vol. 53 (1988), no. 6
Primary tabs
NON PROFIT
ORGANIZATION
U.S. POSTAGE
PAID
Permit No, 4424
San Francisco, CA
Volume LI
November/December 1988 |
aclu news
No. 6
- Rosa Parks to be Honored
, n December 1, 1955 in Montgom-
QO ery, Alabama Rosa Parks, a Black
seamstress, refused a bus driver's
order to give up her seat and move to the
back of a city bus. Her courageous act
launched the historic Montgomery Bus
Boycott and the modern day Civil Rights
Movement.
On Sunday, December 11 civil rights pi-
oneer Rosa Parks will be honored with the
Earl Warren Civil Liberties Award at the
ACLU-NC 16th annual Bill of Rights Day
Celebration. The event, which will be held
at the Sheraton Palace Hotel in San Fran-
cisco, is the culmination of the ACLU-
NC's annual fundraising campaigns.
The keynote speaker will be john pow-
ell, Legal Director of the national ACLU.
Each year, for the past fifteen years, the
Earl Warren Civil Liberties Award has
`been presented to a person or persons who
have distinguished themselves as champi-
ons in the battle to preserve and extend civ-
il liberties.
ACLU-NC Board Chair Lee Halterman
explained, "We chose Rosa Parks because |
of her tremendous personal bravery and be-
cause of her standing up for her rights and
the rights of all people who were oppressed
by a vicious system of racial segregation.
"Tt also seemed fitting to us that in an
era where there had been such overt and
covert appeals to renewed racism that the -
ACLU should make a visible commitment
to the perfection of a civil rights struggle
Rosa Parks
Rights Movement.
at Rights
- her arrest sparked the 1955 Montgomery Bus Boyco
tt and the Civil
Rosa and Raymond `Parks I.
that started so many years ago," Halterman
added.
Early Activist
Though best known for igniting the
fight against segregation in the South,
" Rosa Parks and her husband Raymond had
been battling racial prejudice and Jim Crow
laws long before that historic day in 1955.
Raymond Parks was an early activist in the .
effort to free the "Scottsboro Boys," a cele-
brated ACLU case in the 1930's. Together
they worked in the NAACP, where she
served as secretary and later as youth leader
of the local branch. At the time of her ar-
rest, Parks was preparing for a major youth
conference.
At a trial four days after her arrest, Parks
was found guilty of disobeying the Mont-
gomery segregation ordinance and fined
$14. That same day, after a rally led by Dr.
Martin Luther King at the Holt Street Bap-
tist Church, the bus boycott began.
The whole Black community of Mont-
gomery, 40,000 strong, staged what one
observer called "the greatest strike in the
history of this country." For a year,
Blacks refused to ride the city bus syste:
until it was integrated.
Racial Violence
The city retaliated by sending one hun-
Continued on p. 4
Challenge to 10-Minute Voting Limit
one of the longest ballots in Califor-
nia history, U.S. District Court
Judge Robert P. Aguilar declared the state's
10-minute voting rule discriminatory and
issued an order preventing election officials
in all 58 counties from enforcing it.
However, two days later, in response to
an appeal by the state, a federal appeals
court overturned Aguilar's order, stating
there was no evidence that elections offi-
cials would rigidly enforce the regulation.
The ACLU-NC joined other public inter-
est attorneys in a class action lawsuit chal-
lenging the 90-year old law on behalf of
two residents of Santa Clara County, one
of the counties which said it would enforce
the regulation.
The suit was filed by the ACLU-NC, the
Mexican American Legal Defense and Edu-
cation Fund, the Asian Law Alliance, and
Joaquin Avila on behalf of language mi-
norities who are of Latino and Asian ori-
gin.
In issuing his order, Aguilar noted that
"a fundamental constitutional right is be-
ing denied by virtue of the discriminatory
effect the time limit will have on the voter
F= days before an election featuring
in this election."
He said that the time limit effectively
constituted "a prohibited literary test for
voters," and added, "Language minorities
would be overburdened with the require-
ments that they cast their ballot within ten
minutes of entering the voting booth."
The lawsuit challenges a section of the
California Elections Code which states,
"Voters shall not remain in or occupy
booths or compartments longer than is ne-
cessary to work their ballot, which shall
not exceed ten minutes..."
According to attorney Manuel Romero
of MALDEF, "The ten minute limit has a
discriminatory effect on the voting rights
of language minorities with limited or no
proficiency in the English language.
ACLU-NC staff attorney Ed Chen added,
"This arbitrary time limit is a violation of
the federal Voting Rights Act in that it
serves as a discriminatory device which
abridges the voting rights of a class of citi-
zens.
"There are many citizens, particularly
those not proficient in English, the elderly,
and those with reading disabilities, who
cannot complete the mechanical task of
. marking SO to 75 selections on the ballot
within ten minutes, even if they have made
up their minds on the issues and candi-
dates," he added.
The suit was filed against the state of
California, Santa Clara County, where
both of the plaintiffs reside, and the class
of other counties which are enforcing the
challenged provision. Santa Clara County
recently discontinued the use of bilingual
ballots, which means that language minor-
ity voters must cope with an English-only
ballot during their allotted time in the vot-
ing booth.
Monitor polls
After the November 7 appellate court
ruling, which followed arguments made
over a long-distance conference call, mem-
bers of the ACLU-NC Santa Clara Chapter
and other volunteers monitored the polls in
Santa Clara County. Attorney Chen ac-
companied plaintiff Chun-Siang Niu to his
polling place. Niu, who was voting for the
first time as a U.S. citizen, said through an
interpreter, "I won't leave the voting booth
until I've finished voting."
Niu, a registered Republican, said he was
going to vote for George Bush. Attorney
Chen said that although Niu spent longer
than ten minutes in the voting booth, no
one attempted to make him leave.
Alternative methods
Prior to the lawsuit, many counties, in-
cluding San Francisco and Santa Cruz, said
that they would not enforce the regulation.
Instead, they used other methods - such
as express lines - to ensure that all voters
would have a chance to cast their lengthy
ballots.
"There are alternative ways of dealing
with the long ballot which the state can
use which do not violate voters' rights,"
Avila noted.
"The right to vote is one of the most
precious rights we have. People have
fought long and hard to remove obstacles
- such as the poll tax, literacy require-
ments, and race barriers - so that all citi-
zens will be able to participate.
"We cannot allow this basic right to be
diminished by enforcing an arbitrary time
limit at the polls," Avila added.
~ aclu news
2 nov./dec. 1988
ACLU Looks at Police Policies
`*Homeless-
ness is Not a
Crime''
t a press conference on a crowded
A corner of Market Street, just a few
feet away from police sweeps of
the homeless which led to an ACLU law-
suit three years ago, San Francisco Police
Chief Frank Jordan and representatives of
the Coalition on Homelessness announced
a "Resolution on the Rights of the Home-
less," which was unanimously passed by
the Police Commission on November 2.
"Tt's not a crime to be homeless," said
Chief Jordan, standing by the police koban
in front of the Powell Street cable car turn-
around. While street musicians played in
the background, the police chief said that
officers would not detain or check identifi-
cation of homeless persons on the street.
Instead, officers will "approach them and
tell them where. they can find aid," he add-
ed.
Referring to merchants who have called
on police to remove so-called undesirable
people from in front of their stores, Chief
Jordan said, "We're asking citizens to un-
derstand there's only so much police can do
about panhandling. When someone's only
disheveled in appearance, all we can do is
refer that person to a shelter or a halfway
house."
Cleo Meek, a member of the Homeless
Task Force, said, "It would benefit us all if
the police would spend their time and ener-
gy in. more serious crimes which would
help end the cycle of homelessness." It is
estimated that there are at least 6,000
homeless in San Francisco.
ACLU-NC attorney John Crew, an ar-
chitect of the resolution whose arrest while
monitoring police sweeps of the homeless.
at Hallidie Plaza sparked an ACLU lawsuit
challenging the former police policy, said,
"The Coalition on the Homeless views
this resolution as an important first step.
We will continue to monitor police com-
pliance with this policy to ensure that it is
enforced."
