vol. 34, no. 2

American

Civil Liberties

Union

Volume XXXIV

SAN FRANCISCO, FEBRUARY, 1969

No. 2

State Supreme Court

Challenge

Validity Of

Abortion Law

ACLUNC, together with the ACLU of Southern Cali-

fornia, the national ACLU, the Association for the Study of

Abortion and the California Committee to Legalize Abortion,

has filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the California Supreme

Court challenging the constitutionality of laws which restrict

women from terminating preg-

nancies.

Sou. Cal. Physician

The brief was filed in support

of Dr. Leon Belous, a Southern

California physician, who is ap-

pealing a conviction of violating

Penal Code Section 274. 274

made it unlawful to procure an

abortion unless it was necessary

to preserve life; Belous was

found guilty of supplying a pa-

tient with the name of a person

who performed abortions other

en those necessary to preserve

e.

Section 274 was amended in

1967 to permit therapeutic abor-

tions to be performed by li-

censed physicians in situations

other than those necessary to

preserve the life of the patient.

Although the Belous case deals

with a law that has been sub-

stantially amended the thrust

of the friend-of-the-court brief

urges the adoption of a constitu-

tional rule that would invalidate

any statute which interfered

with the right. of a woman, in

consultation with her physician,

to terminate a pregnancy during

the early stages. The brief con-

tends that "The fundamental

right to determine whether to

bear offspring should be within

the scope of the increasing area

of personal rights protected from

unwarranted state interference.

Probably nothing, except death

itself, can affect a woman's life

more seriously than enforced

_ bearing of children and enforced

responsibility for them for per-

haps the remainder of her and

their lives. If woman is viewed

as an individual entity, and not

a vessel for propagation, without

Court-Martial

For Stockade

Protesters

The Sixth Army has decided

to proceed with the court-mar-

tial of twenty-seven Stockade

prisoners who, on the morning

of October 14 1968, staged a

sitdown protest against the shot-

gun killing of a fellow inmate

and the appalling conditions at

the Stockade. The protesters

are charged with "mutiny," a

capital offense, in that they are

alleged to have disobeyed an

order with the intent to "over-

ride" military authority.

As mutinies go the Stockade

incident wasn't much of one.

The Army's evidence at a pre-

liminary hearing revealed that

the prisoners chanted, sang, at-

tempted unsuccessfully to read

a list of grievances (grievances

that were, according to the Ar-

my's own "personnel, well-found-

ed) and returned peacefully to

the barracks when escorted

there by the military police.

Nesrey Sood, one of the de-

fendants, is represented by staff

counsel Paul Halvonik; his court-

martial is scheduled to begin

on February 6,

doubt each time she determines

to bear or not to bear a child

she is making perhaps the most

fundamental choice of her life."

Church and State Issue

The brief also maintains that

laws interfering with a woman's

right to terminate a pregnancy

are laws respecting an estab-

lishment of religion in violation

of the separation of church and

Amendment, Noting that _ the

only purpose of anti-abortion

laws is the advancement of a par-

ticular religious view about the

nature of conception, the brief

states "It is of the very es-

sence of our constitutional sys-

tem that an ecclesiastical propo-

sition cannot afford a constitu-

tional basis for a civil law, the

primary purpose and effect of

which is the perpetuation of a

religious dogma. The mainten-

ance of the abortion law on the

ground that abortion destroys

a human being is an imposition

of a religious dogma, now advo-

cated primarily by certain relig-

ious groups, and is an establish-

ment of religion...."

Counsel

The amicus curiae brief was

principally prepared by Norma

G. Zarky, a volunteer attorney

for the ACLU of Southern Cal-

ifornia. Paul Halvonik and vol-

unteer attorney Howard Jewel

appear on the brief as attorneys

for ACLUNC.

Anti-Poster Law

To Be Challenged

In Superior Ct.

San Francisco has an ordi-

nance making it unlawful to af-

fix a poster to a utility pole

without first securing a permit

from the Department of Public

Works, Last October Judge Jan-

et Aitken of the Municipal

Court held the ordinance un-

constitutional on its face be-

cause, since it contains no stand-

ards to guide the permit grant-

ing authority, it gives the De-

partment of Public Works the

power to censor posters.

Judge Joseph Kennedy, of the

same Municipal Court, in a de-

cision rendered without opinion

has disagreed with Judge Ait-

ken and held the ordinance con-

stitutional. Judge Kennedy's rul-

ing came in the case of seven

San Francisco State College stu-

dents arrested for allegedly af-

fixing to utility poles posters

dealing with the student strike.

