vol. 52, no. 8
Primary tabs
aclu news
NON PROFIT
ORGANIZATION
U.S. POSTAGE
PAID
Permit.No. 4424
San Francisco, CA
Volume LIl
December 1987
No. 8
Doctors Challenge
- Parental Consent Law
r ; Vhe constitutionality of the new Cali-
= fornia law requiring a minor to have
the written consent of a parent or a
court order before she can have an abortion
is being challenged by a prestigious coalition
of medical associations and health care pro-
viders represented by the ACLU of North-
ern and Southern California and the
Adolescent Health Care Project of the
National Center for Youth Law.
On November 23, attorneys filed the law- 0x00B0
suit (American Academy of Pediatrics v.
Van de Kamp) in San Francisco Superior
Court on behalf of the American Academy
of Pediatrics, California District LX: the
California Medical Association; the Ameri-
can College of Obstetricians and Gynecolo-
gists, District IX; Planned Parenthood of
Alameda/San Francisco; and Philip Dar-
ney, M.D.,. Director of San Francisco
-General's Family Planning Clinic.
In September, the California Legislature
passed AB 2274, a bill which imposes crim-
inal penalties on persons who perform abor-
tions on minors without parental consent or
a judicial order. The bill was signed by the
Governor and is due to go into effect on
January 1, 1988.
Linda Shostak, a cooperating attorney
from the law firm of Morrison and Foerster
said, "The Legislature says the consent law is
necessary to protect teenagers' health. If that
is the reason behind the consent law, then the
law is unnecessary. Doctors and nurses
already do an excellent job of looking after
minors' medical needs and making sure that
minors understand the medical procedures
that are involved.
Ruling Declares INS Raid
S
Speakers at the press conference announcing the challenge to California's parental consent -
law included (l.-r.) Charlotte Newhart of the American College of Obstetricians and
Gynecologists, Dr. Birt Harvey of the American Academy of Pediatrics, ACLU Sacra-
mento lobbyist Marjorie Swartz and ACLU-NC staff attorney Margaret Crosby.
"T suspect that the real reason behind the
consent law is to rehash the constitutional
debate over the right to an abortion. But the
courts have clearly and repeatedly stated
that the right to abortion is a matter of
individual choice and the subject should be
regarded as closed," Shostak added.
Serious reprisals
ACLU-NC | staff attorney Margaret
Crosby added, "The California Constitution
Violated Rights
precedent-setting ruling by the U.S.
: A District Court in San Francisco on
November 23 declared that the
Immigration and Naturalization Service
(INS) unconstitutionally violated the rights
of individuals while conducting workplace
raids in search of undocumented workers.
Judge Robert P. Aguilar ruled that the
INS use of a "general" warrant to search for,
_seize, and arrest persons who were not spe-
cifically named in the search warrant was
"patently invalid." Judge Aguilar rejected
the INS contention that the warrant merely
authorized entry into business premises, cal-
ling it an "Orwellian attempt to contradict
the literal language of the warrant."
The ruling strongly condemned the INS
effort to "recast, recharacterize or otherwise
misrepresent the warrant," stating that the
warrant was unconstitutional because it
"gave a license for the INS to seize people
simply because they were `suspected of being
illegal aliens, whatever that means." |
The ruling, handed down in U.S. District
Court in San Jose where the suit (/nterna-
tional Molders Union vy. Nelson) was filed,
invalidates a warrant executed during a raid
of a Sonoma County poultry plant.
Although the ruling technically applies only
to the northern California jurisdiction of the
INS,
Oregon border, because of the ruling, the
INS is expected to reconsider its practice
concerning workplace raids in other parts of
the country as well. The ruling also may
affect the manner in which the INS will
stretching from Bakersfield to the -
guarantees all persons, including minors, an
explicit right to privacy regarding the deci-
sion whether to bear children. :
"The choice the Legislature has given to
California adolescents from hostile home
environments-to tell parents of their preg-
nancy and abortion, and suffer serious rep-
risals, or to navigate a difficult court
procedure- unduly burdens the privacy
rights of teenagers."
Although new to California, parental not-
conduct workplace surveys under the new
immigration law, the Immigration Reform
and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986.
Under the new law, all public and private
employers must certify that all employees .
hired after November 6, 1986 are authorized
to work in the United States. The INS is |
charged with enforcing that requirement.
Unlawful Searches
The suit was filed in 1982 by the
ACLU-NC, Mexican American Legal
Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF),
California Rural Legal Assistance and other
civil rights organizations which charged the
INS with violating employers' and
-employees Fourth Amendment rights'to be
free from unlawful searches and seizures.
"This ruling is a major victory for workers
and employers," said "Francisco Garcia-
Rodriguez of MALDEE "It tells the INS in
no uncertain terms that it can no longer act
as a renegade law enforcement agency oper- ~
continued on p. 4
_ ification and consent statutes have been put
into effect in a number of other states. Last - .
year, the national ACLU Reproductive Free-
dom Project succeeded in striking down a
similar measure in Minnesota. The decision
that the Minnesota law was unconstitu-
tional was unanimously affirmed by the
appellate court on August 27.
"Evidence from Minnesota, Massachu-
setts and other states where laws requiring
parental consent or court orders were
enforced clearly shows the devastating
impact these laws have on teenagers," said
attorney Abigail English of the National
Center for Youth Law's Adolescent Health
Care Project.
"These laws significantly increase health
risks to minors by causing necessary medical
care to be delayed and by impairing the
ability of health providers to give quality
care," English said. "These laws punish -
young women for becoming pregnant, they
do not promote family harmony, improve
parent-child communication or help with
the minor's decision making process."
These charges are verified by over 20
declarations included in the lawsuit from
judges who were involved in the judicial _
bypass proceedings, health researchers, psy-
chologists, doctors and nurses who provide
counseling and abortions to teenagers, law-
yers and social workers.
For example, a judge in Juvenile Court in
Minnesota who has. heard more than 225
petitions from minors seeking abortions
(and granted all but one) said "the stress was
continued on p. 4
aclu news
2 december 1987
Bill of Rights Day Draws"
- _ Record Crowd
Reynoso Receives Earl Warren Award
he California Supreme Court knew
( how to ask the right questions. What
is democracy all about? What is fair-
ness all about? Or justice? Last year, I felt
- sorry for the people of California-but not
for us as individuals." _
With this poignant reflection, Justice
-Cruz Reynoso accepted the Earl Warren
Civil Liberties Award on behalf of himself,
-Chief Justice Rose Bird and Justice Joseph
Grodin at the ACLU-NC's fifteenth annual
Bill of Rights Day Celebration on
" December 6 at the Sheraton Palace Hotel in
San Francisco.
said the former California Supreme Court
justice who was one of eleven children of
farmworker parents. "I grew up in a divided
society, divided between barrios and non-
barrios, rich and poor, Mexican (they called
us Mexican even though we were born here)
and white, them and us.
'"T had a sense this was not good for
America.
"And I felt a sense of rage when I was in
the Army in Washington, D.C. and my -
black buddy was not allowed to enter a
restaurant across from the White House.
That was in 1953.
Justice Cruz Reynoso is presented with Earl Warren Civil Liberties Award by Drucilla
Ramey of the Bar Association of San Francisco (I.) while ACLU-NC Chair Nancy
Pemberton looks on.
The event, emceed by ACLU-NC chair-
person Nancy Pemberton, featured the
awarding of the justices, a keynote address
by National Public Radio senior news ana-
lyst Daniel Schorr and the presentation of
the Lola Hanzel Advocacy Award to Fresno
Chapter leader Howard Watkins (see box).
The Celebration, which drew a capacity
crowd of 750 despite raging storms outside,
opened with an Annual Report by executive
director Dorothy Ehrlich.
"What better way to celebrate the bicen-
tennial of the Constitution," asked Ehrlich,
"than to celebrate our collective victory of
blocking Robert Bork's confirmation to the
U.S. Supreme Court?
"The celebration highlights the valuable
work that the ACLU can do when galvan-
ized to action and also is a credit to our field
program. It pays tribute to the individuals
and movements-for women's rights, minor-
ities, gays, labor-that brought about that
victory," Ehrlich said.
Justice Reynoso, who was introduced by
Drucilla Ramey, former chair of the
ACLU-NC and current executive director of
the Bar Association of San Francisco, as
having "risen above his law school origins," _
spoke of the social injustices which sur-
rounded his youth and impelled him to a
career in public service law and a lifelong
commitment to the fight for equality.
"I grew up in Orange County, where we
had segregated schools-segregated by law,"
"So, in 1954, when the Warren Court
decided Brown vy. Board of Education,
although that decision spoke to the whole
country, I took it practically as a personal
message to me.
"That is why receiving the Earl Warren
Award is very touching and very special,"
_ said Justice Reynoso, adding that though his
days as a Supreme Court justice are over,
"our task does not end."
Keynote speaker Daniel Schorr of National
Public Radio
Keynote speaker Daniel Schorr, speaking
on the eve of the summit between Ronald
Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev, asked with
a note of irony, "If Ronald Reagan is willing
to say that war with the USSR is not inevit-
able, is he also willing to say that war with
Americans is not inevitable as well? For
Reagan has been at war against our civil
liberties, against the First Amendment. Is
Reagan willing to say that war against the
poor is not inevitable?"