Homeless survey
Concern over police harassment of the
homeless grew out of increasing reports of
police misconduct. The Coalition on the
Homeless conducted a survey among 284
homeless people in recent weeks which
confirmed an alarming pattern of civil
rights violations by the police against the
homeless.
Among those polled, 96% reported inci-
dents of persons having been asked to
"move along" when they were doing noth-
ing wrong, 93% had witnessed or been
subjected to unwarranted identification
checks by the police, and 81% had wit-
nessed or experienced clothes or body
searches for no reason.
Police Commissioner Jose Medina said
that the resolution passed by the Commis-
sion states, "Members of the Police De-
partment are obligated to treat all persons
equally regardless of their economic or liv-
ing conditions. The homeless enjoy the
same legal and individual rights afforded to
others, =
"Homeless individuals shall also, upon
request, receive the same levels of prompt,
courteous police service provided to oth-
ers...in San~Francisco," "the resolution. .
States.
The Coalition on the Homeless is com- .
prised of over 70 representatives of home-
less advocacy groups, service providers, le-
gal groups such as the ACLU-NC, and
current and former members of the home-
less community. oe
Coalition spokesperson Greg Francis,
noted that an end to police abuse is only
one step in addressing the problems of the
homeless in the City. "By providing exits
out of the cycle of homelessness -
through safe and affordable housing, jobs,
and improvements in social services - the
Coalition seeks to affect public policy and
reverse expensive, crisis-oriented responses
by government and private agencies."
ACLU Wins Changes
in Inmate Fund
he ACLU-NC won a victory for
| Death Row inmates on October 19
when the Marin County Superior
Court ordered San Quentin prison officials
to administer the Inmate Welfare Fund
more fairly.
Inmates pay into the Fund through can-
teen profits and surcharges on sales of their
art work and handicrafts. The Fund pays for
recreation and other inmate benefits.
Although Death Row inmates were pay-
ing into the Fund just like other prisoners,
they had no access to its benefits such as
library resources, movies, and craft and
hobby shop facilities.
In its October order, following an agree-
ment reached with the Department of Cor-
rections, the court ordered the prison to re-
duce the surcharge on artwork that Death
Row inmates pay into the Fund from 25%
to 10%. The court also ordered the prison
to give lists of library books to all Death
Row inmates.
ACLU-NC staff attorney Ed Chen and
co-counsel Donald Specter of the Prison
Law Office filed the class action lawsuit
three years ago on behalf of Death Row in-
mate John G. Davenport, 200 California
Death Row inmates, and a state taxpayer.
The defendants were San Quentin warden
Daniel B. Vasquez and state Department of
Corrections Director James Rowland.
The surcharge was particularly burden-
some on inmates who realize a large part
of their income from the sale of artwork,
Chen explained.
"The victory is small but significant,"
Chen said. "Requiring Death Row inmates
to pay a confiscatory charge on the sale of
art work, the main source of funds for
many Death Row inmates who are categor-
ically barred from holding prison jobs, is
unfair and unlawful," he added.
The court rejected the ACLU's broader
challenge to other aspects of the Inmate
Welfare Fund.
-Kent Miller
Crowd
Control
Controversy
ollowing more than a month of heat-
P= criticism of the San Francisco Po-
lice Department in the wake of the
near fatal beating by a police officer of
United Farm Workers vice-president Do-
lores Huerta, the ACLU-NC, the National
Lawyers Guild and Community United
Against Violence presented a detailed pro-
posal on improving crowd control practices
Police violence at demonstrations spurred civil rights groups to propose new
operations. The Order should include a pro-
vision that "no force may be used to dis-
perse an individual except under extenuat-
ing circumstances and then only after all
those affected have been given adequate no-
tice, adequate time to disperse, and a safe
and clear route by which to disperse."
Regarding the composition of the Tacti-
cal Squad, the proposal calls for a survey of
the background of all officers assigned to
the tactical unit to determine whether any
of them are unfit for service with the high
stress unit. Officers "who have displayed a
significant pattern of misconduct" should
be transferred to other units, the groups
propose.
Noting that the OCC is the official agen-
crowd control guidelines to the San Francisco Police Commission.
and polices to the San Francisco Police
Commission on November 9.
"Police crowd control tactics have been a
source of repeated controversy in San Fran-
cisco over the last several year," said
ACLU-NC Police Practices Project Director
John Crew. "Public concern has again been
heightened by the tragic injuries suffered by
Dolores Huerta during the protest against
Bush at the St. Francis Hotel on September
14."
In addition to calling for a long-term,
public review of the Department's current
crowd control policies, the proposal identi-
fies several areas which "demand immediate
attention from the Police Commission."
These include the following:
e preparation of a General Order empha-
sizing that the goal of police action is to fa-
cilitate free expression in the context of
public safety;
e a new policy on the selection of Tacti-
cal Squad officers; and
e a stronger oversight role for the Office
of Citizen Complaints.
A General Order is a basic regulation
promulgated by the Commission to govern
the Police Department. Currently, there is
no General Order covering crowd control
cy for the receipt and investigation of all
complaints of police misconduct, the pro-
posal states the Commission should require
the OCC to monitor police operations at
demonstrations in order to collect evidence
of possible misconduct.
The ACLU-NC filed a complaint with
the OCC against the Tactical Squad officer
who allegedly beat Huerta at the St. Francis
demonstration. After being brutally shoved
with a billy club, Huerta suffered a ruptured
spleen and two broken ribs.
From TV news videotapes and Crew's
eyewitness account of the demonstration,
the ACLU-NC complaint identified Officer
Frank Achim as the policeman who at-
tacked Huerta, a 58-year old grandmother
and a founder of the UFW.
Huerta's son also filed a complaint about
the incident with the OCC. On November
10, the OCC agreed with the ACLU that
Achim had used unnecessary force, and sus-
tained the complaints.
On November 14, a grand jury, which
was specifically convened by District Attor-
ney Arlo Smith to consider criminal indict-
ments in the Huerta incident, issued a report
Continued on p.4
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
H. Lee Halterman, Chairperson
Elaine Elinson, Editor
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 50 cents is for a subscription to the aclu news and
50 cents is for the national ACLU-bi-monthly publication, Civil Liberties.
aclu news
nov./dec. 1988 3
Bush Blast Bolsters ACLU
by Martha Kegel
ACLU-NC Associate Director
ore than 2,000 northern Californi-
ans have joined the ACLU since
+ October in response to George
Bush's attacks on "card carrying members"
- and new memberships continue to pour
in.
During the Presidential Campaign, Bush
attacked opponent Michael Dukakis for be-
ing a "card carrying member of the
ACLU." Bush said he opposes most of
what the ACLU does.
The national ACLU reported receiving
thousands of new members - including
five gift memberships for George Herbert
Walker Bush.
ACLU-NC chapter hotlines as well as -
the San Francisco and Sacramento offices
were swamped with hundreds of calls from
people wanting to join the ACLU to show
their support. In one day at the Castro
Street Fair in San Francisco, the ACLU-
NC Gay Rights Chapter signed up 58 new
members.
Membership Director Sandy Holmes
called the surge of new members unprece-
dented. "Never before have so many peo-
ple joined the ACLU-NC in so short a.
time," she said. "We are truly grateful that
so many people are defying Mr. Bush's at-
tempt to brand the ACLU and our defense
of civil liberties as un-American."
Long-time members are also responding
with extra gifts to bolster the ACLU
Foundation's legal and public education
programs. :
"T want to thank our members for sup-
port that is especially needed as we brace
ourselves for the prospect of an even more
difficult climate in which to work," said
ACLU-NC Chair H. Lee Halterman. "We
need to make clear to the new President
that the ACLU is an important American
institution and that we will not tolerate
erosion of respect for civil liberties."
Halterman said that he is particularly ex-
cited about the work of the newly created
ACLU Lawyers Council in soliciting sup-
Associate Director Martha Kegel (standing 1.) and Membership Director Sandy
Holmes happily examine mail sacks full of new memberships.
port for the ACLU from the legal commu-
nity. The Council, which was established
this year, is chaired by Board member Da-
vid Balabanian. In addition to helping
identify potential volunteer attorneys for
the ACLU, the Council has raised about
$27,000 for the ACLU's legal programs
from lawyers who have joined the Coun-
cil.
