vol. 34, no. 8

American

- Civil Liberties

Union

Volume XXXIV

SAN FRANCISCO, AUGUST, 1969

Ernest Angell Retires

Edward J. Ennis

New National |

Board Chairman

New York attorney Edward J. Ennis has been elected

chairman of the American Civil Liberties Union by a vote

of the organization's Board of Directors, it was announced

recently. Ennis replaces Ernest Angell, who retired from

the post after 19 years service. The ACLU's Board is com-

posed of 30 at-large members and

representatives of its 47 affili-

ates.

No Backward March

Taking office as ACLU chair-

man at the same time as the Su-

preme Court receives new lead-

ership, Ennis predicted "the

Burger Court will at least sup-

port - and may extend - the

rights secured under the leader-

ship-of Ear] Warren. The Su-

preme Court will not march back-

wards, and neither will the na-

tion."

As ACLU general counsel since

1955 and Due Process Committee

chairman since 1964, Ennis par-

ticipated in many of the test

cases that shaped the course of

the Warren Court. In 1959 he

argued United States v. Baren-

blatt, in which the Supreme

Court set forth its basic positions

on the powers of Congressional

committees -in that case the

House Committee on Un-Ameri-

ean Activities-against rights of

witnesses under the First Amend-

ment, Two years ago he argued

Afroyim v. Rusk, which held that

the federal government could not

revoke United States citizenship

for voting in a foreign election.

Ennis participated last year in

Supreme Court tests of foreign

travel bans and film and book

censorship laws.

Increase In Oppression

~ Commenting on recent actions

by the federal government, Ennis

observed, "Instances of official

repression of individuals have in-

creased sharply in the late 1960's.

The right of dissent is seriously

challenged in such cases as the

anti-riot conspiracy indictments

Homosexuality

No Basis for

Civil Serv. Firing

In a 2 to 1 decision, the U:S.

Court of Appeals in Washington,

D.C. ruled that Federal civil

service employees may not be

fired solely on the ground they

are homosexuals.

The decision came in the case

of an employee of the National

Aeronautics and Space Adminis.

tration who was fired in 1963

after a rendezvous with another

man. The employee denied homo-

sexual conduct but the other man

pressed charges against him and

NASA was informed of the case.

The court's opinion, written by

Chief Judge David L. Bazelon

and joined by Judge J. Skelly

Wright, said the Civil Service

Commission could not justify its

dismissal of an employee "mere-

ly by turning its head and crying

`shame.' "

"The notion that it could be an

appropriate function of the Fed-

eral bureaucracy to enforce the

majority's conventional codes of

conduct in the private lives of its

employees is at war with elemen-

tary concepts of liberty, privacy

and diversity,' Judge Bazelon de-

clared.

The government will undoubt-

edly appeal the decision to the

U.S, Supreme Court,

in Chicago and the Spock case

convictions, But threats do not

make a constitutional crisis in-

evitable. How much worse things

get will depend on how much the

public, the courts and organiza-

tions such as the ACLU resist

official tendencies to seek un-

constitutional short-cuts to se-

curity. The Nixon administration,

like every other administration,

must respond to public disap-

proval."

Most Urgent Job

According to Ennis, the

ACLU's most urgent job will be

to "defend equality under the

law for all people regardless of

economic, educational, social or

political status." He emphasized,

however, that "the essential task

of asserting constitutional rights

in legal proceedings should not

be viewed as a solution to deep-

rooted inequities. The courts are

primarily arenas for defense. Be-

`yond this defense, fundamental

social reform can be achieved

only by positive programs of gov-

ernment and private organiza-

tions which press for excellence

in education, iob equality and

open access for all people to the

exercise of freedom and _ basic

rights."

Federal Service

Before joining the ACLU

Board of Directors in 1947, Ennis

served 14 years with the U. S.

Department of Justice, support-

ing the constitutionality of re-

form legislation during the New

Deal period. He was instrumen-

tal in legal defense of the Na-

tional] Recovery Act, the Agricul-

tural Adjustment Act, and the

regulation of gold hoarding.

Ennis was general counsel of

the U. S. Immigration and Nat-

uralization Service in 1941 and

director of the Justice Depart-

ment's Alien Enemy Control Unit

from 1941 to 1946. After World (c)

War II he was invited to join

the ACLU Board of Directors by

the organization's founder, Roger

Baldwin, who knew of Ennis' op-

position to many of the govern-

men's wartime policies, such as

the Japanese - American reloca-

tion.

Ennis continues to stress the

need to guard against "the use

of pretended threats to national

security" as an excuse for official

trampling of civil liberty.

National Security

"Defense of the national se-

curity by unlawful wiretapping

must not be extended from pro-

tection against foreign espionage

to alleged protection against our

own dissenting citizens - stu-

dents, Black Panthers, war re-

sisters," he said. "The positions

President Nixon and the Depart-

ment of Justice have taken on

preventive detention, wiretap-

ping and searches are ominous

signs of a disposition toward un-

constitutional repression, which

can be halted only by defending

the civil] liberties of those under

attack, by alerting the public to.

the real danger in any govern-

ment attempt to suspend free-

doms and by encouraging the

free exercise of legitimate civil

liberties,"

Challenge Loss

Of Credential

In Pot Case

In 1967 Arthur Cummings

pleaded guilty to a charge of

possessing marijuana. Because. of

that conviction, Max Rafferty

now proposes to revoke his teach-

ing credential. An administrative

hearing has been held on the

proposed revocation and _ the

matter is now under submission

to the hearing officer.

In resisting the revocation

staff counsel, Paul Halvonik,

argued that a marijuana convic-

tion could not possibly support a

charge of unprofessional conduct

or be considered an act of moral

turpitude, Cummings' conduct

was not unprofessional because

there is no evidence that it de-

stroyed or impaired discipline or

the teaching process.

It is not an act of moral turpi-

tude because it is not a "act of

baseness, vileness or depravity."

Halvonik pointed out that all

studies of the effects of mari-

juana, including the President's

Commission on Law Enforcement

and the Administration of Jus-

tice, have established that mari-

juana is not addictive, does not

alter the basic personality struc-

ture and, in the words of one

scholar, "is a mildly stimulating

and relaxing herb that is com-

pletely non-addictive and can be

used for social purposes without

appreciably reducing the effi-

ciency of one's physical and men-

tal faculties."

Equal Treatment

For Women

Last December, the ACLU

national board of directors adopt-.

ed the following resolution with

respect to equal treatment for

women: "The ACLU endorses the

principle that the Fifth and

Fourteenth Amendments to the

United States Constitution guar-

antee to all persons equal treat-

ment under the law without un-

reasonable differentiations based

on sex." The vote was 21-4. The

minority favored a stronger reso-

lution; one that eliminated the

word "unreasonable."