The trial of the students is now

set for late February; however,

their attorney, staff counsel Paul

Halvonik (who also represented

the defendants in the case be-

fore Judge Aitken) will ask the

Superior Court to stop the trial

on the ground that the ordinance

is unconstitutional and because

there is a division of opinion

in the Municipal Court.

"The Beard'

In the State

Supreme Court

A petition has been filed in

the Supreme Court of California

asking that Court to prohibit the

prosecution of Billie Dixon and

Richard Bright. The petitioners

are actors whom the City of San

Francisco wishes to prosecute

for performing a "lewd" act; the

act was the performance of

Michael McClure's play "The

Beard," a play which concludes

with a simulated act of oral cop-

ulation.

Lower Court Reversed

An earlier request to stop the

prosecution was granted by San

Francisco Superior Court Judge

Joseph Karesh but the Court of

Appeal] reversed Karesh's ruling.

The petition now before the

Supreme Court asks it to en-

dorse the Karesh decision.

ACLU Argument

The petition, prepared by

staff counsel Paul Halvonik and

Charles Marson, takes the po-

sition that the Penal Code pro-

hibition of a "lewd act" was

never intended to apply to plays.

Plays are expression protected

by the First Amendment to the

Constitution and should be gov-

erned by the laws relating to

"obscenity" not by laws dealing

with sexual perversion. The play

"The Beard" is clearly not, ac-

cording to current legal stan-

dards, obscene. If the play is

not obscene it is difficult to

see how a performance of the

play can be obscene.

To that argument the Court

of Appeals responded: "The po-

sitions and motions oi the per-

formance, the duration of the

act, the accompanying dialogue

and all of the circumstances,

taken together with the context

of the entire work, may estab-

lish an imitation of an actual'

deed to be obscene." That an-

swer, however, is really not re-

sponsive. The simulated act

must be considered in context,

it cannot be isolated. The Court

of Appeal may be suggesting

that no real performance of the

play occurred but simply trap-

pings surrounding a "lewd" act.

But, as the petition urges, the

defendants "should know before

any trial whether the charge is

that they performed "The

Beard" or whether the charge

is that they did not perform

`The Beard'."

Alcoholism Challenge

Budd Case Goes

To Federal

Court of Appeals

A challenge to the constitutionality of California's public

drunkenness statute as applied to a chronic alcoholic has now

moved to the United States Court of Appeals.

The challenge is being made on behalf of Thomas Budd,

a chronic alcoholic who has a record of thrity-six drunk

arrests; it was begun in the Oak-

land Municipal Court when then

staff counsel Marshall Krause

argued that a law against public

drunkenness, when applied to

an alcoholic, punished the al-

coholic not for a crime volunta-

rily committed but for a disease.

The trial court ruled against

Budd, the Superior Court up-

held that determination, the ap-

pellate courts of California de-

clined to pass on the question

and the United States Supreme

Court, Justices Douglas and For-

tas dissenting, refused to re-

view the case. A writ of habeas

Ban Punitive

Induction of

Divinity Student

The U. S. Supreme Court re-

cently decided that a draft board

may not revoke the exemption

from military service of a divin-

ity student because he returned

his registration certificate to the

Government in order to express

his dissent from the participa-

tion by the United States in the

Vietnam war.

Despite a statutory prohibition

against pre-induction judicial re-

view, the court allowed the reg-

istrant te bring suit te restrain

his induction. "To hold that a

person deprived of his statutory

exemption in such a blatantly

lawless manner must either be

inducted and raise his protest

through habeas corpus or defy

induction and defend his refusal

' in a criminal prosecution is to

construe the Act with unneces-

sary harshness."

In another decision, however,

the court held that preinduction

judicial review of a draft board's

action in a case where conscien-

tious objector claims had been

asserted had to be deferred until

after induction or until defense

of a criminal prosecution,

The divinity student was

James J. Oesteriech. His case

was handled by attorneys for the

ACLU.

No Fees Paid

Indigent Finally Allowed

To File a Civil Law Suit -

Leonard Glaser, after eight months of legal maneuvering,

has finally been allowed to file a civil law suit as a pauper

(and without prepayment of fees) in the Superior Court in

San Francisco.