ACLU Defends
Doctor with AIDS
he FBI cannot terminate its con-
: tract with a physician in a Bay
Area hospital because he has
AIDS, according to a ruling from the U.S.
District Court on October 19.
Dr. Doe, whose identity is protected by
a court order, performed pre-employment
and annual physical exams for FBI agents.
through a contract at a local hospital for
four years.
When the FBI learned that Dr. Doe had
been diagnosed with Kaposi's Sarcoma, an
AIDS diagnosis, appointments for physi-
cals were canceled and the agency threa-
tened to terminate its contract. 0x00B0
Represented by ACLU-NC staff attor-
ney Matthew Coles, Joanne Frankfurt of
the Employment Law Center and Kirke
M. Hasson and Christopher Byers of
Pillsbury, Madison and Sutro, Dr. Doe was
informed by his own physician that he
could work without risk of transmitting
HIV, the virus which causes AIDS, to his
patients.
The National Centers for Disease Con-
trol has established guidelines for health
care workers with AIDS that clearly state
that physicians need not be restricted from
patient contact unless they perform "inva-
sive" procedures such as surgery. Physical
exams do not include "invasive" proce-
dures.
According to Coles, with the 1978 anti-
discrimination amendments to the Reha-
bilitation Act, it was the intent of Con-
gress to prevent discrimination by any fed-
eral agency on the basis of disability or
medical condition. "This case underscores
the need for enforcing the Rehabilitation
Act which was designed to prevent dis-
crimination based on inappropriate fear of
disabilities including AIDS. Such fears are
not borne out by the medical facts," Coles
added.
Attorney Frankfurt was pleased with the
court ruling. "We believe that the FBI's
reactions are the result of misplaced fears
and unwarranted stereotypes about AIDS
and that such discrimination by any
branch of the federal government must not
be condoned."
Volunteers are also reporting enthusias-
tic responses to the ACLU's general fund-
raising campaigns. The Major Gift Cam-
paign, led by Board member Milton Estes,
has already raised $270,000 in gifts and
pledges. The grassroots Bill of Rights
Campaign, which brings together about
100 volunteers to make calls to members,
has already raised $50,000 according to
Campaign chair Marlene De Lancie.
The three campaigns are working to raise
a total of $505,000.
To make a tax-deductible contribu-
tion to the ACLU-NC Foundation, use
the coupon on page 4 of the enclosed
1988 Legal Docket or contact Asso-
ciate Director Martha Kegel at 415/
621-2493.
Legislative Director
The ACLU affiliates of Northern and Southern California are currently seeking a
full-time Legislative Director for their joint Legislative Office in Sacramento.
The position requires an attorney with substantial experience with the legisla-
tive process and lobbying strategies along with a strong commitment to civil liber-
ties. For a job description, please call 415/621-2493.
i"
Howard Friedman, Chair of the
ACLU-NC Board from 1961 to 1965,
died of a heart attack on October 29.
Friedman, chair of the architecture de-
partment at the University of California
at Berkeley, had a career which was
characterized by an exceptional range of
distinguished architectural practice, in-
novative social theory, teaching and
public service.
A New York native, Friedman re-
ceived a degree in architecture from
U.C. Berkeley in 1949. He was elected
to the ACLU-NC Board in 1956.
As Board Chair, Friedman led the or-
ganization through what he characterized
as "new and different" activities. Among
them were the ACLU-NC's successful
efforts to defeat Proposition 14 which
would have removed barriers to segre-
gated housing, the establishment of a
statewide legislative program, the inte-
gration of Chapters and the affiliate
Board, and the solicitation of funds to
- Howard Friedman
establish an ACLU Southern Regional
Office in Georgia.
During Friedman's tenure as Chair,
the ACLU-NC was still not a "com--
pletely integrated affiliate" of the Na-
tional ACLU, having parted ways many
years earlier over the issues of Japanese
American internment and McCarthyism.
Friedman set up a special committee to
examine the ACLU-NC relationship
with the national organization which
eventually led to reaffiliation in 1973.
Active in many civic affairs, Fried-
man was a trustee of Berkeley's Univer-
sity Art Museum, the UC Berkeley
Foundation and Mills College. He also
served as chair of the trustees of Domin-
ican College and president of the Jewish
Home for the Aged.
Friedman is survived by his wife
Phyllis, his two sons David and Robert
and his daughter Eleanor, a former
member of the ACLU-NC Board of Di-
rectors.
ae
aclu news
nov./dec. 1988
Rights Day ...
Continued from p. |
dred boycott leaders to jail. White segrega-
tionists turned to violence. Bombs explod-
ed in four Black churches and later in the
home of Dr.King.
But the Blacks of Montgomery persist-
ed, and in November1956, the Supreme
Court outlawed segregation on local bus
lines.
After her arrest triggered a wave of pro-
test that reverberated throughout the Unit-
ed States, Parks continued to play an ac-
In 1987, she founded the Rosa and Ray-
mond Parks Institute for Self Develop-
ment which motivates and directs youth to
_ achieve their highest potential.
Parks has received ten honorary doctor-
ate degrees and the keys to many cities.
Her honors include the NAACP's Sprin-
gearn Award, the United Auto Workers
Social Justice Award and the Martin Lu-
ther King, Jr. Non-Violent Peace Prize.
According to Halterman, "She exempli-
fies all that the civil rights movement
stood for - personal courage, moral
strength and fortitude, and a clear and un-
ambiguous commitment to doing that
which was right."
Field Program
Monthly Meetings -
Chapter Meetings
(Chapter Meetings are open to all inter-
ested members. Contact the chapter acti-
vist listed for your area.)
B-A-R-K Chapter Meeting: (Usually
tive role in the burgeoning Civil Rights
Movement. In 1965 she began working
for Michigan Congressman John Con-
yers.
Keynote Speaker
National ACLU Legal Director john
powell has a breadth of experience and a
national vantage point which give him
rare insight into the continuing struggle
for civil rights and civil liberties, the sub-
ject of his Bill of Rights Day address.
As Legal Director he is responsible for
the ACLU's Supreme Court litigation and
supervises the work of national staff liti-
gators and 10 national litigation projects.
Nationally, the ACLU handles 6000 cases
a year. The ACLU appears more often be-
fore the Supreme Court than any other or-
ganization except the U.S. Department of
Justice.
A native of Detroit, before coming to
the ACLU powell was on the faculty of
the University of San Francisco Law
School. Previously he served as Executive
Director of Legal Services of Greater Mia-
mi.
A graduate of Stanford University and
Berkeley's Boalt Hall School of Law,
powell has traveled extensively in Africa,
India, Europe and Asia.
The Bill of Rights Day Celebration
will be held at the Sheraton Palace
Hotel in San Francisco on Sunday,
December 11. The program begins at
5 PM (refreshments and no-host bar
at 4 PM). Tickets for the event are
$12 and are available from the ACLU.
Call 415/621-2493.
ACLU National Legal Director john
powell.
Third Annual Benefit
for the Bill of Rights Campaign
Three former S.F. Stand Up Comedy
Competition winners
DOUG FERRARI
JIM SAMUELS
WARREN THOMAS
Monday, January 16 at 9 PM
Punchline
444 Battery
San Francisco
For more information:
415/641-0889
Tickets: $7.00
from BASS or at the door
| Card Carrying Comics |
Join us for this hysterical "Pre-inaugural Bash"
fourth Thursday) Members urgently
needed to staff hotline, serve on Chapter
Board, help organize chapter activities.
Contact Tom Sarbaugh, 415/428-1819
(day) or Florence Piliavin, 415/848-
5195 (eve).
Earl Warren (Oakland/Alameda)
Chapter Meeting: (NOTE DATE
CHANGE: Second Wednesday of the
month). December 14 and January 11.
Contact Abe Feinberg, 415/451-1122.