The veteran journalist who risked a jail
term for refusing to reveal his sources of
government leaks during the Watergate
period, said that the Reagan administration
is marked by "ideological purity and moral
corruption."
"Every time Reagan speaks, he makes at _
least three mistakes per sentence," said
Schorr. "This has put an imprint on politics,
because now we don't believe anything poli-
ticians say. Reagan has established a new
political principle-you invent your image
and then you have to be what you say you
are. He is the first `all media' president.
"Reagan says he doesn't like the news
media. That's not exactly true. He likes the
media-he just doesn't like the news part of
Te
Schorr noted that the legacy of the Rea-
gan presidency has been to "cheapen and
tarnish the currency of government. You
don't get it all back," Schorr warned, "but
you can get some of it back if you have
faith-and you, in the ACLU, have it."
The event is the culmination of the
ACLU-NC_ fundraising campaigns and
commemorates the anniversary of the sign-
ing of the Bill of Rights.
Ravinder Grewal
Howard
Hes Watkins, who has: been des-
cribed as "the backbone of the
Fresno ACLU-NC Chapter," is an attor-
ney, organizer, radio commentator and
social activist, who has been rocking the
boat for a long time.
At the December 6 Bill of Rights Day
Celebration, Watkins was honored with
the Lola Hanzel Advocacy Award. This
award was established to honor all
ACLU-NC yolunteers and is presented
each year to an individual who has made
an extraordinary contribution to the
organization in a voluntary capacity. It is
named in honor of Lola Hanzel, a dedi-
cated ACLU volunteer who served the
affiliate for more than a decade before her
death in 1980.
ACLU-NC _ staff attorney Alan
Schlosser, on presenting the award to
Watkins, called him "a rare person who
political savvy."
Noting Watkins' successful efforts to
revive the Fresno Chapter, as well as his
activism in the Fresno County Bar Asso-
ciation (Watkins just completed a term as
President), Common Cause, the Wom-
en's International League for Peace and
Freedom (WILPF) and other commun-
itv organizations, Schlosser called Wat-
kins "a walking coalition."
Schlosser also commended Watkins'
lawyering skill as an ACI.U-NC cooper-
ating attorney in W/LPF yen. Fresno. The
peace organization wanted to put bus
signs up saying "Think before you regis-
ter for the draft." Although the signs went
up. the City Manager had them ripped
down two days later. "Unfortunately, this
combines boundless enthusiasm with
Watkins
~ Howard Watkins
case -which we lost at the Court of
Appeal-was set for argument just after
the November 1986 elections, and the
new Supreme Court decided not to hear
this important political speech case,"
Schlosser explained.
Watkins said that receiving the award
"made my year."
Chronicling his own involvement in
campaigns for peace and social justice .
from the civil rights movement of the 50's
and 60's, the anti-war movement of the
60's and 70's, and during the Reagan
administration, Watkins said, "Every
decade has been a difficult and dangerous
time. | am proud that the ACLU has been
in the forefront of the key struggles of my
lifetime."
aclu news
8 issues a year, monthly except bi-monthly in January-February, June-July,
August-September and November- December
Published by the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California
Nancy Pemberton, Chairperson Dorothy Ehrlich, Executive Director :
Marcia Gallo, Chapter Page
1663 Mission St., 4th floor, San Francisco, California 94103. (415) 621-2488
Membership $20 and up, of which SO cents is for a subscription to the aclu news
and SO cents is for the national ACLU-bi-monthly publication, Civil Liberties.
Elaine Elinson, Editor
aclu news _
december 1987. 3
NCAA Drug Tests
n November 19, after a two-week
O trial, a Santa Clara Superior Court
judge ruled that the NCAA drug
testing program violates the California Con-
stitution in that "there is no evidence of a
`compelling need' to engage in drug testing
of college athletes."
On issuing a preliminary injunction pro-
_ hibiting the mandatory drug testing of Stan-
ford student athletes other than male
basketball and football players, Judge Con- (c)
rad Rushing said, "This program treats _
these athletes not only as if they were sus-
pected criminals, but also punishes them for
consuming perfectly legal over-the-counter
cold medications.
"The paradox of this testing program is
that an accused criminal of the most serious
crime is afforded more rights than our
athletic heroes," Judge Rushing stated in a
36-page opinion.
The -ACLU-NC is representing Jennifer
Hill, captain of the Stanford women's soccer
team, and Barry McKeever, starting football
linebacker, in their challenge to the NCAA
drug testing program. The lawsuit was orig-
inally filed on behalf of Stanford diver
Simone LeVant, who won a preliminary
`injunction allowing her to compete without
consenting to drug testing in mar, LeVant
graduated in June.'
The student athletes are represented by
ACLU-NC cooperating attorneys Robert
Van Nest and Susan Harriman of Keker and
Brockett and ACLU-NC staff attorney Ed
Chen,
Van Nest lauded the ruling as a victory for
the privacy rights of athletes and said he
expected that schools across the country will
challenge the NCAA program.
Stanford University intervened in the case
in August backing the students' challenge.
Expert Witnesses
During the two-week trial in October,
both sides presented expert witnesses, many
of whom criticized the accuracy and effec-
tiveness of urinalysis tests.
. Linebacker McKeever described at the
trial the "degrading and humiliating" expe-
rience of being drug tested before last year's
Gator Bowl game. "It's hard sitting there
with a beaker in your hand and watching
someone make you give the sample, know-
ing the sample could determine your future,"
he said.
"It's very tough to decide to choose
`between giving up your basic rights and
giving up such a big part of your life. I really
didn't have a choice," McKeever added. (c)
On December 4, Judge Rushing held a
hearing to examine a proposed NCA A-test-
ing program for football and men's basket-
ball players. He ruled that testing of those
athletes must be limited to steroids, cocaine.
and amphetamines. Judge Rushing found
the NCAA's list of banned drugs, which
contains over 3000 different substances,
overbroad.
Graphic Artists
Designers
The Earl Warren Chapter (Alameda
County) needs your help preparing its
booth for Festival at the Lake, 1988.
Please contact Beth Weinberger,
839-2743.
Tenant's
Campaign Signs
n November 14, the ACLU-NC filed a
lawsuit in San Francisco Superior
Court on behalf of a tenant who was denied
- the right to post a mayoral campaign sign in
the window of his apartment in the Stones-
town apartment complex.
ACLU-NC cooperating attorney Steven
Mayer said that tenant Landis Whistler
wrote his manager twice requesting permis-
sion to post an "Art Agnos for Mayor" sign.
`Both times Whistler was refused. The Sto-
nestown leases include a provision saying
that tenants must get the landlord's approval
for posting signs in the windows of their
homes.
Although Stonestown Corporation
agreed the morning the suit was filed to
allow tenants to post campaign signs for the
_San Francisco mayor election, the suit asks
that tenants be allowed to post signs during.
all political campaigns.
Mayer said that the policy of barring signs
is illegal. "Section 1942.5 of the Civil Code
makes it unlawful to evict a tenant exercising
`anv rights under the law.'
"The lease provision unreasonably cur-
tails a tenant's fundamental right to engage
in political expression in his or her own
home," said Mayer, adding that the issue is
particularly significant in`a city like San
Francisco where two-thirds of the residents
live in apartments and similar lease prove
sions are not uncommon.
A hearing on the preliminary injunction
has been set for December. 16.
_ This is the second ACLU-NC suit in as
many months on behalf of tenants who wish
to post campaign signs in their apartment
windows. On October 14, Mayer and
~ ACLU-NC staff attorney Alan Schlosser
won a Temporary Restraining Order in San
Francisco Superior Court allowing tenants
in the Parkmerced apartment complex to:
post mayoral campaign signs in the windows
of their homes.
Graduation Prayer
ess than one month after the California
Supreme Court unanimously decided
to let stand an appellate court ruling barring
prayers from public high school graduation
ceremonies, Livermore school district trus-
tees voted not to appeal the decision to the
U.S. Supreme Court.
On a 3-2 vote, the school po decided
on November 10 not to appeal the July
Court of Appeal's ruling that the prayer was
an improper state endorsement of religion"
and an intrusion on students' religious
liberty.
That decision closes the case on a
precedent-setting challenge to school prayer
which began in 1983 when Leslie Ann Ben-
nett, then a senior at Granada High School
in Livermore, risked insults and threats to
oppose the inclusion of a pie in. her
graduation ceremony.
Bennett was represented by ACLU-NC
staff attorney Margaret Crosby, who suc-
ceeded in obtaining an injunction on gra-
duation eve prohibiting the inclusion of the
prayer, and who carried on the four-year -
challenge in the courts.
Bennett, now an airline employee in
Legal Briefs
southern California, said, "A prayer at gra-
duation, no matter what religion, is still
infringing on my right not to pray if I don't
want to."
Crosby noted that this is the first ruling
which will have an effect statewide on the
many other school districts which include
religious invocations in their graduation
ceremonies.
"It's very good news for the many students
who will now no longer have prayer at their
graduation ceremonies, because school-
sanctioned religion is divisive and makes
many students feel like outsiders if they don't
share the majority faith," Crosby said.
Roadblocks
ith a 4-3 decision, the California
Supreme Court ruled on October 29
that drunk driving roadblocks set up by the
California Highway Patrol and local police
departments do not violate drivers' constitu-
tional rights.