Calif. Dist. Ct. of Appeal

Consensual

= 0x00A7$terilization

Declared Lawful

The California Third District Court of Appeal ruled last

month that "voluntary non-therapeutic surgical sterilization

operations are legal in the State of California." In so doing,

it not only upheld the ruling of Superior Court Judge

Richard Albee of Shasta County but rejected an opinion of

the Attorney General handed

down in 1950. |

In that opinion the Attorney

General had declared that ". . .

since the law forbids mayhem

and criminal abortions and spe-

cifically declares it to be a felony

for one to assist in the preven-

tion of conception, we are of the

opinion that non-thereapeutic

sterilization operations are con-

trary to the established policy of

this state in that they are viola-

tive of the state's social interest

in the maintenance of the birth

rate."

Court Test of

Mental Illness

Committment

The State Supreme Court has

agreed to grant a hearing in a

case that tests the constitutional.

ity of the Lanterman-Petris-

Short Act provisions for confin-

ing the mentally ill.

Three days after the law went

into effect, Superior Court Judge

Hugo Fisher of San Diego county

declared that the section relating

to involuntary detentions was un-

constitutional. The case involved

Eugene P. Callahan, 64, of El

Cajon.

Under the new law, Callahan,

an involuntary patient in a fa-

cility of the county health serv-

ices, may be detained 72 hours

for evaluation as to the need for

treatment. If there is a need for

treatment he may be detained

up to 14 days without a court

hearing and, of course, during

that period he would be required

to accept treatment. If he is in

danger of committing suicide he

may be detained another 14 days,

or 31 days in all.

The question to be decided by

the State Supreme Court is

whether an alleged mentally ill

person may be denied his free-

dom for 31 days without a court

hearing.

Appellate Department Ruling

Right To Jury

Trial In

Speeding Cases Upheld

The Appellate Department of the Superior Court of San

Mateo County decided last month that a person charged with

a violation of the Basic Speed Law is entitled to a trial by

jury. Consequently, the conviction was set aside.

The case involved Robert Wallace Beesley who received

a citation for speeding last Jan-

uary 21. He entered a plea of

not guilty and asked for a jury

trial. The jury was denied by the

judge of the Municipal Court and

the court on March 4 proceeded

to conduct a non-jury trial in

which Beesley was found guilty.

He then appealed to the ACLUNC

for assistance and Paul Halvonik,

ACLUNC staff counsel, vrepre-

sented him on his appeal.

Constitutional Right

Under the California Constitu-

tion "The right of trial by jury

shall be secured to all and re-

mains inviolate ... in cases of

misdemeanor, . . ." Since a speed-

ing violation is a misdemeanor,

the ACLU argued that Beesley

was entitled to a trial by jury.

"It is interesting to note," said

the court, "that during the 1968

session of the Legislature, As-

sembly Bill 1118 was introduced

which purported to amend Sec-

tion 40000 of the Vehicle Code

and provided that certain viola-

tions of the Vehicle Code would

be considered as infractions and

as neither felony nor misdemean-

or. This Assembly Bill was final-

ly adopted and approved, but not

until it had been amended so as

to sever Section 22350 from the

infraction category and to de-

clare a violation of it to be a mis-

demeanor."

Speeding a Misdemeanor

"This appears to be conclusive

proof," said the court, "that the

Legislature desires to have a vio-

lation of the Basic Speed Law re-

main as a misdemeanor and in

view of Article I, Section 7 of

the California Constitution [{ guar-

anteeing jury trials in misde-

meanor cases} it is readily ap-

parent that it was error for the

trial court to deny defendant his

right to a trial by jury."

The three judges of the appel-

late court concurred in reversing

the judgment of the lower court.

Because of the Attorney Gen-

eral's opinion, the Shasta County

Hospital refused to perform a

vasectomy on Oscar Jessin, a mar-

ried man of modest means who

had already fathered as many

children as he felt he could sup-

port, A suit for declaratory judg-

ment was filed by attorney Jere

Hurley, Jr., of Redding on be-

half of Jessin and his wife Mar-

ion. The County of Shasta ap-

pealed the lower court's decision

in favor of the Jessins and

ACLUNC staff counse] Paul Hal-

vonik filed a friend of the court

brief supporting the lower court

decision.

The brief noted that vasecto-

mies are "no more mayhem than

appendectomies or amputations."

It argued that vasectomies are

not against public policy and that

the liberalization of Califoznia's

anti-abortion law and the liber-

alization of the California law

dealing with the dissemination of

information about contraceptives

establishes that there is no pub-

lic policy against curtailing the

birth rate. The brief states: `"`The

only reason it was not further

liberalized or abolished outright

in 1967 was not a concern about

a reduced birth-rate (with Cali-

fornia's burgeoning population

such a concern would be fanci-

ful) but because of the belief in

some quarters that an abortion

involves the destruction of hu-

man life. That consideration has

no relevance where vasectomy is.

in issue."

Familial Privacy

The ACLU brief also argued

that the U. S. Supreme Court de-

cision in Griswold v. Connecticut,

holding that a law prohibiting

the use of contraceptives violates

the right of familial privacy, also

protected the Jessins. "Even the

most grudging reading of Gris-

wold leads to the conclusion that

the fundamental right to familial

privacy protected by the Four-

teenth Amendment to the Con-

stitution leaves decisions about

contraception to the husband and

wife in consultation with their

physician."

Court's Conclusions

The court declared "we do not

now need to decide the applica-

bility of Griswold to the instant

case, for we conclude that there

is no legislative policy or any

other overriding public policy

proscribing consensual vasecto- .

my in this state. Nor does there

appear to be any other good le-

gal reason why such a voluntary

operation, given competent con-

sent, should not be performed.

In fact, the few cases in this area

indicate that it is an acceptable

method of family planning, while

Griswold indicates that it may

fall within constitutional protec-

tion. We... hold that California

has no public policy prohibiting

consensual sterilization opera-

tions, and further hold that non-

therapeutic surgical sterilization

operations are legal in this state

where competent consent has

been given.

The opinion was written by

Judge Regan and concurred in

by Acting Presiding Judge Fried-

man and Judge Janes.

Other Briefs

Besides the friend of the court

brief filed by the ACLUNC, the

California Medical Association

filed a brief taking no- position

on the matter while the Associa-

tion for Voluntary Sterilization,

Inc., naturally supported volun-

tary sterilization,

No Protection From Sleuths

Security Case

Loses in U.S.

Appeals

Court

The United States Court of Appeals has reversed a de-

cision by Federal District Judge Robert Peckham which held

invalid a Defense Department Security Procedure that had

resulted in Dexter Shoultz losing his security clearance.