Fresno Chapter Meeting: (Usually
third Tuesday) Contact Mindy Rose for
December and January meeting dates,
209/486-7735.
Gay Rights Chapter Meeting: (Usu-
ally first Wednesday) December 7 and
January 4, 7 PM, ACLU Office, 1663
Mission Street, #460, S.F. Contact
Doug Warner, 415/621-3900
Marin County Chapter Meeting:
(Usually third Monday) December 19
and January 16. Contact Eileen Sied-
man, 415/383-0848.
Mid-Peninsula (Palo Alto area)
Chapter Meeting: (Usually fourth
Wednesday) December 28 and January
25, 8 PM, All Saints Episcopal
Church, 555 Waverly, Room 15, Palo
Alto. Contact Lena Billings, 415/326-
0926 or Les Earnest, 415/941-3984
(eves).
Monterey Chapter Meeting: (Usually
fourth Tuesday) Annual Meeting now
being planned for Saturday, January 28.
Contact Richard Criley, 408/624-7562.
Mt. Diablo (Contra Costa County)
Chapter Meeting: (NOTE DATE
CHANGE: Third Monday of the month)
December 19 and January 16. Contact
Beverly Bortin, 415/934-1927.
North Peninsula (San Mateo area)
Chapter Meeting: (Usually third Mon-
tact Ward Clark, 415/593-1260 (eves).
Sacramento Valley Chapter Meet-
Yolo County Chapter Meeting:
day) December 19 and January 16. Con-
ing: (Usually second Wednesday) De-
cember 14 and January 11. Contact Joe
Gunterman, 916/447-8053.
San Francisco Chapter Meeting:
(Usually fourth Tuesday) Members ur-
gently needed to serve on Chapter
Board, help organize chapter activities.
Contact Marion Standish 415/863-
3520.
Santa Clara Chapter Meeting: (Usu-
ally first Tuesday) December 6 and Jan-
uary 3. Contact Christine Beraldo, 408/
554-9478.
Santa Cruz Chapter Meeting: Spe-
cial Meeting on Monday, December 12
with National ACLU Legal Director
john powell. Members urgently needed
to serve on Chapter Board, help plan
chapter activities. Contact Bob Taren,
408/429-9880.
Sonoma Chapter Meeting: Annual
Dinner, Friday, January 27 at Druids
Hall in Santa Rosa. No-host bar at 6
PM, delicious dinner at 7 PM. Tickets
are $8.00 in advance, $11.00 at the
door. People who join the ACLU in
December and January will be admitted
free! To order tickets, please send a
check (made out to ACLU Sonoma
County Chapter) and a stamped, self-
addressed envelope to ACLU Sonoma
Chapter, PO Box 14181, Santa Rosa,
CA 95402. Contact Judy McCann, 707/
527-9381 (days).
(Usually third Wednesday) Contact
Casey McKeever, 916/666-3556.
Field Committee
Meetings/
Events (c)
1988 Bill of Rights Day Celebration:
Sunday, December 11. Honoring Rosa
Parks with the Earl Warren Civil Lib-
erties Award, No-host bar 4 PM, Pro-
gram 5 PM. Sheraton Palace Hotel, San
Francisco. (See additional details, sto-
ry page 1.)
1989 Field Priority Setting Session:
Saturday, January 14, 10:30 AM to
2:30 PM, ACLU-NC, 1663 Mission
Street, #460, San Francisco. Contact
Marcia Gallo, 415/621-2493.
Crowd Control ...
Continued from p. 2
that only made recommendations about
crowd control policy.
The grand jury's report included 16 rec-
ommendations, none of which addressed
the protection of First Amendment rights.
According to Crew, "The problem is that
the grand jury was neither assigned nor
equipped to consider such policy questions.
Instead of doing their job, they tried doing
someone else's - and botched it.
"Additionally, we are outraged that peo-
ple who voluntarily cooperated with the
OCC were then hauled before a secret grand
jury without the right to counsel, without
immunity, and were apparently questioned
. about their political affiliations," he added.
Crew charged that the District Attorney
"must take responsibility for this fiasco,
and insure that in the future a criminal
grand jury is not allowed to run amok."
The ACLU-NC Police Practices Project
is particularly critical that the primary rec-
ommendation of the grand jury is an ex-
pansion of police intelligence gathering on
lawful protest groups.
"This is a recommendation which is not
only unconstitutional and counter-
productive, but also specifically forbidden
by the Intelligence Division's own very
minimal guidelines," said Crew.
ACLU
American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Northern California
1988 Legal Docket
ACLU Fights for the Rights of
Women
Committee to Defend
Reproductive Rights v. Kizer II.
- (California Supreme Court)
In May, the California Supreme Court
let stand a lower court ruling that blocked
the restrictions on state funding of abor-
tions and ordered state officials to contin-
ue to provide funding for Medi-Cal abor-
tions.
The ACLU-NC, for the tenth consecutive
year, represented a coalition of civil rights
groups, women's organizations, health
providers and taxpayers, in challenging
the state Legislature's Budget Act restric-
tions on the funds. The ACLU has success- ~
fully challenged the cuts - which not only
violate the equal protection and privacy
protections of the state Constitution, but
also the Constitution's "single subject" rule
- since 1978 when the Legislature first re-
stricted Medi-Cal funding for abortion. If
implemented, the cuts would deny abor-
tion funding for 80,000 indigent women -
one-quarter of them teenagers - each
year.
Committee to Defend
Reproductive Rights v. Kizer IV
(Court of Appeal)
In July, for the eleventh time in as many
years, the ACLU-NC filed its suit challeng-
ing the Legislature's refusal to provide full
Medi-Cal funding for abortions. Two days
after the suit was filed, the Court of Appeal
issued a stay allowing the continuation of
full Medi-Cal funding for abortions pend-
ing a final decision. :
In July, the state Attorney General an-
nounced that his office would not defend
the state in the lawsuit.
_ In September, the Court of Appeal is-
sued its final ruling, identical to last year's,
prohibiting the cuts from going into effect.
Fluty v. Swoap
(Placer County Superior Court)
A taxpayer's suit filed by the American
Life Legal Foundation to halt Medi-Cal
funding of abortion services until the state
establishes procedures for special scrutiny
of post-13 week abortions and post 20-
week abortions was thwarted when the
ACLU intervened. ACLU arguments
stopped the issuance of a Temporary Re-
straining Order and an injunction.
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 cannot exclude women from
membership as long as it maintains its rela-
tionship with the sheriff's department.
The ACLU represented an experienced
and accomplished horsewoman who sued
the Mounted Patrol and the San Mateo
County Sheriff's Department for sex dis-
crimination after attempting to become a
member of the all-male Patrol for almost a
decade. The ACLU is now appealing the
court's denial of attorneys fees.
Minorities
City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson
Company
(U.S. Supreme Court)
The ACLU-NC, on behalf of the na-
tional ACLU, filed an amicus brief in the
nation's highest court in April in support
of Richmond, Virginia's set-aside pro-
gram for minority-owned businesses.
The ACLU argued that Richmond's pro-
gram is "not only permissible, but indis-
pensable..."
A ruling in favor of Richmond, which
would also affect similar programs used
by the State of California, Oakland and
San Francisco, would allow local govern-
ments to use affirmative action programs
to remedy discrimination against minori-
ties without proof of any past discrimina-
tion.
The ordinance, adopted by the Rich-
mond City Council for a five-year period,
requires that contractors receiving City
contracts award 30 percent of all subcon-
tract funds to businesses owned by mi-
norities. The program is being challenged
by a white-owned company, claiming
that their constitutional right to equal pro-
tection is violated by the ordinance.
Common Cause of California v.
Los Angeles County
(California Supreme Court)
A ruling from Los Angeles Superior Court,
upheld by the Court of Appeal, could
bring about the registration of hundreds
of thousands of eligible low-income and
minority voters. In 1986, the ACLU-NC
joined the Southern California affiliate in
this lawsuit seeking to require local gov-
ernment Officials to institute affirmative
voter registration programs where there is
evidence of underregisration of low-
income and minority voters.