Glaser, who has spent more than three years in prison

for possessing marijuana, at-

tempted last April to file a law-

suit against Police Chief Cahill

and others in order to have the

marijuana laws declared uncon-

stitutional. Since he was indigent,

he attempted to file the suit in

forma pauperis. Presiding Judge

Charles Peery refused to sign an

order permitting him to file the

suit, claiming that his affidavit

of poverty was insufficient and,

and, at any rate, the suit had

no merit.

: ACLU Intervention

At this point ACLUNC filed a

petition in the Court of Appeals

attempting to force Judge Peery

to sign the order. ACLUNC's

brief argued that the affidavit of

poverty was sufficient, that there

was no judicial purpose served

in reviewing the merits of the

suit before it was filed, and that

the result of the procedure was

to deny Glaser a hearing, a rec-

ord, and an appealable order, in

violation of the Equal Protection

Clause of the Fourteenth Amend-

ment.

New Judge

The petition was denied with-

out a hearing, and the California

Supreme Court refused to review

the case. ACLUNC then filed a

civil rights suit in the Federal

District Court against Judge

Peery individually. This action

seemed close to success at the

end of the year, when Judge

Peery was replaced as Presiding

Judge by Judge Edward O'Day.

Glaser returned to the court, and

was permitted by Judge O'Day

to file his action,

corpus was then filed in the Fed-

eral District Court.

Supreme Court Divided

While the petition for habeas

corpus was pending in the Fed-

eral Court the United States Su-

preme Court agreed to review a _.

case raising similar issues. That

case, Powell v. Texas, was de-

cided last spring by the United

States Supreme Court. The Su-

preme Court divided 4-1-4 in af-

firming the conviction of a

chronic alcoholic for public

drunkenness. Four justices de-

clared that such a conviction did

not violate the prohibition

against cruel and unusual pun-

ishment, four dissented and de-

clared that it was cruel and un-

usual punishment, and the ninth,

Justice White, left the matter

open to be decided on the facts

of each case. White stated that

the pivotal question was whether

the particular defendant could

resist becoming intoxicated and

being in public. If the defend-

ant's conduct was not at al] vol-

untary then, in White's view, a

conviction for public drunken-

ness would be cruel and unusual

punishment. White did not find

sufficient evidence in the Powell

record to disclose that Powell

had not become voluntarily

drunk and had not voluntarily

appeared in public.

Federal Hearing in Budd

After the Powell decision the

Budd matter came on for hear-

ing before Federal District Court

Court Judge Oliver Carter who

found Budd's conviction consti-

tutional on the authority of the

Powell decision. Judge Carter's

decision has been appealed and

the opening brief, prepared by

volunteer attorney George F.

Duke, has been filed. The brief

distinguishes Budd's case from

that of Powell by emphasizing

that the medical testimony in

Budd's trial established that he

had no control over his drink-

ing and that his pattern of con-

duct when drunk was uncon-

trollable.

Inability to Act

~ Budd's case was further dis-

tinguished from Powell by the

fact that the California and

Texas laws are different. The

Texas law under which Powell

was convicted made it a crime

to be drunk in public; the Cali-

fornia law, however, makes it

unlawful for a person to be in-

toxicated in public "in such a

condition that he is unable to

-Continued on Page 3

Office

Volunteers

Needed

As part of the 1969 member-

ship drive, the Branch Office

in San Francisco needs volun-

teers to process the names of

prospective members, This re-

quires the checking of the

names of prospects against the

files and typing stickers and

_ affixing them to cards.

Members able te donate a

few hours during the day will

be most welcome. There is no

need to make appointments.

Just drop in. The Office, at

First and Market Streets, is

convenient to public transpor-

tation.

By-Laws

American Civil Liberties Union

of Northern California, Inc.

ARTICLE I

Name

The name of this organization

shall be the American Civil Lib-

erties Union of Northern Cali-

fornia, Inc.

ARTICLE II

Headquarters

The headquarters of the Union

shall be in San Francisco.

ARTICLE Ill

Affiliation

This organization shall func-

tion as an affiliate of the Amer-

ican Civil Liberties Union, Inc.,

of New York.

ARTICLE IV

Object

Its object shall be to maintain

the rights of free speech, free

press, free assemblage and other

civil rights and to take all legiti-

mate action in furtherance of

such purposes, The Union's ob-

ject shall be sought wholly with-

out political partisanship.