Judge Peckham's order had restored the clearance. Unless

the United States Supreme Court

reverses the Court of Appeal's

decision Shoultz will lose his

clearance and, consequently, his

job,

`Interview' Sought -

Mr, Shoultz had held the se-

curity clearance for more than

-a decade when, in 1966, he was

informed that a screening board

of the Department of Defense

desired to ask him certain ques-

tions during an "interview."

Shoultz contacted ACLU Execu-

tive Director Ernest Besig who

demanded to know the authority

for a hearing where the accused

is not informed of the charges

against him, not confronted by

his accusers and not permitted

to cross-examine witnesses. The

Department of Defense replied

that a new regulation was being

prepared and that the "inter-

view" would be pursuant to its

provisions,

`Hearing' Held

The new regulation, containing

no due process guarantees, was

adopted in 1967; Shoultz attend-

ed a "hearing" pursuant to the

new regulation, but refused, on

due process grounds, to answer

the questions of his interrogator

(who also happened to be the

hearing officer),

District Court Injunction

On October 13, 1967, Shoultz

was informed that his security .

clearance had been suspended

because of his refusal to answer

"relevant" questions, Shoultz was

removed from his job at Lock-

heed and was scheduled to be

placed on a prolonged leave of

absence without salary. An -in-

junction was sought, by then

staff counsel Marshall Krause,

and Judge Peckham held that the

newly adopted Defense Depart-

ment Procedure was invalid be-

cause it "permits an indefinite,

if not effectively permanent, sus-

pension of.an individual's secu-

rity clearance, thereby nullifying

employment opportunity, without

any statement of charges or other

specific notice, without any op-

portunity to answer specific facts

alleged to jeopardize an individ-

ual's security clearance, without

any confrontation or cross-exami-

nation, and without any factual

basis given as the reason for the

suspension." |

Unauthorized Procedure

Judge Peckham, relying on the

authority of a 1959 Supreme

Court case, concluded that such

a security clearance procedure

could not be sustained in the ab-

sence of a specific authorization

for it from the President.

further found that the President

had not authorized the proced-

ure.

After Peckham's decision,

Shoultz regained his security

clearance and the government ap-

pealed the case to the United

States Court of Appeals.

No Due Process

On appeal staff counsel Paul

Halvonik stated that "If this

Court will imagine a hearing in

which some of the guarantees of

due process of law are present

it will imagine everything that

this regulation is not. There is

no requirement of written speci.

fication of charges; no opportu-

nity, consequently, to reply to

such charges in writing; no op:

-portunity to confront one's ac-

cusers; no right of cross-examina-

tion; no notice as to the burden

ACLU NEWS

AUGUST, 1969

Page 2

He

of proof; no review of the pro

ceedings."

`Preliminary Hearing'

The Court of Appeals, in its

opinion, quoted that statement

from Halvonik's brief and appar-

ently had no substantial disagree-

ment with its characterization of

the procedure; nevertheless it

held the regulation constitution-

al, The Court of Appeals held

that since the regulation provided

for a mere "preliminary hearing"'

it need not conform to the cus-

tomary requirements of due proc-

ess. Shoultz, if he will submit toa

hearing without due _ process

-Continued on Page 3

Secrecy of

Questionnaire

Secured by ACLU

The Carnegie Commission on

the Future of Higher Education

last month assured the ACLU

that the responses to a massive

questionnaire on the problems

of higher education which it and

the American Council on Educa-

tion sent to professors, graduate

students and researches has now

' been made absolutely confiden-

tial. The question arose when it

was discovered that the Founda-

tion kept a master. list of the re-

cipients of the questionnaire

identifying each respondent by a

number. A respondent could be

identified by checking his num-

ber against the master list.

Some Questions

The questionnaire contained

such questions as the following:

In what religion were you

raised? What is your present

religious preference? Do you

consider yourself basically op-

posed to religion? What was

your role in the most recent

(campus) demonstration? How

would you characterize yourself

politically at the present time?

Whom did you vote for in No-

vember? -

Witch Hunting Opportunity

The cover letter to the ques-

tionnaire stated that "your an-

swers will be held in strictest

confidence. We are interested

' only in statistical relationships

and will, under no _ circum-

stances, report responses on an

individual or departmental basis.

Any special markings on your

form are used solely for internal

data processing." This statement

led some people to believe that

their identity would be perma-

nently and totally detached from

their answers. But, as noted

above, the answers of respond-

ents could be identified. If the

records, had, for example, gotten

into the hands of the McClellan

Committee they would have pro-

vided the means for a witch hunt

in the colleges.

Linkage Erased

The ACLU expressed its con-

cern to the Commission the lat-

ter part of May and finally indi-

cated it would take legal action

unless a deadline were met.

Shortly afterward, the ACLU re-

ceived telephone assurances that

the identifying numbers would

be erased from the master list

and, on July 1, the ACLU was

informed by the Commission

that "We have now completed

severing any connection which

exists between the identification

number on questionnaires and

names and addresses."

Citizenship

Denial Appealed

The United States Federal

District Court has held that Ib

Otto Astrup, a native of Den-

mark, is forever ineligible for

United States citizenship because

he executed a request for exemp-

tion from military service almost

20 years ago. The exemption that

Astrup signed stated that he was

exchanging his right to citizen-

ship for relief from "liability"

for military training. Shortly

after Astrup executed the exemp-

tion, however, the law was

changed and he was in fact or-

dered to report for induction

into the military service. He was

rejected for service because of

a physical disability.

Intermediate Court

Astrup has appealed the denial

of citizenship to the United

States Court of Appeals. In the

appellate brief, prepared by staff

counsel Paul Halvonik, the

Court of Appeals is asked to re-

verse a prior decision holding

that an alien who applies for

exemption from military service

forever forfeits his right to be-

come a citizen even though he is

later ordered to report for induc-

tion and would have served in

the armed forces but for his phy-

sical disability.

Inconsistent Decision

That decision it is pointed out,

is inconsistent with another de-

cision which granted citizenship

to an alien who had applied for

exemption from service, had the

exemption removed and_ later.

served in the armed forces; the

relevant statute makes no dis-

tinction between persons who

have served in the armed forces

and persons who have no service

in the armed forces. The statute,

the brief urges, only forecloses

citizenship to persons who apply

for exemption from the armed

forces, and because of their

alienage, received a permanent

exemption from the armed

forces. Noting that if Astrup

had passed his physical exami-

nation and served in the armed

forces he would be a citizen to-

day, Halvonik maintains that As-

trup is really being denied citi-

zenship because of a physical

disability and contends that

denying a person citizenship be-

cause of his illness is crue] and

unusual punishment prohibited

by the Eighth Amendment to the

United States Constitution.

| Letters...