The Superior Court and then the Court
of Appeal issued a preliminary injunction
requiring the County to take steps to reg-
ister underregistered voters. The Califor-
nia Supreme Court granted hearing; argu-
ments were held and a decision from the
high court is pending.
Cortez v. UCSF
(Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission)
Hospital workers at the University of
California (San Francisco), represented
by the ACLU -NC and the Mexican Ameri-
can Legal Defense and Educational Fund
(MALDEF) in June filed discrimination
complaints against the university in pro-
test to an "English-only" rule imposed on
employees.
The charges assert that the rules are il-
legal because they constitute national ori-
gin discrimination forbidden by civil
rights laws. In January, in a similar case,
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held
that a Los Angeles area municipal court's
English-only rule is a violation of Title
VII, the federal anti-discrimination law.
International Molders v. Nelson
(U.S. District Court)
A precedent-setting ruling by the U.S.
District Court in 1987 declared that the Im-
migration and Naturalization Service (INS)
unconstitutionally violated the rights of
individuals while conducting workplace
raids in search of undocumented work-
ers. The court ruled that INS use of a
"general" warrant to search, seize, and ar-
rest persons who were not specifically
named in the search warrant was "patent-
ly invalid."
In 1982, the ACLU-NC, MALDEF,
CRLA, the Asian Law Caucus, and the Na-
tional Lawyers Guild filed a class action
lawsuit challenging a nationwide sweep
by the INS called Operation Jobs and sub-
sequent INS raids. A landmark injunction
was issued by the U.S. District Court in
1985 forbidding INS agents from entering
worksites without a valid warrant or con-
sent, and from unlawfully questioning
and detaining workers without reasona-
ble suspicion that the person was unlaw-
fully in the country. This injunction was
substantially affirmed by the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals.
The case will come to trial in January
1989.
EEOC v. Tortilleria "La Mejor"
(U.S. District Court)
In a case which could potentially im-
pact millions, the ACLU-NC participated
in filing an amicus brief which argued
that despite the 1987 Immigration and Re-
form Control Act, undocumented work-
efs are protected by Title VII.
The suit was brought by an undocu-
mented employee who was fired after she
returned from a pregnancy-related leave.
Youth
Jones v. San Francisco
, (U.S. District Court)
Teenagers seen on the streets of San
Francisco after 11:00 p.m. - with or with-
out the permission of their parents - are
being arrested by police officers under a
San Francisco curfew law which was en-
acted during World War II. On behalf of
three teenagers who were arrested under
the curfew law, and their parents, the
ACLU-NC filed a class action lawsuit in
US. District Court in April.
The suit is asking the court to declare
the law unconstitutional, and to issue an
injunction preventing the police from ar-
resting minors under the curfew law and
from creating police records of such ar-
rests. The suit holds that by stopping, ar-
resting, searching, and detaining minors
under this law, the police are violating the
minors' rights to free speech and associa-
tion, privacy, and movement.
American Academy of Pediatrics
v. Van de Kamp
(California Supreme Court)
In February, the California Supreme
Court unanimously refused to block a
lower court order halting the enforcement
of the new state law requiring teenagers to
obtain parental consent or a court order
before they can have an abortion. This rul-
ing means that teenagers will continue to
be able to obtain abortions - without pa-
rental consent or a court order - while
the legal challenge proceeds through the |
lower courts.
After the parental consent law was
passed by the Legislature and signed by
the Governor in September 1987, the ACLU
and the Adolescent Health Care Project of
the National Center for Youth Law filed a
challenge in the San Francisco Superior
Court seeking to block the law. On behalf
of a coalition of medical organizations
and health care providers, attorneys
argued that under the California Constitu-
tion, minors have an equal right to privacy
in regard to reproductive rights as anyone
else. Last December, the Superior Court is-
sued an injunction stating that there was
reasonable likelihood that the law would
be declared unconstitutional.
People v. Stockton Pregnancy
Control Medical Clinic
(California Court of Appeal)
In July a Stockton pregnancy clinic
which had been prosecuted for violating a
child abuse reporting law was vindicated
by the state Court of Appeal. Clinic staff
were accused of breaking state guidelines
which required doctors, psychiatrists and
other professionals to report to the police
any adolescent under 14 who sought
treatment for a sexually transmitted dis-
ease, abortion, prenatal care or contracep-
tives.
In an amicus brief filed in 1986, attor-
neys from the ACLU-NC and the Adoles-
cent Health Care Project of the National
Center for Youth Law argued that the law
could not be construed to require report-
ing of minors' consensual sexual activity.
The court ruled that voluntary sexual
activity between minors under 14 who are
of similar age is exempt from reporting.
Suspicion of sexual activity between a mi-
nor and someone of a disparate age, how-
ever, must still be reported.
Students
LeVant v. NCAA/Hill and
McKeever v. NCAA
(Santa Clara Superior Court)
In August, in a suit initiated by the"
captain of the Stanford women's diving
team, Stanford athletes represented by the
ACLU-NC won a ruling against mandatory
drug tests that could potentially affect tens
of thousands of college athletes. The San-
ta Clara Superior Court issued a perma-
nent injunction prohibiting the NCAA (Na-
tional Collegiate Athletic Association)
from requiring Stanford students to sub-
mit to drug testing in order to enter NCAA
competitions.
The NCAA began requiring college
athletes to submit to drug testing in 1986.
Representing three students, the ACLU
challenged the testing as an invasion of
the constitutionally protected right to pri-
vacy.
The NCAA competitions involve
250,000 college athletesacross the coun-
try.
Wexner v. Anderson Unified
High School District
(California 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 Rich-
ard Brautigan resulted in a summary judg-
ment from the superior court in 1980 that
the ban was unconstitutional and the
books must be returned to the school li-
brary. The court refused, however, to or-
der the return of the books to English
classes where they had been previously
used.
The ACLU appealed that decision ar-
guing 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 li-
brary. Both appeals are pending.
Gays
California Medical Association v.
Eu
(Sacramento Superior Court)
Representing the California Medical
Association, the California Nurses Associ-
ation, and the Director of the San Francis-
co Department of Public Health, the
ACLU-NC, National Gay Rights Advocates,
and the Lesbian Rights Project lost in their
attempt to keep the Dannemeyer AIDS ini-
tiative (Proposition 102) off the November
ballot in a hearing held in August.
The plaintiffs charged that the peti-
tions Dannemeyer used to obtain signa-
tures for the initiative were misleading as
they failed to tell voters that Proposition
102 would ban anonymous testing for
AIDS. However, the court ruled that there
was no evidence to suggest that those
who signed were confused by the word-
ing.
In addition, the court ruled that the
"single subject" requirement of the Cali-
fornia Constitution was not violated, as
the suit maintained, through the initia-
tive's inclusion of provisions on a variety
of difficult issues.
Warner v. Eu
(Sacramento Superior Court)
In an agreement reached between the
ACLU-NC and the state attorney general's
office August 11, the wording of the bal-
lot summary for Proposition 102 on the
November ballot was changed to reflect
the distinction between testing positive
for HIV and actually having AIDS. Previ-
ously the information had been innaccu-
rate, and thus, misleading.
In the 100-word summary listed in the
voter handbook, the sentence "restricts
confidential testing" was added because
of the settlement. The title of the initiative
which appears both on the ballot and in
the handbook, will be changed from "Ac-
quired Immune Deficiency Syndrome Re-
porting" to "Reporting Exposure to AIDS
Virus." "AIDS virus" was substituted in
the title and summary for the previously
used "AIDS cases."
High Tech Gays v. DISCO
(U.S. Court of Appeal)
The ACLU-NC filed an amicus brief in
July on behalf of High Tech Gays, an or-
ganization of gay and lesbian employees
in the computer industries of Silicon Val-
ley. The government had appealed the or-
ganization's successful challenge to poli-
cy of the Department of Defense which
subjected lesbian and gay applicants for
security clearances to more rigorous
background investigations.
Demonstrators -
Nuremberg Actions v. Contra
Costa
(U.S. District Court)
Charging the Contra Costa Sheriff's De-
partment with the unconstitutional use of
excessive force in arresting peaceful dem-
onstrators, the ACLU-NC filed a lawsuit
against the county in May.