The roadblocks were challenged by the
ACLU-NC in a taxpayers lawsuit filed in
1984 charging that the police roadblocks
violated the Fourth Amendment, the Cali-
fornia Constitution and California law. The
lawsuit, /ngersoll v. Palmer, was filed just
days before the CHP and police depart-
ments set up roadblocks in a number of
communities for the holiday season.
The court majority, in an opinion
authored by Justice Marcus Kaufman,
stated that the random stops caused by the
roadblocks were "administrative inspec-
tions" and not criminal investigations.
However, Justice Allen Broussard, in a
stinging dissent, wrote, "When uniformed
law enforcement officers stop motorists to
check them for intoxication, shine a light in
the car to look for open containers of alcohol
.. with a special officer ready to administer
blood alcohol tests and booking officers and
police vans ready to take offenders to jail, it
is not an administrative inspection, but an
ordinary police detention.
"If we abandon constitutional protections
to combat every abhorrent crime which has
captured the public's attention, we will find
ourselves naked and unprotected in a hurry."
The dissent was joined by Justices nok and -
Panelli.
The lawsuit was filed by former
ACLU-NC staff attorney Amitai Schwartz,
who called the decision "a real erosion of
privacy." :
ACLU-NC staff attorney Alan Schlosser
said that the decision will probably not be
appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Ballot Arguments
I a ruling which may have a chilling effect
on political expression,
Appeal decided on October 10 that an indi-
vidual who signs a ballot initiative argument -
_ that is ruled to be false or misleading can be
required to pay the legal costs of the person
who challenges the argument. 2
The ACLU-NC represented Anna Rab-
kin, Berkeley's elected city auditor, who was
ordered by a superior court judge to pay her
opponents' legal fees of over $3,000 for
allegedly making incorrect statements on a
city ballot measure concerning recycling in
November 1984.
the Court of -
ACLU-NC attorneys Amitai Schwartz -
" and Margaret Crosby argued that an award
of attorneys fees, with no finding that Rab-
kin was negligent, much less willfully false,
can have a severe chilling effect on the wil-
lingness of persons to write and sign ballot
arguments on controversial issues in the
voters handbooks.
Rabkin's defense also argued that such a
judgment raises state and federal constitu-
tional questions of free speech and the right
to petition for redress of grievances.
Justice James Scott, writing for the appel-
late court, disagreed. The opinion stated
that an award of attorneys fees is a legitimate
way to encourage private enforcement of
campaign laws and does not violate free
speech rights of those who sign ballot
arguments.
Rabkin has decided not to pursue an
appeal to the state Supreme Court.
Private Prisons
n behalf of a state taxpayer, the
Ox: of Northern and Southern
California and the Prison Law
Office filed a lawsuit on November 17 in
Sacramento Superior Court to stop the
Department of Corrections from continuing
to expand the prison system by contracting
with private for-profit firms to run prisons
for parole violators.
One privately-run prison is now operating
in La Honda; two more are set to open in
southern California in the next few months;
several more are planned to open next year.
All will house parole violators.
The lawsuit charges that the privately-
operated prisons are illegal because the
Legislature has not authorized construction
of these facilities, and because the operation
of the private prisons constitutes an unlaw-
ful delegation of the state's police Boyes to
private individuals.
Although Judge Joseph A. DeCristoforo
denied a Temporary Restraining Order
(TRO) to stop one of the Southern Califor-
nia prisons from being opened in November,
the attorneys are continuing to seek a judg-
ment prohibiting the California Department
of Corrections (CDC) from contracting out
the business of incarcerating felons.
According to Donald Specter, Director of
the Prison Law Office, "The contracts are an
end run around the Legislature and the
people of California. By unilaterally issuing
these contracts, the CDC is making political
decisions about whether to build prisons and
where they should be located without con-
sulting anyone."
"Private prisons are unconstitutional, 2
said ACLU-NC staff attorney Ed Chen.
"Traditionally the power to arrest and con-
fine criminals rests with the state. Now the
CDC is letting praht neki corporations
take over this role.
"Because of the contract: these private
firms will have an incentive to incarcerate
more people. This will create a `prison-
industrial complex' which will have a finan-
cial interest in perpetuating the prison con-
struction program. |
"Already the CDC spends $1.2 billion a
year-taking funds which might be spent on
the university system and other social pro-
grams," Chen added. (c)
The lawsuit is asking that the CDC either
take over the private prisons or shut them
down. A hearing on the preliminary injunc-
tion has been set for December 22.
aclu news
4 december 1987
In Memoriam _
Stephen Cone
he tragic crash of the PSA plane on
December 7 robbed the San Fran-
cisco legal community of Stephen E.
Cone, one of its finest young lawyers.
Cone served as a cooperating .attorney
with the ACLU-NC.
_ Cone, a partner in the San Francisco
law firm of Farrella, Braun and Martel,
was a 1976 graduate of Hastings College
of the Law where he also taught legal
writing.
As an ACLU-NC cooperating attor-
ney, Cone worked with staff attorney
Margaret Crosby in authoring an amicus
brief on associational privacy rights in
the case of Cohen v. Superior Court. The
lawsuit challenged a San Francisco ordi-
nance which established a comprehen-
sive. regulatory scheme for "escort
services," requiring that such services
maintain a daily register, open to the
police, showing the names and addresses
of patrons. When the lawsuit was settled,
the ordinance was altered to provide
greater privacy protection.
Cone is survived by his wife, Barbara,
and their 18-year-old son, Christopher.
The family has asked that gifts in his
memory be given to the ACLU-NC
Foundation of Northern California.
2 =
Mike Kurtz
ike Kurtz, a Board member of the
ACLU-NC Gay Rights Chapter,
died of AIDS on October 9, his thirty-
third birthday.
Kurtz, a graduate of the University of -
Southern California in Cinema Produc-
tion, was an indoor landscape gardener
in Davis. He was a director of Persons
with AIDS and served as a media coordi-
nator for the California Community
AIDS Network.
~ As an active member of the Gay
Rights Chapter board, Kurtz worked on
the broad distribution of the ACLU-NC's
"AIDS and Civil Liberties" policy guide
and on educating the public and state -
legislators about AIDS legislation.
Doug Warner, chair of the Gay Rights
Parental Consent Law
continued from p. |
unusually acute for these young women,
who were forced to disclose very intimate
and personal matters to strangers."
Unsafe conditions
A Minnesota nurse explained that minors
would skip school and travel a great dis-
tance-often in unsafe conditions and sleep-
`ing in the street or in a car-to have their
petitions heard in another county. She told
of a teenager whose parents beat up her
boyfriend in the abortion clinic, and later
kicked her out of the home.
A Colorado psychologist reported the
added danger to teenagers from abusive or
dysfunctional families-those most reluc-
tant to speak to their parents about a preg-
nancy. "It is my opinion that notice of a
daughter's pregnancy would enrage a batter-
ing father. It would be like showing a red
cape to a bull. The California statute [would
make it] exceptionally difficult for a minor
who comes from a dysfunctional family to
choose and complete the court bypass
procedure. Going to court would be a risk of
exposure which would create a higher risk of -
abuse," she wrote.
In Massachusetts, a statewide study esti-
mated that of all teenage abortion patients
50% obtain parental consent, 17% use the
court bypass, and fully one-third go out of
state to avoid the parental consent
requirement.
High abortion rate
Declarations from rural and urban health
care workers in California underscore that
these same devastating repercussions would
Chapter, said, "As a Chapter Board
member for the last two years, Mike
contributed greatly to the Chapter's
efforts to promote and defend civil liber-
ties in general, and lesbian and gay rights
in particular.
"Mike's struggle against AIDS was
valiant; his unfailing good humor, bright
outlook and commitment to battling the
epidemic of fear, ignorance and political
demagoguery surrounding the disease
have inspired us all," Warner said.
Kurtz leaves his companion, Michael
Williams, his father, Robert Kurtz, two
brothers and a sister. A memorial was
held in San Francisco on October 23.
_ Gifts in honor of Mike Kurtz may be
sent.to Gay Rights Chapter, ACLU-NC,
1663 Mission St., #460, San Francisco
94103.
be duplicated here if the law goes into effect
in January. In 1982, the latest year for which
data is available, there were an estimated:
30,220 abortions for girls under the age of 18
in California. California has the second
highest pregnancy rate for teenagers and one
of the highest abortion rates for this age
group.
The plaintiffs reflect a strong consensus
from the medical community that the law
will increase the health risk for pregnant
teenagers. Mary Luke, Executive Director
of Planned Parenthood of Alameda/San
Francisco said, "This measure will have
serious, dangerous consequences for many
young women wanting abortion services.
Teens already delay seeking.medical care
when they suspect they are pregnant," she
said. "Those teens who could not speak to
their parents or handle the court bureau-
cracy would risk later term, and possibly.
unsafe, self-induced abortions."
Dr. Birt Harvey, Chair of the American
Academy of Pediatrics, District IX, added,
"The government of this state should not, by
establishing barriers to health services,
essentially usurp an adolescent's right to
terminate her pregnancy.
"If the government put as much effort into
helping adolescents as it does into prevent-
ing abortions, we would have more young
women continuing their education and
becoming active, productive citizens and.
fewer unwanted and unloved children grow-
ing up in our society," Dr. Harvey concluded.
Plaintiffs are asking the court to issue an
injunction to prevent the implementation of
the law. Defendants in the suit are California
Attorney General John Van de Kamp and
the District Attorneys of all 58 California
counties. A hearing has been set for
December 21.