... to the Editor

People's Park March

While I think the ACLU one

of the most necessary and im-

portant organizations in the coun-

try, I am not always in agree-

ment with all actions by all units

thereof. I think it is very impor-

tant to avoid getting out of its

field and taking political stands,

however intrinsically right, on

which its members cannot agree

or which violate its stand in

favor of civil and constitutional

liberties for all.

I am very glad the national

ACLU has disassociated itself

from proponents or perpetrators

of campus violence, who to my

knowledge often violate every

principle of civil liberties. And

I was a good deal disturbed by

the Berkeley chapter's decision

to participate in the People's

Park march.

This was emotionally under-

standable as a part of a reaction

to atrocious actions by the police.

Nevertheless, the march was

clearly in support of the People's

Park program of actual occupa-

tion and extra-legal use of pri-

vate property, which cannot pos-

sibly be made part of the pro-

gram of the ACLU, backed by all

its members.

Further actions of this sort

will reduce the ACLU to its

radical constituency alone, which

will lower its effectiveness, re-

duce its numbers, and change its

nature.-H.F.M., Berkeley.

Max Scheer Case

Berkeley Barb

ObscenityVictory

Scored By ACLU

Berkeley Municipal Court Judge George Brunn has held

that the Alameda District Attorney may not, constitution: .

ally, prosecute Berkeley Barb editor, Max Scheer, for pub-

lishing "obscenity" unless it is prepared to charge that the

entire newspaper, in which a picture offensive to the Dis-

trict Attorney appeared, is ob-

scene. On July 17, the District

Attorney did file such an amend-

ed complaint.

Naughty Picture

The District Attorney had com-

plained that a picture, entitled

"Kickin' Out the Jambs," which

appeared in the March 21 issue

of the Barb was "obscene" be-

cause it seemed to depict a cou-

ple engaged in sexual inter-

course. ACLUNC staff counsel

Paul Halvonik demurred to the

complaint on the grounds that

under the state obscenity law

and under the terms of the First

Amendment "matter" alleged to

be obscene had to be "taken as a

whole." That is to say, no story

or photograph can be constitu-

tionally isolated from the rest of

a publication and condemned as

obscene. Judge Brunn sustained

that demurrer.

Court's Opinion

In hig opinion Judge Brunn

stated: "The issue of obscenity is

to be determined by viewing the

product as a whole and not by

examining any isolated sections

of it. The people here contend

that a newspaper is not like a

novel or a film-that a news-

paper is `nonunitary,' i.e., `made

up of separate and unconnected

components.' . . . It would be

astonishing to apply the First

Amendment more restrictively to

newspapers than to movies, Yet

that is the truth of the people's

argument here."

`Grapes of Roth'

"Perhaps somewhere in the

vineyards of the grapes of Roth

{Judge Brunn is referring to

Roth v. United States (1957) in

which the U. S. Supreme Court

announced the "taken as a

whole" standard] lurks support

for Plaintiff's theory. No one can

be wholly sure what lurks there

but to the best of my limited

vision I did not detect a `unitary'

- and `nonunitary' set of notions.

In a field as complex as obscenity

law, and as inextricably entwined

with constitutional problems, de- _

ference to the legislature and to

higher courts preeminently re-

quires trial courts to be cautious

in introducing novel theories,

particularly theories with such

high potential for adding confu-

sion."

Slight Gain in

Membership

Enrollment

Only a slight gain has been -

made in the ACLUNC member-

ship during the current fiscal

year. Membership' enrollment

reached 6985 as this issue of the

NEWS goes to press. That figure

compares with an enrollment of

6959. on July. 31, 1968.: At the':

end of the last fiscal year on

October 31, 1968 the member-

ship stood at 7929.

Mrs. La Verda O. Allen

Alfred J. Azevedo

Albert M. Bendich

Leo Borregard

Rev. Hamilton Boswell

Price M. Cobbs, M.D.

Prof. John Edwards

Jerome B. Falk, Jr.

Prof. Mare Franklin

Robert Greensfelder

Rev. Aron S. Gilmartin

Evelio Grillo

Francis Heisler

Neil F. Horton

Daniel N. Loeb

Ephraim Margolin

Dr. John N. Marquis

Honorary Treasurer:

Joseph S. Thompson

Honorary Board Member:

Sara Bard Field

Mrs. Gladys Brown

Mrs. Paul Couture

Mrs. Margaret C. Hayes

Prof. Carlo Lastrucci

John J. Eagan

Joseph Eichler

Dr. H. H. Fisher

Board of Directors of the American Civil Liberties Union

of Northern California

CHAIRMAN: Howard H. Jewel

VICE-CHAIRMAN: Prof. Van D. Kennedy

Helen Salz

SEC'Y-TREAS.: Howard A. Friedman

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: Ernest Besig

GENERAL COUNSEL: Wayne M. Collins

STAFF COUNSEL: Paul N. Halvonik

ASS`T STAFF COUNSEL and LEGIS. REP.: Charles C. Marson

ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT: Mrs. Pamela S. Ford

CHAPTER DIRECTOR: Carol R. Weintraub

Committee of Sponsors

Mrs. Paul Holmer

Mrs. Mary Hutchinson Prof. Wallace Stegner

Prof. Wilson Record

Prof. Ernest Hilgard Dr. Norman Reider

John R. May

Richard L. Mayers

Martin Mills, M.D.

Robert L. Nolan, M.D.

Richard Patsey =

Mrs. Esther Pike

Henry J. Rodriquez

Eugene N. Rosenberg

Mrs. Muriel Roy

John Brisbin Rutherford

Prof. John Searle

Warren H. Saltzman

Mrs. Alee Skolnick

Stanley D. Stevens

Jerry Tucker

Justin Vanderlaan

Don Vial

Joe J. Yasaki

Dr. Marvin J. Naman

Mrs. Theodosia Stewart

Re. Rev. Sumner Walters:

Richard Johnston

Roger Kent

Mes. Ruth Kingman

Prof. Theodore Kreps

Seaton W. Manning

Rev. Robert W. Moon

Clarence E. Rust

Prof. Hubert Phillips

Norman Lezin

0 eV

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION NEWS

Published by the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California

Second Class Mail privileges authorized at San Francisco, California

= ERNEST BESIG .. . Editor

$03 Market Street, San Francisco, California 94105, 433-2750

Subcription Rates -- Two Dollars and Fifty Cents a Year __

Twenty-Five Cents Per Copy a 151

Ban on Statements

Highest Court

Asked To Strike

Down Gag Rule'

A petition has been filed in the United States Supreme

Court asking it to review and reverse a decision of the Cali-

fornia Court of Appeal upholding a judicial gag-rule against

a First Amendment challenge. The challenged order pre-

vented defendants in a criminal prosecution from issuing

public statements about their

~ case, a

The case arose out of an arrest

-Mmade on November 30, 1966, at

the Student Union of the Berke-

ley campus of the University of

California during a protest dem-

onstration against the presence

of military recruiters. These ar-

rests triggered a subsequent stu-

dent strike and the demonstra-

tion received extensive publicity

in Bay Area newspapers.

