL MEETING: Sunday, April

18; 6:00 p.m., Raymond Great Hall, Uni-

versity of the Pacific, Stockton. GUEST

SPEAKER William Van Alstyne, Visit-

YOLO

BOARD MEETING: (Third Thursday

each month.) Thursday, April 15; Thurs-

day, May 20; 7:30 p.m. Contact Julius

Young, 916/758-5666.