Chapter Meetings
B.A.R.K. (Berkeley Area) CHAPTER
MEETING: (Usually fourth Thursday)
Thursday, January 28. Contact Florence Pili-
avin, 415/848-5195.
EARL WARREN 0x00A7 (Oakland/ Alameda
County) CHAPTER MEETING: (Usually
third Wednesday) Special membership orien-
tation/ project planning meeting: Wednesday,
January 20, 7:30 p.m., 1021 Ashmount Drive.
All chapter members urged to attend! Con-
tact Paul Bernstein, 415/658-0502 (eve), or
Lauren Leimbach, 415/655-7339 (eve).
GRAPHIC ARTISTS, DESIGNERS and
Others Similarly Skilled: The Earl Warren
Chapter needs your help preparing its booth
for Festival at the Lake, 1988. Please contact
Beth Weinberger, 415/839-2743.
FRESNO CHAPTER MEETING: (Usually
third Tuesday) Tuesday, January 19, 5:30 p.m.
Planned Parenthood Office. Contact Mindy
Rose, 209/486-7735 (eve).
GAY RIGHTS CHAPTER MEETING:
Tuesday, January 5, 7 p.m., ACLU-NC, 1663
Mission Street, San Francisco. NOTE: chap-
~ ter meeting day may be changed in the future.
Contact Doug Warner: 415/621-3900.
MARIN CHAPTER MEETING: (Usually
third Monday). Monday, January 18, 7:30
p.m., Citicorp Bank, 130 Throckmorton
Avenue, Mill Valley. Contact Eileen Siedman,
415/383-0848.
MID-PENINSULA - (Palo
CHAPTER MEETING:
Wednesday) Special meeting on police practi-
ces with ACLU-NC Police Practices attorney
_John Crew: Wednesday, January 27, 8 p.m.,
All Saints Episcopal Church, 555 Waverly,
Room 15, Palo Alto. Contact Harry Anis-
gard, 415/856-9186.
MONTEREY CHAPTER MEETING:
Annual Meeting: Saturday, January 30, 2-5
p.m., Monterey County Library; guest
speaker: Erwin Knoll, editor of The Progres-
sive magazine.. For more information, con-
tact Dick Criley, 408/624-7562.
MT. DIABLO (Contra Costa County)
CHAPTER MEETING: (Usually fourth
Tuesday or Wednesday) Wednesday, January
27, Tuesday, February 23. Contact Lowell
Richards, 415/939-ACLU.
NORTH PENINSULA (San Mateo area)
CHAPTER MEETING: (Usually second
Monday) Monday, January I1; Tuesday, Feb-
ruary 8. Contact Bob Delzell, 415/343-7339.
Alto area)
(Usually fourth -
Chapter Calendar
SACRAMENTO VALLEY CHAPTER
MEETING: (Usually second Wednesday)
7:30 pm. Wednesday, January 13; Wednesday,
February 10. County Administration Build-
ing, 7th and I Streets, Sacramento. Organiz-
ing now for April "Bicentennial Forum."
Contact Joe Gunterman, 916/447-8053.
SAN FRANCISCO CHAPTER MEET-
ING: (Usually fourth Tuesday) Tuesday, Janu-
ary 26, 6 p.m. ACLU-NC office, 1663 Mission
Street, San Francisco. Contact Marion Stan-
dish, 415/863-3520.
SANTA CLARA CHAPTER MEETING:
(Usually first Tuesday) Tuesday, January 5;
Tuesday, February 1. Contact Christine Ber-
aldo, 408/554-9478.
SANTA CRUZ. CHAPTER MEETING:
(Usually third Wednesday) Wednesday, Janu-
ary 20..Contact Bob Taren, 408/429-9880.
SONOMA CHAPTER MEETING:
(Usually third Thursday) Thursday, January
21. Roseland Law Center, 1680 Sebastopol
Road, Santa Rosa. Contact Colleen O'Neal,
707 | 575-1156.
STOCKTON CHAPTER MEETING:
(Usually third Wednesday) Contact. Beverly
Ford, 209/948-6759.
YOLO COUNTY CHAPTER MEETING:
(Usually Third Wednesday) Wednesday, Jan-
uary 20. Contact Vince Chen ae, 916/
756-2408 (eve).
Field Committee
Meetings
PRO-CHOICE TASK FORCE: (Usually -
first Wednesday) Wednesday, January 6;
Wednesday, February 3. 6:30 p.m.,
ACLU-NC office, 1663 Mission Street, San
Francisco. Now organizing activities to com-
memorate the ISth anniversary of Roe v.
Wade |/22/88. Contact Marcia Gallo, 415/
621-2493.
RIGHT TO KNOW/RIGHT TO DIS-
SENT COMMITTEE: Saturday, January
16, 10 a.m.-I p.m. Special organizing meeting
on covert operations. Contact Marcia Gallo,
415/621-2493.
IMMIGRATION WORKING GROUP:
(Usually fourth Thursday) Thursday, January
28, 7 p.m., ACLU-NC office, 1663 Mission
Street, San Francisco. Contact. Marcia Gallo,
415/621-2493.
INS Raid
continued from p. |
ating outside the parameters of the Constitu-
tion, and that its consistent preference for
heavy-handed, dragnet-style enforcement
techniques will not be tolerated."
ACLU-NC staff attorney Alan Schlosser
said, "This ruling sends a messae to the INS
that they cannot continue to conduct work-
place raids in a lawless and unconstitutional
manner. This message is particularly timely
as the INS is gearing up to enforce the new
immigration law in workplaces across the
country."
Operation Jobs
The November ruling resolves only part
of the lawsuit, which was filed in response to
the INS raids which occurred during Oper-
ation Jobs in April 1982 at 20 different work
sites in the Bay Area. Operation Jobs was a
series of highly publicized INS raids con-
ducted nationwide. :
The class action lawsuit, filed on behalf of
seven employers and all Hispanic employees
in northern California, also concerns com-
plaints on behalf of hundreds of Hispanic.
workers who were detained, interrogated,
arrested and abused by INS officers during
workplace raids.
"The rights of workers were clearly vio-
lated," attorney David Grabill of CRLA
stated. The suit charges that during certain
raids, INS agents intimidated, physically
abused and subjected workers to racial slurs
and other forms of name-calling before they
were arrested.
"It was like a wild animal hunt," said one
eye-witness.
A trial to resolve the remaining issues in
the lawsuit is scheduled for May 1988 and
may last as long as ten weeks. The trial will
deal with charges that the INS:
-has a "pattern and practice" of singling
out Hispanics in raids;
-coerces employers to cooperate in raids
when the agency does not have a warrant for
sweeps; and
--harasses employers and workers alike,
despite their cooperation, after entering the
workplace. (c)
_ Women
Committee to Defend Reproductive
Rights v. Kizer
(California Supreme Court)
~ Within hours of the ACLU-NC filing a lawsuit to
halt the state Legislature's Budget Act cuts in
Medi-Cal funding for abortion, the state Court of
Appeal blocked the. restrictions on the funds and
ordered state officials to continue to provide fund- .
ing for Medi-Cal abortions.
The ACLU-NC, for the tenth consecutive year,
represented a coalition of civil rights groups, wom-
en's organizations, health providers and taxpayers,
in challenging the Budget Act restrictions on the
funds. The ACLU has successfully challenged the
cuts since 1978 when the Legislature first restricted
Medi-Cal funding for abortion. If implemented, the
cuts would deny abortion funding for 80,000 indi-
gent women-one-quarter of them teenagers-
each year.
In an unusual move, the state requested the
California Supreme Court to take the case over
before the final decision was issued by the lower
court. However, on July 30, the Supreme Court
refused to take the case, pending the appellate
court ruling. -
Fluty v. Swoap
(Placer County Superior Court)
A taxpayer's suit filed by the American Life
Legal Foundation to halt Medi-Cal funding of abor--
tion services until the state establishes procedures
for special scrutiny of post-13 week abortion and
post-20 week abortions was thwarted when the
ACLU intervened.
ACLU arguments stopped the issuance of a
Temporary Restraining Order and an injunction.
Though this case has little foundation in law, it
has been used by national anti-choice forces as a
major fundraising appeal and may signal a wider
use of such lawsuits to undermine Medi-Cal fund-
ing for abortion.
Deer v. Alameda County Board of
Supervisors :
(California Court of Appeal)
A woman whose baby was stillborn due to
grossly negligent care at Highland Hospital
brought suit against the hospital, various adminis-
trative and medical personnel, and Alameda
_ County for medical malpractice, federal civil rights
violations, and violation of California civil and con-
stitutional rights.
- The ACLU filed an amicus brief supporting the
woman's petition for a writ of mandate addressing
the constitutional claims. The ACLU's brief, claim-
ing a violation of the California Constitution's pri-
vacy right guaranteeing reproductive choice,
argued that the woman's right to choose was
impaired by government misconduct, namely pro-
viding inadequate medical care at the county hos-
pital. The case was settled in December 1986.
Vinson v. Superior Court
(California Supreme Court)
According to a California Supreme Court
decision in August, an employer sued for sexual
harassment cannot subject the plaintiff to a psycho-
logical examination without any limitations as to
scope and without any procedural protections.
The lawsuit, in which the ACLU submitted an
amicus brief, grew out of a 1979 incident when a
CETA worker applied to the Peralta Community
College District for a job transfer. During her inter-
view, she was asked by the CETA director to submit
to his sexual demands in order to obtain the job.