Defendants Silenced

Judge George Brunn of the

Berkeley-Albany Municipal Court

issued an order in the criminal

case arising from the arrests. It

prohibited the parties to the case,

their counsel, all] law enforce-

ment agencies, the Regents of the

University of California, other

employees of the University, the

`Associated Students of the Uni-

versity and its membership and

affiliated organizations from "di-

rectly or indirectly releasing to

any news media information or

opinion concerning the trial of

any issue likely to be involved

therein Specifically, and

without limitation, there shall be

Housing Units

Must Be Built

In White Areas

Last month, Federal District

Court Judge' Richard B. Austin

of Chicago implemented an earli-

er order in which he held that

the Chicago Housing Authority

acted intentionally to maintain

existing patterns of segregated

housing by selecting project sites

in almost exclusively black ghet-

to areas.

The judge's decree provides:

1. That three housing units

must be constructed or leased in

white areas for every one unit.

in a black area of the city. Black

areas, and a one-mile buffer zone

surrounding them, are described

as "limited public housing areas;"

2. That all new family projects

must be small in size, no more

than three stories high and ac-

commodating no more than 120

persons, except in unusual cir-

cumstances when 240 persons

may be allowed; |

3. That special efforts must be

made to attract low-income white

families into the new housing

since more white than black city

residents qualify for the subsi-

dized housing. Fifty per cent of

the units in the new develop-

ments may be reserved for resi-

dents of the neighborhood in

which the housing is built;

4. That four public housing

projects that are presently most-

ly white must be desegregated

according to a plan to be pre-

-sented to the court within 30

days.

The ACLU initiated the suit in

_ 1965 on behalf of six tenants and

' applicants for apartments. At

this: writing it is not known

whether the Housing Authority

will appeal this unprecedented

decision.

More than 99 per cent of the

Chicago Housing Authority's fam-

ily units are in areas that are

or soon will be substantially all-

Negro. "It is incredible,' said

Judge Austin, "that this dismal

prospect of an all-Negro public

housing system in all-Negro areas

came about without the persist-

ent application of a deliberate

policy to confine public housing

to all-Negro or immediately ad-

jacent areas."

no public statements or releases

concerning the merits of `the

complaint, the evidence or argu-

ments to be adduced by either

side, or trial tactics or strategy."

Order Defied

Four defendants in the case,

Steve Hamilton, Michael Smith,

Stewart Alpert, and Jerry Rubin,

defied the court order by stating,

on the courthouse steps, that

they were arrested as scapegoats

to appease Governor Ronald Rea-

gan. In their statement they also

pointed out that many prominent

persons had already commented

adversely on their arrests, that

the public was already preju-

diced against them and that they

were simply attempting to re-

dress the balance. The defend-

ants also complained that their

freedom of speech was being cur-

tailed simply because they had

been charged with a crime,

California Appeals

The ACLU came into the case -

at this point and urged the Mu-

nicipal and Superior Courts to

throw out the charges. They re-

fused and, by a 2-1 vote, the

Court of Appeal upheld their de-

cision. The State Supreme Court,

Justice Peters dissenting, de-

clined to review the Court of Ap-

peal decision.

No Interference With Trial

In its petition, prepared by

Paul Halvonik and volunteer at-

torneys Lawrence Popofsky and

Richard Goff, ACLUNC pointed

out the dangers to freedom of

speech and press created by a

broad and. unrestricted restraint

on free speech imposed merely

because persons are charged with

crime. Judge Brunn's order, it is

emphasized, was issued without

' reference to any clear and pres-

ent danger of interference with

the right of fair trial and swept

anyone remotely interested in

the issues that generated the ar-

rest within its ban. If similar

bans are to proliferate, and every

indication is -that they will, a

District Attorney can abolish the

right of expression by the simple

expedient of charging someone

with a crime.

Limitation of Debate

Quoting de Toqueville's obser-

vation that "Scarcely any politi-

cal question arises in the United

States that is not resolved, soon-

er or later, into a judicial ques-

tion," the petition contends that

a rule requiring public debate to

cease when an issue leads to liti-

gation is profoundly subversive

of First Amendment rights.

Reservist's

Case Before

Federal Court

John Rickerts served six

months in the Army Reserve,

was placed on inactive duty, but

was eventually certified by the

Army to Selective Service. He

was in the processes of Selective

Service, and, in fact, had just

appealed its ruling, when the

Army suddenly called him to ac-

tive duty.

ACLU volunteer attorney Steve

Kipperman of San Francisco,

claiming that the Army, once it

has certified a reservist to Se-

lective Service, cannot strip him

of all his procedural rights by

the simple expedient of calling

`him up, obtained a_ temporary

restraining order from Judge

Sweigert of the Federal] District

Court. The case will be heard

and decided shortly.

Teachers May

Circulate

Petitions

The right of teachers to cir-

culate political petitions on their

lunch hours and free time was

upheld by the State Supreme

Court on June 30. The ruling re-

versed a lower court decision

supporting the Los Angeles

Board of Education,

The board refused to allow cir-

culation of a petition urging Gov.

Regan and the Department of

Public Instruction not to cut

state spending on public educa-

tion. The board refused, claiming

that such a petition would create

discord and disharmony which

is "foreign to the educational en-

vironment."

Justice Raymond E. Peters,

speaking for a unanimous court,

said the government may not cur-

tail free speech "simply in order

to avert the sort of disturbance,

argument or unreast which is in-

evitably generated by the ex-

pression of ideas which are con-

troversial and invite dispute."

He added, " . . . it is imperative

that the courts carefully diffe-

rentiate in treatment those who

are violent and heedless of the

rights of others ... and those...

who seek to express themselves

through peaceful, orderly

means."

SecuritylCase

Loses In U.S.

Appeals Court

Continued from Page 1-

guarantees, cannot have his se-

curity clearance finally revoked

until he has had a hearing with

due process guarantees,

Surrender Rights

The upshot of the Court of Ap:

peal's decision is that the holder

of a security clearance is entitled

to a hearing with due process

guarantees only if he is willing

first to submit to a hearing with:

out those guarantees; a hearing

in which, if he declines to an:

swer questions on constitutional

grounds, the Department of De.

fense may be prevented, in the

words of the regulation, "from

reaching the affirmative finding

required in which event any se

curity clearance should be sus-

pended."