Sheriffs started using "pain holds" in
October, 1987 to arrest protesters at the
Concord Naval Weapons Station. The
holds are intended to produce pain and
frequently result in severe injuries; at least
two protesters have had limbs broken by
the officers' use of the holds.
The plaintiffs belong to Nuremberg
Actions, a group which has been holding
a non-violent vigil at Concord since June,
1987 to protest the U.S. government's
shipment of weapons to Central America.
Bay Area Peace Navy v. U.S.
Navy
(U.S. District Court)
The First Amendment rights of an ar-
mada of peace activists were upheld by a
May ruling which declared the restrictions
imposed by the U.S. Navy on "Fleet Week"
demonstrations by the Bay Area Peace
Navy to be unconstitutional.
The Peace Navy, a flotilla comprised of
nearly 100 small vessels, has been holding
Fleet Week demonstrations in the Bay
Area since 1984. In 1986 the U.S. Navy
barred the Peace Navy from entering a 75-
yard "safety zone" around the reviewing
stand at Aquatic Park. The restrictions ren-
dered the group's peace songs inaudible
and banners unreadable by the spectators
on the pier.
Prior to 1987 Fleet Week, the ACLU-NC
challenged the restrictions on behalf of
the Peace Navy. The District Court judge
issued a Temporary Restraining Order
(TRO) on the eve of the event which al- |
lowed the Peace Navy's protests to be
seen and heard.
The judge's May order, which came af-
ter a two-day trial, made the TRO perma-
nent.
California Stevedore and Ballast
Company v. Bay Area Free South
Africa Movement -
(San Francisco Superior Court)
In 1986, the ACLU represented anti-
apartheid demonstrators in a suit brought
by a shipping company to enjoin anti-
apartheid protests against the unloading
of South African goods at San Francisco's
Pier 80. The ACLU succeeded in defeating
a Temporary Restraining Order sought by
the California Stevedore and Ballast Com-
pany to stop anti-apartheid demonstra-
tions at the docks.
Labor
Wilkinson v. Times Mirror
(California Court of Appeal)
In the first lawsuit to challenge a man-
datory drug testing program for job appli-
cants by a private employer, an Alameda
Superior Court judge issued a preliminary
injunction against the policy in June.
However, less than three weeks later, the
injunction was stayed by the state Court of
Appeal which ruled that testing may con-
tinue while the appeal is pending.
The class action lawsuit was jointly
filed by the ACLU-NC and the Employment
Law Center against a legal publishing firm
on behalf of three women who applied
for editorial and writing positions at the
firm. The publishing company instituted
a policy of across-the-board mandatory
and alcohol testing of all job applicants in
1987.
Hansen v. Turnage
(U.S. District Court)
The ACLU-NC and the Employment
Law Center scored a victory in July when
a federal court enjoined the Veterans Ad-
ministration from using urinalysis for ran-
dom testing on its Western States employ-
ees.
The "Drug-Free Federal Workplace"
program, established by President Rea-
gan's 1986 Executive Order, mandated
testing employees of federal executive
agencies. The class action suit was
brought by five non-union VA hospital
employees; a similar suit was filed on the -
same day in the same court by the Ameri-
can Federation of Government Employ-
ees on the behalf of VA unionized em-
ployees.
The District Court issued a preliminary
injunction against random and post-
accident drug testing, agreeing that the
President's drug testing plan appeared to
violate employees' Fourth Amendment
rights. The Court also limited testing
based on "reasonable suspicion" to sus-
picion of on-the-job drug use or impair-
ment, ruling that anonymous "tips" were
not sufficient grounds to test.
Railway Labor Executives
Association v. Dole
(U.S. Supreme Court)
In a ruling with broad implications for
drug testing of government workers, the
U.S. Court of Appeals in February struck
down as unconstitutional a federal rule
that made railroad train crews subject to
drug and alcohol tests after an accident,
regardless of whether there was individu- -
alized suspicion of drug or alcohol use.
The decision held that such drug tests
represent an unreasonable search and
seizure in violation of the Fourth Amend-
ment.
The case originated when several rail-
workers' unions challenged 1986 Federal
Railroad Administration regulations re- |
quiring mandatory drug and alcohol tests
of all railroad workers following an acci-
dent or rule violation. After a U.S. District
Court ruled that the tests may be done
without probable cause or individualized
suspicion, the ACLU-NC in 1986 filed an
amicus brief in support of the railroad un-
ion in the Court of Appeals.
The U.S. Supreme Court has accepted
review of the case. The ACLU-NC has filed
an amicus brief in the case.
Price v. Pacific Refining
Company
(Contra Costa Superior Court)
The ACLU-NC thwarted an attempt by a
Hercules oil refinery to reinstate compa-
ny-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 test-
ing. In a 1986 challenge to the mandatory
company-wide drug testing policy as a vi-
olation of the workers' privacy rights
guaranteed by the California Constitution,
the ACLU-NC and the Employment Law
Center won an injunction from the Contra
Costa Superior Court.
However, the superior court accepted
-a modified version of the plan proposed
by the company which allows that em-
ployees who work near potentially dan-
gerous equipment or materials be subject
to drug tests if there is a reasonable suspi-
cion by a supervisor of drug use and the
worker fails a fitness for duty examina-
tion administered by a licensed health
professional. Also, employees may be
Page 2 e ACLU Legal Docket " 1988
given a fitness for duty exam without sus-
picion 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 required all
observations supporting a decision to
drug test to be documented in writing.
Random, blanket testing is still barred.
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 shop-
ping center with the same degree of pro-
tection as any other leafleters according to
a state Court of Appeal ruling.
In affirming a lower court ruling, the
Court of Appeal declared that the union
members' right to distribute leaflets at the
mall was protected by the California Con-
stitution. The challenge to the mall's regu-
lations will proceed to trial.
The Disabled -__
Independent Living Resource
Center of San Francisco v. Eu
(San Francisco Superior Court)
In a class action lawsuit filed by the
ACLU-NC and the Disability Rights Educa-
tion and Defense Fund (DREDF) on be-
half of disabled voters, the state was or-
dered in a preliminary injunction issued
in June to increase handicapped accessi-
bility to voting booths throughout the
state in time for the November elections.
The court deemed the inaccessibility of
polling places in California to be a viola-
tion of disabled voters' constitutional
rights.
The order requires each county to
employ one person full-time to carry out
the order, and also mandated that coun-
ties' plans be reported to the Secretary of
State and plaintiffs' counsel. It is now ex-
pected that most of the state's polling
places will be accessible to the disabled
by the November 1988 election.
White v. Department of
Developmental Services
(California Court of Appeal)
Suing on the behalf of two children
with developmental disabilities and their
parents, the ACLU-NC lost an appeal
which would have protected their rights to
privacy. Children being treated at Depart-
ment of Developmental Services (DDS) re-
gional centers must have Client Develop-
ment Evaluation Reports (CDER's)
submitted in order for them to continue
receiving treatment. CDER's discuss per-
sonal, medical and behavioral issues.
In 1984 DDS altered its client identifi-
cation system, establishing Client Master
Files which contain both the client's name
and CDER code, thus eliminating CDER
confidentiality.
The lawsuit was filed in 1985 charging
that the Client Master Files would pave the
way for future harm and discrimination
due to the accessibility of the personal in-
formation in the CDER's. The court ruled
in May that the name-identification system
must be preserved for administrative rea-
sons. ;
Mental Patients -
Riese v. St. Mary's Hospital
(California Supreme Court)
The California Supreme Court granted
review to this lawsuit which challenges
the practice of forcibly medicating with
anti-psychotic drugs persons who have
been involuntarily committed to mental
hospitals. The ACLU-NC filed an amicus
brief in the high court arguing that the for-
cible administration of anti-psychotic
drugs, absent an emergency or a prior ju-
dicial determination that the patient is in-
competent to make treatment decisions,
violates constitutional rights of due pro-
cess, privacy and free expression.