She refused and was denied employment. After
she brought a sexual harassment suit, the District
attempted to require her to undergo a psychologi-
cal examination designed to delve into her sexual
history and attitudes. Although the lower court
denied her request for a protective order, the
Supreme Court agreed with ACLU arguments that
the examination violated her constitutional protec-
tion of privacy.
Sokolow v. Mounted Patrol
(San Mateo County Superior Court)
In 1986, the San Mateo Superior Court ruled
that the all-male Mounted Patrol in Woodside can-
not exclude women from membership as long as it
maintains its relationship with the - sheriffs
- department.
The ACLU represented an experienced and
accomplished horsewoman who sued the
Mounted Patrol and the San Mateo County Sheriff's
Department for sex discrimination after attempting
to become a member of the all-male Patrol for
almost a decade. The ACLU is now appealing the
court' denial of attorneys fees.
-~Miunorities
KK
ANU
U.S. v. San Francisco
U.S. District Court)
-_-
In August, the ACLU-NC joined the legal team
representing women and minority fire fighters in a
suit challenging discrimination by the San Fran-
cisco Fire Department. Upon hearing that the Fire
Department was planning-for the first time-to
give across-the-board drug tests to the new candi-
dates. admitted to the Fire College under court
Annual Report of the ACLU
Foundation of Northern California
This year, as we celebrate the Bicentennial of the U.S. Constitution, we can be proud
of some resounding victories in this Legal Docket, victories which bring us closer to
fulfilling the promise of our constitutional rights.
In a victory for the separation of church and state, the California Court of Appeal ruled
that the inclusion of a prayer in a public high school graduation ceremony is unconstitu-
tional-this ruling will affect school districts throughout the state. In a victory for freedom
of the press, the California Supreme Court overturned a multi-million dollar libel judgment
against two reporters who had criticized law enforcement officials. In a victory for minority
language voters, a federal court ruled that a U.S. Attorney's investigation of voters seeking
bilingual ballots was discriminatory and unconstitutional.
But perhaps one of our greatest victories-the blocking of the confirmation of an
enemy of civil liberties to the nation's highest court-shows us just how fragile even our
greatest victories can be. For this nominee who was thwarted is not the only one on the
bench who opposes the right to privacy, reproductive freedom, and strong measures to
undo centuries of race discrimination. - |
In fact, President Reagan has appointed over 50% of the judges in the federal
judiciary-more than any other president in U.S. history.
Given the nature of the courts, our litigation-from drug testing to Medi-Cal funding
for abortion-has become more complex, more extensive and more costly. We have
expanded our legal staff by adding Matthew Coles, an experienced civil liberties attorney,
to our Legal Department. He joins our excellent team of attorneys, Edward Chen,
Margaret Crosby, and Alan Schlosser, in directing our remarkable legal program. With
pride we share this legal! docket with over 80 dedicated lawyers who donate their services
as ACLU cooperating attorneys.
Moreover, for every case on this docket, the ACLU's complaint desk, staffed by a
dozen volunteers, receives more than 200 calls each week. Assisted by the Legal
Department and ten law students who clerk for the ACLU during the year, these lay
counselors often provide the advocacy needed to resolve a particular grievance.
In addition, the ACLU's Public Information Department, directed by Elaine Elinson
with assistance from Shahnaz Taplin, alerts the public to action taken and issues
championed by ACLU litigation through the media and our own publications.
Through this docket, you can review the vital civil liberties issues which we have
fought for throughout this Bicentennial year-and that will continue to challenge us with
even greater intensity in the years ahead. We hope you will take this opportunity to join a
growing number of ACLU supporters who enable us to fulfill the promise of the U.S.
Constitution, a promise which belongs-but is still not granted-to all of us.
Nancy Pemberton
Chairperson
Dorothy Ehrlich
Executive Director
DEB
aE aia
RS
HHH
order, the legal team sought an injunction against
the tests. The District Court judge granted a TRO,
temporarily halting the drug tests, but subsequently
denied a preliminary injunction and allowed the
drug testing to proceed.
International Molders v. Nelson
(U.S. District Court)
In 1983, the ACLU-NC, MALDEF, CRLA, the
Asian Law Caucus and the National Lawyers Guild
filed a class action lawsuit challenging a nation-
wide sweep by the Immigration and Naturalization
. Service (INS) called Operation Jobs and subse-
quent INS raids. The U.S. Court of Appeals, recon-
sidering its earlier ruling that restrictions on
government immigration raids on worksites must
. be lifted, determined in December 1986 that the
preliminary injunction prohibiting the raids should
remain in place prior to the trial.
The landmark injunction, which was issued by
the U.S. District Court 1985, forbids INS agents
from entering worksites without a valid warrant or
consent, and from unlawfully questioning and
detaining workers without reasonable suspicion
that the person is unlawfully in the country. ~
The case is now proceeding to trial in U.S.
District Court. =
Olagues v. Russionello
(U.S. Supreme Court)
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that
the U.S. Attorney's investigation. of bilingual ballot
seekers in nine northern California counties in
1982 impinged upon the voters constitutional
rights, and that the ACLU's challenge to the probe
must proceed to trial. The Court of Appeals deter-
mined that language minority voters are a "suspect
class' entitled to special protection under the equal
protection clause and the First Amendment.
The class action suit was filed by the
ACLU-NC, MALDEF, and California Rural Legal
Assistance on behalf of bilingual ballot seekers and
2 ACLU LEGAL DOCKET 1987
several organizations dedicated to assisting
Spanish- and Chinese-speaking voters to partici-
pate in the political process.
In October, the U.S. Supreme Court, after vot-
ing to hear the case, vacated the Ninth Circuit's
decision on grounds of mootness.
Associated General Contractors of
California v. San Francisco
(U.S. Court of Appeals)
The ACLU filed an amicus brief in April urging
the U.S. Court of Appeals to renear en banc a
decision of a three-judge panel invalidating San
Francisco's public contracts set aside program for
minority business enterprises.
The panel had held the minority affirmative
action program unconstitutional under a "strict |
~ scrutiny' analysis. The ACLU brief argues that the
court-erred in applying a stricter scrutiny standard
to race than to sex-based affirmative action.
0x00A7 Youth/
i
in
People v. Stockton Pregnancy Control
Medical Clinic |
(California Court of Appeal)
The ACLU filed an amicus brief in 1986 on
behalf of a Stockton clinic which has been charged
with violating new. state guidelines which require
doctors, psychiatrists and other professionals to
report to the police any adolescent under 14 who
seeks treatment for a sexually transmitted disease,
abortion, prenatal care or contraceptives.
The case was heard in appellate court in June.
Wexner v. Anderson Unified High School
District
(Cale Court of Appeal)
The ACLU's 1978 challenge to a Shasta
County school board ban on the books of the late
prize-winning poet-novelist Richard Brautigan
resulted in a summary judgment from the superior
court in 1980 that the ban was unconstitutional and
the books must be returned to the school library.
The court refused, however, to order the return of
the books to English. classes where they had been
previously used.
The ACLU appealed that decision arguing that
the superior court erred in holding that the books
may be banned from classroom use; the school
board also appealed, arguing that the books
should not be returned to the school library.
S aE ee
ay
Ze :
Ky
I
Transportation Company
(California Court of Appeal)
The ACLU is representing a gay employee of
Southern Pacific who was denied the three-day
funeral leave provided for in his union contract
when his lover of 11 years died. The ACLU-NC
argued in August before the state Court of Appeal
that California law (Fair Housing and Employment
Act) prohibits the denial of employment benefits -
based on marital status.
After a two-day trial in 1985, the Superior Court
upheld SP's denial but noted that the state law
barring same-sex marriages discriminates against
gay people.
Johnson v. Orr
(U.S. Court of Appeals)
The ACLU and the Lesbian Rights Project filed
a lawsuit in federal court on behalf of an officer in
the California Air National Guard (ANG) who was
involuntarily discharged simply because she wrote
a letter to her commanding officer stating that she
was a Lesbian. The discharged officer, who
received excellent performance ratings since 1981
as a lieutenant in the ANG, was discharged solely
because she asserted she was a Lesbian and not
because of any finding that she had engaged in
homosexual activity or illegal conduct of any kind.
_ The lawsuit charges that the Air Force violated'
the former lieutenant's constitutional rights of free-
dom of speech and association. In addition, since
members of the ANG are employees of the state of
California, the Air Force overstepped its bounds by
ordering the discharge: California law prohibits the
termination of government employees solely on the
basis of sexual orientation.
The court rejected the request for a prelimi-
~nary injunction and the decision was upheld by the
Court of Appeals.
Voters
Safadi v. Parkmerced
(San Francisco Superior Court)
Just weeks before the San Francisco mayoral
election, tenants at one of the largest apartment
complexes in the.city won the right to put campaign
signs in the windows of their homes after the ACLU
filed a class action lawsuit in San Francisco Super-
ior Court in October charging that the landlord's
prohibition on posting signs was illegal and
unconstitutional.
A Parkmerced Residential Community lease
provision, which states that tenants can be evicted
for posting signs in their windows, |s in violation of
a state law which makes it unlawful to evict a tenant
`exercising any rights under the law, the ACLU
charged. The judge issued a TRO to allow the signs
to be posted prior to the November election and set
a hearing on the preliminary injunction for
December.