The United States Supreme

Court will be asked to review the

Shoultz case.

State of Emergency

Non-Violent Demonstration

Appeal Filed |

For Pvt. Sood in

`Mutiny'

Case

The brief on appeal before the Army's Board of Review

on behalf of Private Nesrey Sood, who was convicted of |

mutiny for joining twenty-six other Presidio stockade prison-

ers in a nonviolent demonstration protesting the abysmal

conditions at the stockade, has now been filed. The brief

was prepared by staff counsel

Paul Halvonik and Army co-coun-

sel Capt. Paul Saunders at Wash-

ington, D.C, Capt. Emmet Yeary,

who assisted Halvonik in Sood's

defense at the court martiai, has,

not unreluctantly, been separated

from the Army.

The brief assigns as error a

number of limiting rulings made

by the law officer and, in addi-

tion, contends that the evidence

presented at the court martial

S.F. Schools Drop

Teacher Flag

Salute Issue

The San Francisco Unified

School District has decided not

to take any action against five

Teacher Corps Interns at the Bret

Harte School, Hunters Point,

who, as a matter of conscience,

refused to join in the Pledge of

Allegiance. The teachergs, who

were students at San Francisco

State College, believe that black

people have been denied justice,

and, therefore, they cannot in

good conscience assert that there

is "justice for all" in this

country.

The decision in the case came

from Irving G. Breyer, Legal

Adviser of the school system.

It was in response to a protest to

Supt. Robert E. Jenkins' decla-

ration that he expected employes

to salute the flag. In its letter

to Mr. Jenkins the ACLU de-

clared, "It would be strange in-

deed if the consciences of stu-

dents had to be respected while

those of teachers could be vio-

lated. We believe that no teacher

-as a condition of employment

can be required to surrender his

constitutional rights and we will

be happy, if necessary, to de-

fend that position in the courts."

Test Gov. Reagan's Ban on

Berkeley Loudspeakers -

During the crisis over the People Park in Berkeley

Governor Reagan, by means of "emergency regulations,"

made it a misdemeanor to use a loudspeaker or other sound

amplifying device in the city of Berkeley. Two members of

the University community, Ron Yank and Jeff Lustig, ignor-

ing the regulation, spoke to a

rally over a loudspeaker and now

face criminal charges because of

their exercise of their right to

freedom of speech.

Unconstitutional

Staff counsel, Paul Halvonik,

representing Yank and Lustig,

has entered a challenge to the

criminal charges on the grounds

that the regulations are unconsti-

tutional on their face.

Halvonik's brief begins with

the observation that:

"The regulation defendants are

charged with violating was pro-

mulgated by Governor Reagan on

May 15, 1969. This Francoesque

proclamation, according to its

terms, was adopted pursuant to

emergency powers. The Gover-

nor had declared a `state of emer-

gency' in Berkeley on February

5, 1969, and had left it hanging,

Damocles-like over the heads of

a community which has never

been. terribly popular with the

Governor.

Nakedly Repressive

"The Governor's regulations

are not outrageous simply be-

cause they are an infringement

on freedom of speech. It is, after

all, not unusual for a government

to attempt to stifle free expres-

sion; indeed it is the tendency

of government to infringe liberty

of expression-that is the reason

for the First Amendment. What

is outrageous about the Gover-

nor's regulations is their disarm-

ing simplicity, their directness,

their' naked repressive charac-

ter." `

No Suspension of Constitution

The brief goes on to point out

that similar bans on the use of

modes of expression have been

struck down by the courts as

- prior restraints on free speech

inconsistent with the First

Amendment. These cases, Halvo-

nik urges, are controlling even

in a state of emergency because,

as the United States Supreme

Court said in the Civil War case

of Ex Parte Milligan:

"No doctrine invoiving more

pernicious consequences was ever

invented by the wit of men than

that any of [the Constitution's|.

provisions can be suspended dur-

ing any of the great exigencies

of government."

does not support the mutiny con-

viction and that the mutiny stat-

ute is in conflict with the United

States Constitution. Ihe onsti-

tutional attack is on the grounds ~

that the statute is so vague that

no one can be sure what it

means, thus accounting for the

-absurd conviction in Sood's case,

and that by permitting the Army

to escalate a mere "disobedience

to. an order" to a capital offense

because of the political views of

the demonstrators, the statute

violates the First Amendment.

guarantees of free expression

and petition for redress of griev-

ances,

The brief concludes with the

observation that even if the

mutiny conviction could be up- .

held, the punishment imposed on

Sood was too severe. Sood was

originally sentenced to fifteen

years at hard labor, forfeiture of

pay and allowances and a dis-

honorable discharge. Lieutenant

General Stanley Larsen, Presidio

Commandant, reduced the sen-

tence to seven years and, within

two hours after Larsen's action,

the Secretary of the Army, exer-

cising clemency powers through

a subordinate, reduced the sen-

tence to two years, But two years

for, as Sood puts it, "sitting on

the Man's grass" is still an in-

tolerable sentence.

If Sood's conviction is not re-

versed by the Board of Review,

the Court of Military Appeals

will be asked to review his case.

If the Court of Military Appeals

does not reverse the decision the

case will be taken to the Federal

District Court. Achieving justice

in Sood's case will. it is obvious,

take a good deal of time. He may

well serve his sentence before

justice, if anv. is done. Anyone

feeling that Private Sood should

be home at least by Christmas

should communicate that view by

writing to Secretary of the Army

Stanley Resor. his congressman,

and Senators Cranston and Mur-

phy.

Drop Subversive

Charges Against

P.O. Employee

A Post Office employee who

was charged with advocating the

overthrow of the Government of

the United States by force and

violence, the killing of all police-

men and with supporting "the

views and program of Eldredge

Cleaver,' was informed by the

U.S. Civil Service Commission

last month that no further action

would be taken.

The issue arose because each

Federal employee takes his job

subject to a suitability investiga-

tion and persons who advocate

the violent overthrow of the gov-

ernment are regarded as unsuit-

able.

The employee denied such ad-

vocacy as well as the killing of

all policemen. She also denied

knowledge of Eldridge Cleaver's

"views" and program, "I can only

assume," said her answer, ``that

`the allegations against me are

based on my voter registration

as a member of the Peace and

Freedom Party in California and

the fact that Eldridge Cleaver

became its candidate for Presi-

dent."