In 1987, the state Court of Appeal held
that the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act re-
quired a prior judicial determination of
incapacity to make treatment decisions
before hospital staff could forcibly drug a
mental patient with anti-psychotic medi-
cations.
Tenants
Safadi v. Parkmerced
(San Francisco Superior Court)
Just weeks before the 1987 San Fran-
cisco 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 Superior Court charging that
the landlord's prohibition on posting
signs was illegal and unconstitutional.
A Parkmerced Residential Commu-
nity lease provision, which states that ten-
ants can be evicted for posting signs in
' their windows, is 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 is-
sued a TRO to allow the signs to be post-
ed prior to the November election and a
preliminary injunction was issued in De-
cember. The ACLU will seek a permanent
injunction against the restriction.
Whistler v. Stonestown
(San Francisco Superior Court)
In November of last year, the ACLU-NC
filed a lawsuit in San Francisco Superior
Court on behalf of a tenant who was de-
nied the right to post a mayoral campaign
sign in the window of his apartment in
the Stonestown apartment complex. The
Stonestown leases include a provision
' saying that tenants must get the landlords
approval for posting signs in the win-
dows of their homes.
Although Stonestown Corporation
agreed the morning the suit was filed to
allow tenants to post campaign signs for
the San Francisco mayoral election, the
suit asks that tenants be allowed to post
signs during all political campaigns.
The suit charges that the lease provi-
sion unreasonably curtails a tenant's fun-
damental right to engage in political ex-
pression in his or her own home.
Prisoners
Gates v. Deukmejian
(U.S. District Court)
Eight prisoners at the California Medi-
cai facility at Vacaville filed a class action
lawsuit in Sacramento U.S. District Court
in January charging that conditions at the
prison are so bad they violate the U.S.
Constitution's prohibition of cruel and
unusual punishment. The lawsuit also
challenges the deplorable treatment of
prisoners in the AIDS wing, where almost
all male prisoners in California with AIDS,
ARC, and most who have tested positive
for the HIV virus are housed.
The prisoners are being represented
by ACLU-NC, which is focusing on the
AIDS issue, and the Prison Law Office.
The lawsuit asks the court for specific im-
provements, particularly in medical and
psychiatric care.
Bramhall v. Rowland
(Sacramento Superior Court)
The ACLU of Northern and Southern
California and the Prison Law Office filed
a lawsuit on behalf of a state taxpayer in
November 1987 in Sacramento Superior
Court to stop the Department of Correc-
tions from continuing to expand the pris-
on system by contracting with private for-
profit firms to run prisons for parole viola-
tors.
The lawsuit charges that the privately-
operated prisons are illegal because the
Legislature has not authorized construc-
tion of these facilities, and because the
operation of the private prisons constitute
an unlawful delegation of the state's po-
lice powers to private individuals. The
lawsuit is asking that the CDC either take
over the private prisons or shut them
down.
Rios et al. v. McCarthy
(Sacramento Superior Court)
Pregnant women and mothers incar-
cerated in California prisons were reunit-
ed with their babies following a 1985 or-
der from the superior court that the
Department of Corrections must imple-
ment a provision allowing for qualified
inmate mothers of children under six to
be placed in a special Community Prison-
er Mother-Infant Care Program.
A suit filed by the ACLU affiliates of
Northern and Southern California and Le-
gal Services for Prisoners with Children
charged that the Department of Correc-
tions was wrongfully separating mothers
from their infants. The Temporary Re-
straining Order allowed certain named
plaintiffs to be placed in the program with
their children, and a settlement is pro-
ceeding for the larger class of plaintiffs.
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 Direc-
tor of the Department of Corrections indi-
cating that she was a disgrace to her race
was again vindicated in January when the
U.S. District Court reconsidered its earlier
ruling which found that the inmate should
not have been punished for exercising his
First Amendment rights. The amended
decision, based on recent U.S. Supreme
Court decisions, ruled that there was no
evidence that the inmate's statements
would lead to violence and affirmed its
earlier order on behalf of the prisoner.
The ACLU-NC represented the prisoner
who was sentenced to solitary confine-
ment, denied participation in the work
program, and restricted from most other
prison activities as a result of the letter.
Death Row
Inmates
Davenport v. Vasquez
(Marin County Superior Court)
In October, the ACLU reached a settle-
ment with the state Department of Correc-
tions which provides for more equitable
administration of the Inmate Welfare
Fund as regards Death Row inmates.
In 1985, the ACLU filed a class action
lawsuit on behalf of San Quentin's Death
Row inmates, charging that the adminis-
tration of the Fund was "unequal, unfair
and oppressive."
People v. Fierro
(California Supreme Court)
This case is a direct appeal to the Cali-
fornia Supreme Court from a judgment of
death. The ACLU is arguing that the con-
victed man was denied his constitutional
right to an attorney and to present a de-
fense. Other issues are also raised, in-
cluding the propriety of the admission of
evidence of blood enzyme testing that
linked the convicted man to the crime and
that the jury was not properly instructed
on how to arrive at a verdict.
People v. Howard
(California Supreme Court)
This is a direct appeal to the California
Supreme Court from a judgment of death.
The ACLU is arguing that the conviction
and sentence should be vacated because
the trial was inherently tainted by nume-
orus constitutional and statutory viola-
tions. In addition, the death sentence re-
sulted from unconstitutional procedures.
And for the Rights fo ...
Free Expression-
Simpson v. San Francisco State
University
(San Francisco Superior Court)
Upholding academic freedom, a June
superior court ruling held that San Fran-
cisco State University's restrictions on at-
tendance at a controversial lecture were
unconstitutional. The court struck down
a University policy that allowed adminis-
trators to overrule an academic decision
made by a professor to permit non-
enrolled students and university staff to
attend a guest lecture.
The case originated in 1985 when un-
precedented restrictions were established
for a lecture given by the controversial Is-
raeli politician Rabbi Meir Kahane.
Guadiya Vaishnava Society et al.
v. City and County of San
Francisco
(U.S. Court of Appeals)
Asserting the First Amendment rights
of non-profit organizations including
Greenpeace, the Nuclear Weapons Freeze
Campaign, CISPES, and the Lesbian/Gay
Freedom Day Parade, the ACLU-NC filed
an amicus brief in August to protect the
right to sell advocacy t-shirts on San Fran-
cisco streets.
Bowing to pressure from merchants
and street vendors, the city adopted an or-
dinance which restricted such sales by
non-profits. Although the city later
amended the ordinance to allow the or-
ganizations to sell books, bumper stick-
ers and buttons, T-shirts were still
banned.
The city claims that the non-profits
which display items containing political
messages would threaten the aesthetic
beauty and cause congestion in the Fish-
erman's Wharf and Union Square areas.
However, the ACLU-NC maintains that
measures less invasive of the constitu-
tional right to free speech can achieve
municipal goals in these commercial are-
as.
Jesse Jackson Campaign
Committee v. Oroville Properties
(Sacramento Superior Court)
Challenging a Woodland shopping
center's denial of access to Jesse Jackson
campaign workers, ACLU-NC attorneys
won a permanent injunction from the
court in May.
Campaigning for the June primary
during the month of April, Jackson cam-
paign workers were denied permission to
set up a table to register voters and dis-
tribute campaign material by the mall
management. The campaigners were
banned on the basis that partisan politi-
cal activities were not allowed at the mall.
Korn v. Carey
(U.S. District Court)
A federal court ruling in June upheld
. the right to petition in a post office lobby.
The case originated in 1984 when, in an
effort to get a nuclear-free city measure
ACLU Legal Docket cent 1988 e Page 3
on the fune ballot, Louis Korn set up a
tabie in the Willits Post Office, with the
conser: of the postmaster, to collect the
necessary signatures. After complaints
from some post office patrons, however,
the postmaster asked Korn to vacate the
premises. Despite Korn's assertion of his
First Amendment right to petition, he was
placed under citizens arrest for trespass-
ing in a public place. The charges were
later dropped.
In 1986 the ACLU-NC filed suit in Dis-
trict Court arguing that the postmaster's
actions were unconstitutional. A stipulat-
ed settlement, affirmed by the court, pro-
tects the right of plaintiff and the general
public to use the post office lobby for ex-
pressive activity in the future.