- Washburn v. City of Berkeley
(California Court of Appeal)
In October, the state Court of Appeal stated, in
aruling which may have a chilling effect on political
expression, that an individual who signs a ballot
initiative argument that is ruled to be false or mis-
leading can be required to pay the legal costs of the
person who challenges the argument.
The ACLU represented Berkeley's elected city
auditor who was ordered by a superior court judge
to pay her opponent's legal fees for allegedly mak-
ing incorrect statements on a ballot measure about
recycling in November 1984.
The ACLU argued that an award of attorneys
fees, with no finding that the signatory was negli-
gent, much less wilfully false, can have a severe
chilling effect on the willingness of persons to sign
ballot arguments in the voters handbooks in the
future and raises state and federal constitutional
questions of free speech and the right to petition for
a redress of grievances. The ACLU will appeal the
ruling to the California Supreme Court.
Common Cause of California v. Los
Angeies County
(California Court of Appeal)
Aruling from the Los Angeles Superior Court,
and upheld by the Court of Appeal, could bring
about the registration of hundreds of thousands of
eligible low-income and minority voiers. In 1986,
the ACEU-NC joined the Southern California affil-
iate in filing the lawsuit requiring local government
officials to institute affirmative voter registration pro-
grams where there is evidence of underregistration
of low-income and minority voters.
The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Human
SERVE, the Southwest Voter Registration Project
and other voting rights organizations. The Superior
Court and then the Court of Appeal issued a preli-
minary injunction requiring the County to take
steps to register underregistered voters. In July, the
County filed a petition for hearing in the Seca
Supreme Court.
Monterey County Democratic Central
Committee v. U.S. Postal Service
(U.S. Court of Appeals)
According to a March ruling in federal court,
the walkway outside a post office is not.a ``tradi-
tional public forum," and therefore voter registration
by partisan groups may be prohibited there. The
court denied an ACLU challenge to the U.S. Postal
' Service guideline, first issued in December 1983,
barring voter registration by partisan groups on
post office property.
When the postmaster at the Carmel Valley
Post Office refused in 1984 to allow the local Demo-
cratic Committee fo register voters in front of the
post office, the ACLU filed a lawsuit seeking an
injunction and a declaration that the U.S. Postal
Service regulation forbidding "partisan" groups to
register voters at post offices was unconstitutional.
Although the U.S. District Court issued an
immediate injunction allowing registration in time
for the November 1984 elections, the Court then - -
reversed itself and ruled that the guideline was
valid. The Ninth Circuit Court of eppedls upheld the
decision.
Demonstrators
ANN
AN
The Bay Area Peace Navy-an organization
that uses sailboats, canoes, kayaks, and other
small boats to carry a message against milita-
rism-was allowed to sail within sight and hearing
of spectators on Aquatic Pier during the U.S. Navy's
October Fleet Week procession after the U.S. Dis-
trict Court issued an order striking down the Navy's
"security zone" restrictions on the peace activists.
The ACLU challenged the Navy's ban-which
would have kept the Peace Navy 75 to 100 yards
away from the Pier-as a violation of the protestors
First Amendment rights. A hearing for a preliminary
injunction for future aquatic demonstrations has
been set for November.
California: Stevedore and Ballast
Company v. Bay Area Free South Africa
Movement
(San Francisco Superior Court)
In 1986, the ACLU prepared an overnight ami-
cus brief which succeeded in preventing a ship-
ping company from stopping anti-apartheid
protests against the unloading of South African
goods at San Francisco': Pier 80. The brief was
filed in response to a Temporary Restraining Order
sought by the California Stevedore and Ballast
Company in order to stop anti-apartheid demon-
strations at the docks. |
The ACLU argued that the injunction sought
by the shipping company was too broad both in
- terms of whom it would prevent from activity and the
kind of activity it would prevent.
AANKNK,
Northern California Newspaper
Organizing Committee v. Solano Mall
(California Court of Appeal)
Union members involved in a labor dispute
are allowed to leaflet at a shopping center with the
same degree of protection as any other leafleters
according to a state Court of Appeal ruling in
August. .
Agreeing with ACLU arguments, the Superior
Court ruled in 1985 that information about labor
disputes is entitled to the same free speech protec-
tions as any other issue and noted that the access
issue had already been resolved in the 1979 land-
mark case of Robins v. Pruneyard allowing free
speech in shopping centers even when they are
privately owned. The court also enjoined the mall's
_ burdensome regulations.
In affirming the lower court ruling, the Court of
Appeal declared that the union: members right to
distribute leaflets at the mall was protected by the
California Constitution. The union members will
now seek a permanent injunction against the mall.
re
the e Disabled
a KK
ia
White v. Department of Developmental
Services
(California Court of Appeal)
_ The ACLU-NC in May appealed a 1986 super-
ior court decision that developmentally disabled
children may not receive state-funded treatment
unless records of their intimate behavior are placed
in a centralized state computer.
The case was filed in Sacramento Superior -
Court in 1985 on behalf of two developmentally
disabled children and their parents who receive
services funded by the Department of Develop- 0x00B0
mental Services. The ACLU lawsuit contends that
the collection and storage of the children's per-
sonal records, identifiable by name, violates their
constitutional and statutory rights to privacy.
the Press
McCoy et al. v. Hearst Corporation et al.
(California Supreme Court)
When the United States Supreme Court in
May let stand the California Supreme Court ruling
that threw out a multi-million dollar libel judgement
against two reporters and the San Francisco Exa-
miner, the final period was put on an 11 year battle
for press freedom.
By refusing to hear the case, the Supreme
Court upheld the California high court's 1986
unanimous decision reversing a $1.5 million libel
judgment against former San Francisco Examiner
reporter Raul Ramirez and freelance writer Lowell
- Bergman and a $3 million judgment against the
Examiner and the Hearst Corporation. The repor-
ters were represented by the ACLU-NC.
The original libel suit judgment, awarded by a
San Francisco jury in 1979, was the result of a suit
brought by two city policemen and a former Assist-
ant District Attorney against the reporters and the
Examiner because of a series of articles published
in 1976 about a controversial murder trial in which
a 19 year old Chinatown youth was convicted.
The case strikingly documents the potential of
libel. suits to limit journalistic inquiry into i activi-
ties of public officials. :
Prisoners
ANN
Rios et al. v. McCarthy
(Sacramento Superior Court)
Pregnant women and mothers incarcerated in
California prisons were reunited with their babies
following a 1985 order from the superior court that
the Department of Corrections must implement a
provision allowing for qualified inmate mothers of
children under six to be placed in a special Com-
munity Prisoner Mother-Infant Care Program.
A suit filed by the ACLU affiliates of Northern
and Southern California and Legal Services for
Prisoners with Children charged that the Depart-
ment of Corrections was wrongfully separating
mothers from their infants. The Temporary Restrain-
ing Order allowed certain named plaintiffs to be
placed in the program with their children, and
discovery is proceeding for the larger class of |
plaintiffs.
Diaz v. Watts
(California Court of Appeal)
After years of litigation on behalf of prison
newspaper editors, the State Court of Appeal
upheld the Department of Corrections (CDC)
guidelines limiting press freedom inside prison
walls. The January decision came in the case that
the ACLU had filed on behalf of the inmate editor of
the prison newspaper at the California Medical
Facility in Vacaville.
In 1981 a Superior Court injunction ordered
prison officials at CMF who had censored, des-
troyed and shut down the prisoner-run newspaper
to. allow the paper to resume publication and cease
harassment of the inmate editor. However, the CDC
issued new regulations which were upheld by the
Superior Court. The ACLU argued on appeal that
the regulations were unconstitutionally vague and
overbroad.
Underwood v. Compoy
(U.S, District Court)
A black prisoner at Folsom who was given ten
days solitary confinement for writing an angry letter
to the former Director of the Department of Correc-
tions indicating that she was.a disgrace to her race
was vindicated in June when the U.S. District Court
determined that the inmate should not have been
punished for eocang his First Amendment
rights.
The ACLU-NC ee the prisoner who
was sentenced to solitary confinement, denied
participation in the work program, and restricted
from most other prison activities as a result of the -
letter.
The court ruled that the inmate's right to free
speech was improperly restricted, granted him
monetary relief, and ordered the expungement
from his record of all files relating to the letter and
the disciplinary action. However, because of two
recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions, the court is
reconsidering its ruling.
Toussaint v. McCarthy
_ (U.S. Court of Appeals)
This case was a major (and successful) chal-
lenge to conditions of confinement for prisoners in
administrative segregation. It was litigated by a
coalition of public interest law firms and pro bono -
private counsel, and relied heavily on work by law
students and paralegals. The ACLU along with
other groups filed an amicus brief in the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals solely on the issue of
attorneys fees-that for the prevailing party entitled
to attorneys fees; work of paralegals and law stu-
dents should be computed at market rates rather
than at actual costs.
The appeal was dismissed after the District
Court reconsidered, and oes plaintiffs motion -
for market rates.
(R)
Death Row
-
iF
Vickers v. Ricketts
(U.S. Supreme Court)
The ACLU helped win another victory against
capital punishment when the U.S. Supreme Court
in January denied a petition for certiorari in the case
of Robert Wayne Vickers.