ACLU NEWS

AUGUST, 1969

Page 3

Adjournment Aug. 8

Legislature

Considers Many

Liberties Issues

In between tough battles over the budget and the financ-

ing of education, not to speak of the pressure of the anti-

cipated Aug. 8 adjournment, the State Legislature took the

following action with respect to civil liberties issues:

Death Penalty

Senator Richardson's S.B. 791,

which would make the death

penalty mandatory for anyone

convicted of first degree murder

of a peace officer, was heard in

the Assembly Procedure Commit- ~

_tee after having passed the Sen-

ate. The author produced as

witnesses one Father Lester

("Father Lester is here to an-

swer any moral questions that

may arise.), and Mrs, Brodnick,

wife of the recently slain officer

Joe Brodnik and crusader for

the death penalty. After a

lengthy hearing the bill was

killed and Senator Richardson

stormed out of the room saying

that the Committee was the poor-

est excuse for a committee the

Legislature had ever seen, and

that they might as well give the

ACLU a-seat on the Committee.

Would that it were true!

Marijuana

A.B. 199, by John Vasconcellos

(D.-San Jose), was truly a mod-

est measure: it removed mari-

juana from the statutory defini-

tion of "narcotic" and put it in

a separate section. It changed no

crimes and reduced no penalties;

its sole purpose was to reflect

the simple fact that pot is not a

narcotic, After weeks of strug-

gling, the bill was reported fa-

vorably from the Criminal Pro-

cedure Committee. With 78 or

80 members on the Assembly

floor, the bill received only 26

of the necessary 41 votes. Many

of the no-voters and non-voters

admitted privately that it was a

fine bill, but "How could I ex-

plain it to my district?" Those

who anticipate early revision of

the marijuana laws can learn

from this test.

`Disclosure of Informants

At present the law provides

that in a criminal] trial in a nar-

cotics case the prosecution is priv-

ileged to withhold the identity of

a confidential informant unless

the defendant can show a reason-

able possibility that non-disclo-

sure would deprive him of a fair

Public Works

Jobs Open

To Aliens

The State Supreme Court last

month declared unconstitutional

a State law forbidding the em-

ployment of aliens on public

works projects.

It held that the State was

wrong in withholding part of its

payment to a San Diego land-

scape contractor because he had

hired a Mexican national who

had resided in California for nine

years.

Writing for the court, Justice

Tobriner stated that the law is

discriminatory and rests "upon

a very questionable basis. The

citizen," he went on to say, `may

be a newcomer to the State who

has little stake in the commu-

nity; the alien may be a resident

who has lived in California for a

lengthy period, paid taxes, served

in our armed forces, demon-

strated his worth as a construc-

tive human being, and contrib-

uted much to the growth and de-

velopment of the State."

ACLU NEWS

AUGUST, 1969

Page 4

trial. S.B. 66, by Senator Lew

`Sherman (R.-Alameda County)

would change this rule in three

ways. The bill would (1) extend

the privilege to all types of prose-

eutions; (2) provide for the dis-

closure of the informant's iden-

tity to the judge in a secret hear-

ing outside the presence of the

defendant and his lawyer, and

seal the record of that hearing so

that the appellate courts, but not

the defendant, would have access

to it; and (3) provide a higher

burden of proof for the defend-

-ant seeking to overcome the priv-

ilege. After extensive hearings

the bill was amended to delete

the third provision but was re-

ported out favorably by the

Criminal Procedure Committee

with the first two provisions more

or less intact, notwithstanding the

ACLU argument that the secret

hearing would deprive defend-

ants .of a fair trial. The bill,

which is quite likely to pass, rep-

resents one of the session's more

serious intrusions into civil lib-

erties.

Search and Seizure

S. B. 736, by Senator Donald

Grunsky (R.-Watsonville), would

substantially expand the statuto-

ry power of the police to search

for dangerous weapons where

there is less than probable cause

for arrest. It would delete from

the present law the requirement

that the officer reasonably be-

lieve the subject to be armed,

and would permit not only the

search of his person but also the

search of any vehicle under his

possession or control at or imme-

diately prior to the search, All of

of this was qualified by the

phrase "where the circumstances

warrant." After ACLU opposition

the bill was defeated in the Crim-

inal Procedure Committee.

Truancy and Free Speech

S. B, 803, by Senator Sherman,

would prohibit any wilful act

which would tend to encourage

children not to obey the compul-

sory education laws. The author

produced before the Criminal

Procedure Committee several wit-

nesses from Berkeley and Oak-

land school dictricts who com-

plained that radicals were con-

stantly hovering near schools urg-

ing students to skip school in fa-

vor of activities such as marching

and rioting. The ACLU objected

on the grounds that the bill was

not only hopelessly vague but

prohibited many kinds of protect-

ed speech and other activity. The

bill was killed.

Right to Travel

At present, and without any le-

gal authority, California police

turn back from the Mexican bor-

der any person under 18 who

does not have written permission

from his parents to enter. A. B.

2323, by Pete Wilson (R.-San Di-

ego), would ratify this practice

by passing a statute which au-

thorizes it. The five-man Republi-

can majority of the Criminal Pro-

cedure Committee was not per-

suaded by ACLU arguments that

the bill violates the constitutional

right to travel, and reported the

bill favorably to the Assembly

floor. It will probably pass. -

Bail and O. R.

An astonishing proposal by

Senator Clark Bradley (R.-San

Jose), would have required that

someone arrested for trespassing

or disturbing the peace and await-

ing trial could not, if arrested

again for one of those offenses,

be released on his own recogni-

Appeal Court |

Martial Sentence

To Military Ct.

John C. Wells was a student

at the University of California

when he was arrested by C.I.D.

agents of the United States Army

and charged with desertion.

Wells was court -martialed,

challenged the jurisdiction of the

court-martial and, when his chal-

lenge was disallowed, pleaded

guilty to a charge of desertion

and a charge of refusal to obey

an order (he refused to don the

Army uniform). He received a

sentence of one year at hard la-

bor and a dishonorable discharge.

Reservist

The reason that Wells, a civil-

ian, was tried by a military court-

martial is that he was a Reserv-

ist who had completed two years

of honorable service in the mili-

tary and had failed to attend

summer camp. It was on that

basis that the Army claimed it

could call him to active duty,

charge him with desertion and

court-martia] him when he failed

to appear.

Jury Trial Denied

At his court-martial then

ACLU staff counsel Marshall W.

Krause contended that the fail-

ure to perform a duty under the

Universal-Military Training and

Service Act is subject to trial

in a federal district court, rather

than a court-martial, where civil-

ian protections, such as right to

trial by jury, are available. Even

though the federal statute could

be interpreted as also giving a

court-martial jurisdiction in such

a case, Krause argued that the

district court should have juris-

diction when the alleged violator

had civilian status as a member

of the Ready Reserve and had

not re-entered upon active Army

duty.

C. O. Position

Krause further argued that the

military had only forty-five days

after Wells was ordered into ac-

tive duty to take him into cus-

tody and press charges and that

that period had expired. Finally,

he argued that Wells clearly ex-

pressed his position as a consci-

entious objector and ought to

have been processed for an ad-

ministrative discharge even

though he declined to fill out the

official forms for such a dis-

charge on the basis that the

Army should not investigate into

the truth or sincerity of his be-

liefs.