Allende v. Schultz
(U.S. Court of Appeals)
In April, five years after human rights
leader Hortensia Allende, the widow of
slain Chilean President Salvador Allende,
was denied a U.S. visa for her speaking
engagements commemorating Interna-
tional Women's Day, the denial was de-
clared illegal.
In 1983, the U.S. government barred
Allende from speaking in the U.S., claim-
ing that her membership in the Women's
International Democratic Federation, and
an honor granted by the World Peace
- Council, demonstrated a communist affili-
ation. The ACLU charged that the denial
violated the First Amendment rights of
those who wished to hear her speeches in
the U.S.
Last year, in a similar ACLU visa denial
case on behalf of Nicaraguan Interior Min-
ister Tomas Borge, former NATO General
Nino Pasti and two representatives of the
Cuban Women's Federation, the U.S. Su-
preme Court upheld in a 3-3 ruling a lower
court decision that the visa denials of
- those persons were improper.
ACLU v. Murphy
(Court of Appeal)
In a case designed to determine
whether the San Francisco Police Depart-
ment was conducting political surveil-
lance of the Ku Klux Klan and whether
this is in accordance with department
guidelines, the state Court of Appeal ruled
in 1987 that the Department must turn over
to the ACLU a videotape related to the po-
lice refusal to allow a Klan demonstration
during the 1984 Democratic Convention.
The suit also seeks copies of guide-
lines regulating the gathering and dissem-
ination of intelligence information by the
San Francisco Police Department. As the
superior court denied access to most of
those records, the ACLU is now appealing
that ruling.
Privacy
Doe v. FBI ~
(U.S. District Court)
The ACLU-NC and the Employment
Law Center are representing a doctor from
a San Francisco hospital who is suing the
FBI for refusing to allow him to perform
physical exams on employees and job ap-
plicants because he is suffering from a
life-threatening ailment.
The lawsuit, filed in October in federal
court, charges that the FBI has violated the
doctor's right to privacy and caused him
pain and emotional distress "which may
aggravate his handicap and imperil his
health."
Citizens for a Better Environment
v. City of Vallejo
(Solano County Superior Court)
In Vallejo, a city ordinance required
that ali 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 be-
half of Citizens for a Better Environment,
Citizens Action League and Greenpeace,
Page 4 e ACLU Legal Docket e 1988
argued that the ordinance is unconstitu-
tional as it violates the canvassers' privacy
and their First Amendment right to com-
municate with the people of Vallejo.
The city has now amended its solicita-
tion ordinance to eliminate the finger-
print requirement. A settlement for attor-
neys' fees is pending.
Due Process
San Francisco Police Officers
Association v. San Francisco
(Court of Appeal)
The First District Court of Appeal
ruled in June, despite continued objec-
tions from the San Francisco Police Offi-
cers Association, that complainants and
their representatives have the right to par-
ticipate fully in hearings of the Office of
Citizen Complaints (OCC) and are entitled
to access to evidence for hearing prepara-
tion. The ACLU-NC filed an amicus brief
with the Bar Assocation of San Francisco,
arguing for full involvement by and rep-
resentation for complainants. The Court
of Appeal ruled in the City's favor, hold-
ing that complainants and their represen-
tatives are permitted to attend the OCC
hearings.
The Court held, however, that the
findings and recommendations of the
OCC regarding discipline were confiden-
(c) tial:
Donnelly v. Doe
(San Francisco Superior Court)
In March, the San Francisco Superior
Court overturned a small claims court
judgment against a woman who was
charged with defamation of character by
a police officer against whom she filed a
complaint with the Office of Citizen Com-
plaints.
In 1987, the woman had filed a com-
plaint with the OCC against two officers
alleging that she had been falsely arrested
and brutalized. The woman, a transvestite
suspected of being a prostitute and
charged with "blocking the sidewalks,"
had all her criminal charges dropped.
Moments before the OCC hearing, she
was served with a summons informing
her that she was being charged with defa-
mation of character by one of the officers.
Though the small claims court upheld the
officer's charge, the ACLU successfully
appealed the ruling in superior court ar-
guing that the officer"s suit was intended
to harass the woman and intimidate her
from making complaints to the OCC.
People v. Spain
(U.S. Court of Appeals)
Johnny Larry Spain, a former Black
Panther Party member who was convict-
ed for murder during 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 chal-
lenging Spain's conviction because there
was no showing of a necessity for the
shackling during trial, and the prejudice
that resulted from his being shackled in
front of the jury.
The shackling issue is currently on
appeal in the Court of Appeals. Spain
was released from prison this year.
People v. Caswell
(California Supreme Court)
In August, the California Supreme
Court upheld a state law forbidding loi-
tering around a public toilet for the pur-
pose of soliciting or engaging in a lewd
act. The ACLU affiliates of Northern and
Southern California had argued in a
friend of the court brief that the law was
unconstitutional.
The ACLU argued that in addition to
violating California's constitutional guar-
antee of due process and uniform en-
forcement of laws, the law encourages ar-
bitrary and discriminatory enforcement
by requiring police to guess at the intent
of a person lingering in a restroom.
Kirk v. City of San Francisco
(U.S. District Court)
The ACLU is representing a man who
was unlawfully arrested and lost his job
after San Francisco police falsely claimed
that he had been required to register as a
sex offender because of erroneous police
computer information.
The District Court ruled that the plain-
tiff's constitutional rights were violated
but that the City was not liable because he
was not arrested pursuant to a custom or
policy. The case against the individual
police officer responsible for the arrest
will go to trial.
Freedom from
Unreasonable
Search
Estes v. McCarthy
(Marin Superior Court)
The ACLU is challenging new regula-
tions of the California Department of Cor-
rections which impose random parking
lot searches of visitors to inmates incar-
cerated in California prisons. The visitors
and their vehicles are searched by armed
guards and police dogs, even though
they subsequently have to go through a
standard, metal detector search before
entering the prison itself.
_ The superior court ruled in a prelimi-
nary 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 -
previously, 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 de-
tained 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 granting
monetary damages to the strip search vic-
tim; however, a separate aspect of the
lawsuit - challenging the strip search
policy of the Police Department - is
awaiting a final judgment.
Freedom of
Religion
Lyng v. North Indian Cemetery
Protective Agency
(U.S. Supreme Court)
In a ruling which dissenting justices
said leaves Native Americans with abso-
lutely no constitutional protection from
perhaps the gravest threat to their relig-
ious practices, the U.S. Supreme Court
ruled in April that religious rights do not
outweigh the right of the government to
construct a road through sacred Indian
ceremonial lands near the Klamath River.
The ACLU-NC had joined the national
ACLU and several ACLU affiliates as
friends of the court in representing the
Yurok, Karok, and Talowa tribes in their
lawsuit to protect the sacred grounds,
known as the "High Country," in Humbolt
County from being degraded by the pro-
posed federal government timber road.
The ACLU argued that the Indians' right to
free exercise of religion would be violat-
ed by the road because an indispensable
element of their religious practice would
be taken from them by the government
for no compelling reason.
Rippberger and Middleton v.
Superior Court; Walker v.
Superior Court
(California Supreme Court)
The ACLU-NC joined the Southern Cal-
ifornia affiliate in filing a friend of the
court brief in the California Supreme
Court in September on behalf of parents
whose children died after receiving care
from certified Christian Science healers.
The parents were charged with felony
child endangerment and involuntary
manslaughter for relying on healing
through prayer.
The ACLU argues that the statutory
scheme under which the parents were ar-
rested failed to provide fair notice of un-
lawful conduct and that the parents rea-
sonably believed they were exempt from
criminal liability because they relied on a
law which exempted healing through
prayer from the definition of child ne-
glect.
The Supreme Court heard arguments
this year in an appeal of a lower court rul-
ing that parents providing spiritual heal-
ing for their children are liable if treatment
is unsuccessful.
The 1988 Legal Docket was produced
by ACLU News editor Elaine Elinson
with volunteer assistance from
Mike Nagler and Susanne Samuel.