Ina triai-where the defendant was defended
by incompetent counsel and was not given the
opportunity to present evidence of emotional insta-
bility -for the murder of his cellmate in the Arizona
State Prison, Vickers was convicted of murder and .
sentenced to death. The ACLU filed a petition of
habeas corpus in 1985 after the sentence was
upheld by the Arizona Supreme Court.
The U.S. Supreme Court's action means that
the reversal of Vickers' death penalty conviction by
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in 1986 will stand,
and that his case now returns to the Arizona courts
for retrial. The reversal was based on the trial
court's failure to instruct the jury on second.degree
murder, a violation of due process which left the
jury with no middle option between conviction on
first degree murder and acquittal.
Davenport v. Vasquez
(Marin County Superior Court)
Charging that the administration of the Inmate
Welfare Fund is `unequal, unfair and oppressive"
for Death Row inmates, the ACLU filed a class
action suit in 1985 calling for an overhaul of the .
Fund as it affects Death Row inmates.
The suit charges that although the more than
180 San Quentin inmates on Death Row must pay
into the Fund through canteen profits, surcharges
on purchases of art supplies and sales of their art
and handicrafts, because of their status as Death
Row inmates they are unable to enjoy benefits
provided by the Fund such as use of craft and
hobby shop facilities, jobs, library resources, and
movies which are paid for out of the Fund.
The confiscatory surcharges imposed on their
~ purchase of art supplies and on their sale of art-
work is particularly oppressive since many of these
inmates depend on art work for the primary source
of income.
In June 1986, the Superior Court denied the
~ prison officials motion to dismiss the case and
discovery is pending.
In re Neely
(California Court of Appeal)
The ACLU and the Prison Law Office filed a
habeas corpus petition in December 1985 chal-
lenging San Quentin's blanket denial of family
visiting privileges to Death Row inmates. When the -
Marin County Superior Court denied the petition,
the ACLU appealed. The appellate court denied
the appeal in June.
And for the
ok tO.
7
Z o
EE
Expression
NNN
Women's International League for Peace
and Freedom v. Fresno
(California Supreme Court)
The Women's International League for Peace -
and Freedom (WILPF) opposes draft registration
and sought to put up signs in Fresno city buses
with a photo of soldiers saying, "Why is this the only
job our government has to offer 19-20 year olds?
Think before you register for the draft." They were
prevented from doing so by:a city ordinance pro-
hibiting political messages on public property.
The Superior Court held that the city ordi-
nance was unconstitutional, but stated that the city
could ban the WILPF signs because they advocate
illegal activity, i.e. not registering for the draft. In
February, the state Court of Appeals reversed the
trial court and upheld the constitutionality of the
ordinance without addressing the legality of the
signs.
In May, the California Supreme Court let stand
the appellate court decision.
Korn v. Carey
(U.S. District Court)
The ACLU is representing a man who was
arrested for setting up a table in the outer lobby of
a post office in Willets to collect signatures on. a
petition to make Willets a nuclear-free city. Permis-
sion to set up the table was revoked by the post-
master on the grounds that postal customers
complained about the presence of the table and
the use of the post office for such a controversial
issue. The ACLU is seeking an injunction and
damages in federal district court.
Simpson v. San Francisco State
(San Francisco Superior Court)
The ACLU filed a lawsuit in San Francisco
Superior Court in 1986 challenging the unprece-
dented decision by San Francisco State University
_ to bar faculty and students from attending a guest
lecture given by the controversial. Rabbi Meir
Kahane, founder of the Jewish Defense League.
Filed on behalf of faculty and students, the suit
seeks an injunction preventing the University from
interfering with academic freedom and discriminat-
ing on the basis of the political viewpoints of guest
lecturers. It also seeks damages for violations of
plaintiffs First Amendment and statutory rights.
Allende v. Shultz (and other visa cases)
(U.S. District Court and U.S. Supreme Court)
_ In March, more than four years after her
speaking tour to California was scuttled by the U.S.
State Department denial of a visa, a federal court in
Massachusetts determined that Hortensia Allende,
widow of slain Chilean President Salvador Allende,
was improperly denied entry into the United States
by the government. The ACLU-NC and the national
ACLU filed a federal lawsuit challenging the Rea-
gan Administration's visa denial. The former Chi-
lean First Lady had been to the U.S. under every
administration since 1973 except the Reagan
Administration.
The summary judgment was granted by the
court to a group of plaintiffs including religious
leaders and scholars who had issued an invitation
to Mrs. Allende. The ACLU argued that the denial
abridged the freedom of speech and assembly
guaranteed in the First Amendment. The Court of
Appeals heard the government's appeal in
September.
In October, in a similar ACLU visa denial case
on behalf of Nicaraguan Interior Minister Tomas
Borge and two representatives of the Cuba Wom-
en's Federation, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a
lower court ruling that the visa denials of these'
persons were improper. As it was a 3-3 ruling
(because of the vacancy on the Supreme Court
and the withdrawal of two Justices), this victory only
holds for the Washington, D.C. Circuit.
In re Price
(Immigration and Naturalization Service)
The ACLU is representing a permanent resi-
dent alien who seeks U.S. citizenship but refuses to
answer the question on the standard naturalization
form requiring him to list all organizations with
which he was ever affiliated. The federal Court of
Appeals ruled in a prior ACLU case (/n re Duncan)
that it would not reach the constitutionality of the
membership question because the party seeking
citizenship had not followed proper procedures.
This is.a follow-up to the earlier lawsuit and will seek
to have the courts rule the membership question
unconstitutional under the First Amendment.
ACLU v. Murphy
- (California Court of Appeal)
_ Ina case designed to determine whether the
San Francisco Police Department was conducting
political surveillance or intelligence gathering of
the Ku Klux Klan and whether this is in accordance
with department guidelines, the state Court of
Appeal ruled in February that the Department must
turn over to the ACLU a videotape .related to the
police refusal to allow a Klan demonstration during
the 1984 Democratic Convention.
The ACLU filed suit under the California Public
`Records Act seeking information pertaining to an -
incident in which members of the Klan were
escorted by the police across the Bay Bridge,
arrested, and taken to the Hall of Justice where they.
were told by the Chief of Police that they could not
demonstrate in San Francisco. The suit also seeks
copies of guidelines regulating the gathering and
. dissemination of intelligence information by the
San Francisco Police Department.
Besides the videotape, the appellate court
determined that the police must also turn over an
index of the other contested records. The superior
court will decide whether the other records must be
disclosed.
EMI Santa Rosa Limited Partnership v.
Sonoma County Nuclear Weapons
Freeze Campaign/Sonoma County
Nuclear Weapons Freeze v. Santa Rosa
Plaza
(Sonoma County Superior Court)
In 1982 the ACLU won a preliminary injunction
against restrictive rules for political campaigners at
a Santa Rosa shopping center. The mall was sub-
sequently sold and in January 1984 the new
owners issued new rules-more restrictive than
the earlier ones-including a limitation on cam-
paigning activity to once every six months, no
ACLU LEGAL DOCKET 1987. 3
access on weekends and holidays and no solicita-
tion of donations.
In 1984 the mall went to court to prevent an
"anti-nuclear group and others from leafleting in the
mall. The ACLU filed a countersuit later on behalf of
the campaigners. After the court issued a prelimi-
nary injunction against the mall which allowed the
groups to carry out their free speech activities at the
shopping center, and prevented the mall from
requiring any groups from complying with the
mall's burdensome rules, the mall management
issued new, less restrictive rules.
Triple F Investment v. Green
(Fresno Superior Court)
The ACLU is challenging restrictive rules
imposed on persons and groups who wish to
engage in expressive activity at the Fashion Fair
Shopping Center in Fresno.
ANN
Privacy
LeVant v. NCAA/Hill and McKeever v. NCAA
(Santa Clara Superior Court)
In August, the Santa Clara Superior Court
issued a Temporary Restraining Order prohibiting
the NCAA from requiring written consents to drug
testing from Stanford student athletes as a condi-
_ tion for participating in intercollegiate sports.
Champion student diver Simone LeVant won
the first successful challenge to the NCAA drug
testing program in March when the same court
issued an injunction allowing LeVant to compete in
college diving championships without consenting
to the mandatory drug test. The court ruled that the
NCAA could not force the Stanford student to waive
her constitutional right to privacy.
Although LeVant graduated in June, two other
Stanford athletes, a football player and the captain
of the women's soccer team, as well as the Univer-
sity Itself, have joined the case as plaintiffs so that
the ACLU challenge to the NCAA rule will continue
in Superior Court.
Price v. Pacific Refining Company
(Contra Costa Superior Court)
In July, the ACLU-NC thwarted an.attempt by a
Hercules oil refinery to reinstate company-wide
testing when the state Court of Appeal denied the
company's request for an appellate review of the
case as well as the company's petition to overturn
the preliminary injunction against drug testing. In
an October 1986 challenge to the mandatory
company-wide drug testing policy asa violation of
the workers privacy rights guaranteed by the Calli-
fornia Constitution, the ACLU-NC and the Employ-
ment Law Center won an injunction from the Contra
Costa Superior Court.
In April, the Superior Court accepted a modi-
fied version of the plan proposed by the company-
which allows that employees who work near poten-
~ tially dangerous equipment or materials be subject
to drug tests if there is a reasonable suspicion by a
supervisor of drug use and the worker fails a fitness
for duty examination administerd by a licensed
health professional. Also, employees may be given
a fitness for duty exam without suspicion upon 24 "
hours prior notice. Workers involved in accidents
may also be subject to drug testing. The new plan
allows employees who are required to provide a
urine sample be provided with a portion for their
own testing, an important procedural safeguard. It
also requires all observations supporting a deci-
sion to drug test to be documented in writing.