The court-martial conviction

was appealed and the Military

Board of Review has upheld the

conviction and sentence.

Ct. of Military Appeals

The decision of the Board of

Review has now been appealed,

by Staff Counsel Paul Halvonik

and Military Counsel Major

James Yelton, Jr., to the United

States Court of Military Appeals,

the highest military court. If a

reversal is not obtained at this

level of military review Wells'

case will be taken to the Fed-

eral District Court in San Fran-

cisco.

zance, In addition, he would have

to post $750 bail, $2500 for the

third arrest, and $3500 for the

fourth. The Senator's announced

purpose is to "get" the campus

militants, The bill would also

have been a handy way to ex-

haust bail funds, and to punish

people before trial. The Senate

passed the bill but the Assembly

Criminal Procedure Committee,

persuaded that it was unconstitu-

tional, killed it,

Campus Unrest

The bills carrying the recom-

mendations of the Select Commit-

tee on Campus Disturbances have .-

passed the Assembly but are now

snarled in the Senate. Many Sena-

tors, aggrieved that their solu-

tions have died in the Assembly,

are attempting to amend the As-

sembly products "to tighten them

up." The outcome is wholly spec-

ulative-Charles Marson, ACLU-

NC Legislative Representative.

Another Joe Smith

Federal Habeas Corpus

Sought for "Lost Soldier'

Richard G. Beaty was drafted into the Army in February

of 1967. After his training he was sent to Nuremburg, Ger-

many and, while there, volunteered for service in Vietnam.

In November of 1967 he was given orders for assignment to

Fort Lewis, Washington with eventual further assignment

scheduled for Vietnam. The or-

ders gave him no reporting date

and told him that his. reporting

orders would be sent to him. -

Consequently Beaty returned to

his home in Porterville to await

orders..

Continue Waiting

When a month had passed and

Beaty had still received no or-

ders he went to visit his friendly

Army recruiter in Porterville to

find out what he should do. The

recruiter told him not to worry

and to continue waiting for his

orders at home. Another month

passed and Beaty had still re-

ceived no orders. Puzzled by

this chain of events he called

the Reassignment Classification

Center in Washington, D.C. and

asked when he might receive his

orders. He was told to continue

waiting.

Not AWOL

Three months later, in March

1968, Beaty was in an automobile

accident. The California High-

way Patrol contacted a nearby

Naval Air Station to find out

what Beaty's status was. Beaty

was then picked up by the Shore

Patrol which took him into cus-

tody while it made a status

check. The status check estab-

lished that Beaty was not absent

without leave and that he was to

remain at home for further

_ orders.

Short "Leave" Granted

Beaty's separation date from

the Army arrived in February

of 1969. He then went to Fort

Ord to inquire about his dis-

charge. The Army, instead of

granting Beaty his discharge,

suddenly developed an interest

in his activities and kept him

there for about a week. He was

then granted a 30-day "leave"

and those leaves were continued:

until he was ordered to report

to Fort Ord in July for another

year's service in the United

States Army. S

Court Action Filed

ACLUNC has filed a petition

for a writ of habeas corpus with

the United States District Court

in San Francisco asking that the

court relieve Beaty from further

service in the United States

Army on the grounds that he

has completed his two years of

service and hag never at any

time refused to obey orders or

violated any of his military ob-

ligations. Federal Judge Swei- .

gert, on motion of staff counsel

Paul Halvonik, on July 8 issued

an order requiring the Army to

show cause why Beaty should

not be relieved from the Army's

Custody. Such an order was ob-

tained in a similar case, that of

Joe A. Smith, in December, 1967.

Instead of answering the court's

writ the Army, in that case, de-

cided to grant Smith his dis-

charge. A hearing in Beaty's -

case is now scheduled for July

25, too late to be reported in

this issue of the "News."

Credential Revocation Case Hearing

In July of 1967 Louise Woelk- The application asked whether she

ers was told by a policeman to

"set off the sidewalk" near the

intersection of Haight and Ash-

bury Streets. She inquired about

the reason for the request, was

arrested, struck by a policeman

and sustained a broken jaw. Nat-

urally, she was arrested for as-

saulting a policeman, The assault

charges were dropped but Miss

Woelkers was forced to stand

trial on charges of disturbing the

peace, inciting a riot, and resist-

ing arrest.

Long Trial

At her trial, which lasted two

and a half weeks, Miss Woelkers

was represented by Al Bendich

and Richard Werthimer. The

trial resulted in an acquittal on

all but `the resisting arrest

charge, upon which she was

found guilty. Unfortunately for

Miss Woelkers her trial occurred

before a State Supreme Court de-

cision holding that the resisting

arrest law can only be applied

to cases in which the arrest is

lawful.

Child Care Credential

After her conviction Miss

Woelkers applied for a state

Child Care Center credential.

had ever been arrested and she

replied in the affirmative. Never-

theless, she was granted the cre-

dential. But now Miss Woelkers

has become a victim of Max Raf-

ferty's campaign to purge the

state of any -credential-holders

who have been arrested or con-

victed of a criminal offense.

No Misconduct

An administrative hearing has

been held on the proposed revo-

cation of the credential. At the

hearing, Paul Halvonik, repre-

senting Miss Woelkers, main-

tained that there was no evidence

to support any of the charges of

misconduct on Miss Woelkers'

part and that, on the contrary

the weight of the evidence sug-

gested that Miss Woelkers had

been the victim of a severe and |

unprovoked beating by the San

Francisco Police Department.

Halvonik further contended that

a resisting arrest conviction was

irrelevant to the question of

whether one can properly teach

at a Child Care Center and that

any revocation of Miss Woelkers'

credential would violate the due

process clause of the Fourteenth

Amendment,

The first right of a citizen

Is the right

To be responsible

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION

-OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA

JOIN TODAY

B 151

Patron Membership ....... ee ..- $100

Sustaining Membership ............5-000+ oo. . = 50.

Business and Professional Membership ............. 25

Family Membership .............. Se Foe 15

Annual Membership ....... Sie Gurls Se eta ee oO

Student Membership ..... See wile earns 20

ACLU News Subscription ..... `ae .. $2.50

Contributions are deductible for income tax purposes

NAME

ADDRESS and ZIP CODE .........

TELEPHONE NUMBER ...........

$03 Market Street

ecooeeeeoeeeoeoeo eee oe ee eo eo

eoecceoeoe ee eee oe eee eee eooee eo (R)

Sb AMT. ENCLOSED..........

San Francisco, 94105

All contributions tax deductible.