Random, blanket testing is still barred. :
The case has now been returned to Superior
Court.
Railway Labor Executives Association v.
Dole |
(U.S. Court of Appeals)
In 1986, the ACLU-NC filed an amicus brief in
support of the railroad workers union in the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals arguing that the Federal
Railway Regulations which authorize involuntary
blood, urine and breath testing of employees vio-
4 ACLU LEGAL DOCKET 1987
late the Fourth Amendment.
The ACLU is asking the appeals court to
reverse a U.S. District Court ruling that the tests
may be done without probable cause or individual-
ized suspicion.
Citizens for a Better Environment v. Ae
of Vallejo
(Solano County Superior Court)
In Vallejo, a city ordinance requires that all
persons who seek to canvass door-to-door for
political or charitable purposes must submit to
fingerprinting by the police. An ACLU suit filed on
behalf of Citizens for a Better Environment, Citizens
Action League and Greenpeace, argues that the
ordinance Is unconstitutional as It violates the can-
vassers privacy and their First Amendment right to
communicate with the people of Vallejo.
The city has now amended its solicitation
ordinance to eliminate the fingerprint requirement.
ANN
Due Process
Kirk v. City of San Francisco
(Us: District Court)
The ACLU is representing a man whose law-
suit was. dismissed by a district Court judge for
failing to state a claim under the federal Constitu-
tion. The man claims he was unlawfully arrested
and lost his job after San Francisco police falsely
claimed that he had been required to register as a
sex offender.
Although the district court originally ruled that
the federal courts would not entertain the lawsuit,
the complaint has been reinstated upon consider-
ation and a decision !s pending.
People v. Caswell
(California Supreme Court)
The ACLU affiliates of Northern and Southern
California filed a friend of the court brief in the state
Supreme Court in 1986 challenging a vagrancy law
which violates the California Constitution's guaran-
tee of due process and its requirement that laws be
enforced uniformly.
The brief argues that the law, which forbids
loitering around a public toilet for the purpose of
soliciting or engaging in a lewd act, encourages
arbitrary. and discriminatory enforcement by
requiring police to guess at the intent of a person
lingering in a restroom. The case |s awaiting argu-
ment in the Supreme Court.
People v. Spain
(U.S. District Court)
Johnny Larry Spain, a former Black Panther
Party member who was convicted for murder dur-
ing. the notorious San Quentin 6 trial, had his
conviction thrown out by the U.S. District Court
because he had been shackled to the courtroom
floor during his trial.
The ACLU filed an amicus brief challenging
Spain's conviction because of the shackling and
the improper conduct between the trial court judge
and a juror who had prejudicial ebro about the
Black Panther Party.
The state has appealed the ruling, and Spain
remains in prison.
Freedom from
cm
Unreasonable
Search
Ingersoll v. Palmer
(California Supreme Court)
In October the California Supreme Court
upheld the 1985 decision by the state Court of
Appeal which determined that drunk driving
roadblocks, conducted by police according to cer-
tain guidelines, are permissible under the United
States and California Constitutions. An ACLU tax-
payers suit had challenged the roadblocks when
the program first went into effect in 1984.
Charging that the roadblocks are in violation of
the Fourth Amendment, the California Constitution
and California law, the ACLU filed suit in November -
1984, just days before the California Highway Patrol
and several'police departments set up drunk driv-
ing roadblocks in a number of California commun-
ities. The roadblocks were begun following an
opinion issued by the state Attorney General stat-
ing that they were legal.
Estes v. McCarthy
(Marin Superior Court)
The ACLU is challenging new regulations of
the California Department of Corrections which
impose random parking lot searches of visitors to
inmates incarcerated in California prisons. The vis-
itors and their vehicles are searched by armed
guards and police dogs, even though they subse-
quently have to go through a standard metal detec-
tor search before entering the prison itself.
The Superior Court-ruled in a preliminary
injunction that the searches were not in violation of
the Fourth Amendment, but did agree with the
ACLU argument that those visitors who did not want
to be searched would be allowed to leave-pre-
viously, they had been detained against their will.
The case is proceeding to trial.
Scott v. Oakland
(Alameda Superior Court)
The ACLU represented a female bank
employee who was strip searched by the Oakland
police despite the fact that she had no previous
arrest record, was detained for the infraction of
failure to pay a. dog license fee and the authorities
had been informed that her father was en route to
the jail with bail money.
A settlement was reached in 1986 granting
monetary damages to the strip search victim; how-
ever, a separate aspect of the lawsuit-challenging
the strip search policy of the Police Department-
is still pending.
7 frecdom from
ANAK
'
Police
Abuse
Stevens v. Hance
(San Francisco Superior Court)
In May, a Rastafarian priest who was falsely
arrested and beaten by a San Francisco police
officer was awarded in settlement $35,000 in dam-
ages. as a result of an ACLU lawsuit. A second
Rastafarian who died of cancer during the course
of the lawsuit received $3,000 for his surviving
daughter.
The ACLU filed a personal injury and civil
rights lawsuit in 1985 on behalf of the two Rastafar-
ians who were arrested and strip searched by three
San Francisco plainclothes narcotics officers. The
officers approached the Rastafarians at a Fillmore
District home and addressed them in a manner
disrespectful of their religion. When they protested,
they found themselves under arrest for interfering
with an investigation and resisting arrest. The suit
alleged that the men were falsely arrested, beaten
and strip searched because of their race and
religion.
Sundance v. Municipal Court
(California Supreme Court)
The ACLU filed a brief in the state Supreme
Court challenging the widespread arrests without
prosecution or trial of public inebriates in Los
Angeles County. The record in the case shows over
150,000 arrests for public inebriation, with only
_ eight convictions after trial. The ACLU argued that
people cannot constitutionally be subjected to
arrest, booking, and incarceration when arresting
officers reasonably know that the persons arrested
will not be prosecuted or convicted. In December,
the high court decided the case, generally uphold-
ing the power to arrest inebriates.
'*F reedom ot
ANNAN
y
Bennet v. Livermore Unified School
District
(California Supreme Court)
In a precedent setting decision, the California
Court of Appeal ruled in July that the inclusion of a
prayer in a public high school graduation cerem-
ony |S unconstitutional. In October, the California
Supreme Court refused to hear the school! district's
appeal, leaving in place the appellate court ruling.
The case originated in 1983, when graduating
seniors at Granada High School in Livermore
objected to having a prayer at their graduation
exercises. The students were opposed by several
school committees, the principal and the school
board. The ACLU-NC represented one of the
seniors in court arguing that the inclusion of the
prayer was. in violation of the constitutional princi-
ples of church-state separation.
The injunction issued by the Superior Court
was allowed to stand by the Court of Appeal and
the Supreme Court on the eve of the graduation
ceremony, and the prayer was excluded from the
program.
__ This is the first ruling from an appellate court
which will have an effect statewide on the many.
other school districts which include religious invo-
cations in their graduation exercises.
Lyng v. North Indian Cemetery
Protective Association
(U.S. Supreme Court)
The ACLU-NC has joined the national ACLU
and several ACLU affiliates in representing the
Yurok, Karok and Talowa tribes in their lawsuit to
protect their religious ground, known as the "high
country' in Humboldt. County from being
degraded by a proposed new federal government
. timber road.
After atrial, the U.S. District Court ruled that the
government proposal violated the tribes First .
Amendment rights because it would seriously
impair the Indian use of the high country for reli-
gious practices. The soeine | appealed the
decision.
The ACLU is arguing that the Indians' right .
free exercise of religion would be violated by the
proposed road because an indispensable element
of their religious practice would be taken from them
by the government for no compelling reason.
Rippberger and Middleton Vv. Superior
_ Court; Walker v. Superior Court
(California Supreme Court)
The ACLU-NC joined the Southern California
affiliate in filing a friend of the court brief in the
California Supreme Court in 1986 on behalf of
parents whose children died after receiving care
from certified Christian Science healers. The par-
ents were charged with felony child endangerment
and involuntary manslaughter for relying on heal-
ing through prayer.
The ACLU argues that the statutory scheme
under which the parents were arrested failed to
provide fair notice of unlawful conduct and that the
parents reasonably believed they were exempt
from Criminal liability because they relied on a law
which exempted healing through prayer from the
definition of child neglect.
The lawsuit, which appeals a lower court rul-
ing that parents providing spiritual healing for their
children are liable if treatment is unsuccessful, is
awaiting argument in the Supreme Court.
The 1987 Legal Docket
was produced by ACLU News
editor Elaine Elinson with
assistance from Mike Nagler.
You Can Support the
ACLU Docket
vata your special tax-deductible poret on to the
ACLU Foundation of Northern California. Without special
gifts from our Supporters, the docket you are holding might
be only one-half the size.
| want to help support the ACLU's legal work in northern California. Enclosed is my
tax-deductible contribution of |
OX $1000 LO $500 [1 $250 C1 $100 i$ (other)
Name-
Address
City State Zip
Phone
Please. make checks or money orders payable to the ACLU Foundation of Northern
California and send to ACLU Foundation, 1663 Mission St., San Francisco, CA 94103.