ARTICLE V

Membership and Dues

All persons wishing to further

the purposes of the Union are

eligible for membership. Mem-

bership is established by signing

an application and paying the

annual dues. Dues shall be fixed

by the Board of Directors.

ARTICLE VI

Board of Directors and Officers

la. The direction and admin-

istration of the Union (some-

times called Branch) shall be

under the control of a Board of

Directors of not less than (15)

nor more than (30) members at-

large elected pursuant to Article

VI 1f-1j, plus one representative

member, if elected, from each

chapter in good standing, char-

tered pursuant to Article VIII of

these By-Laws, subject to the

provisions of sub-paragraph e.

Each board member shall be a

member of ACLUNC in good

standing at the time of his nom-

ination, election and service on

the board. The Board of Direc-

tors shall meet once each month,

at a time and place and fixed by

the Chairman, or on request of

five or more of its members.

Nine members of the Board shall

constitute a quorum.

b. Members of the Board of

Directors who fail to attend five

consecutive meetings without ex-

planation may be dropped from

membership in the Board by a

majority vote of all the mem-

bers of the Board, provided, how-

ever, that should a Chapter-

elected member fail to attend

three consecutive meetings of

the ACLUNC Board without suf-

ficient reason, or should he re-

sign during his term, the Chap-

ter Board may appoint a replace-

ment member to fill the unex-

pired term of office. The Branch

board may also appoint persons

to fill the unexpired terms of

members-at-large.

c. Chapter representative mem-

bers are subject to all of the fore-

going and in addition Chapter

representative members shall be

eligible for Branch Board mem-

bership only if: (i) the chapter

charter is in full force and effect;

(ii) the chapter representative

member has been elected by the

membership of the chapter at

`large in an election held pur-

suant to By-Law provisions of the .

chapters previously approved by

the Branch Board of Directors;

(iii) -such chapter representative

has been elected by the member-

ship of each chapter at the same

time and by the same means used

for nominating and electing its

own Chapter Board; (iv) and that

such election of the chapter rep-

resentative has been held be-

ACLU NEWS

FEBRUARY, 1969

Page 2

As Amended July 13, 1967

tween October 1 and March 1 of

any year.

d. The term of office of such a

Chapter-elected member to the

ACLUNC Board shall be one to

three years at the option of each

Chapter and maximum tenure in

office shall be no more than six

years, after which a member

shall again become eligible for

election only after at least one

year's absence from the Board.

e. Subparagraphs f. and g. of

this Article VI shall apply only

to members who are not chapter

representative members.

f. Members at-large of the

Board of Directors shall be

elected for three-year terms,

commencing on March 1 of any

year and are eligible for two full

consecutive three-year terms.

The foregoing limitation shall

not apply to an incumbent chair-

man of the board; however, nine

years shall be the maximum

served in any event. Prior elec-

tion to unexpired terms shall be

permissible in addition to the

two full terms. After having

served two consecutive terms,

members shall again become eli-

gible for election only after at

least one year's absence from the

board, and they shall continue to

be eligible for election for pe-

riods of two full consecutive

three-year terms, so long as such

periods of service are interrupt-

ed by at least one year's absence

from the Board.

g. An exception to the forego-

ing provisions shall be made in

the cases of board members who

served on the original Board of

Directors. After the expiration

of their present terms of office,

said board members shall hold

office for life, with full voting

rights.

h. Each year, at the Septem-

ber meeting of the Board of Di-

rectors, a committee of five per-

sons composed of two members

of the Board of Directors, and

three members of the American

Civil Liberties Union who are

not members of the Board of Di-

rectors, shall be appointed by

the Chairman to serve as a nom-

inating committee to nominate

persons to fill Board of Director

terms expiring during the cur- ~

rent year as well as any unex-

pired terms that may be vacant.

The committee shall report its

recommendations to the Board of

Directors at the February meet-

ing, the proposed nominations of

which shall be subject to ap-

proval or change by the Board

of Directors at the said meeting.

i. Every year, the September

issue of the ACLU NEWS shall

carry an invitation to the Un-

ion's membership to suggest

names to the nominating com-

mittee, and such names must

reach the Union's office not later

than September 30 in order to

receive consideration. The nomi-

nating committee shall consider

such suggestions but shall not

make any nominations until af-

ter September 30.

j. In addition to the foregoing

method of proposing names to

the nominating committee, mem-

bers may make nominations di-

rectly to the Board of Directors

in the following manner: Not

later than January 2 of each

year, nominations may be sub-

mitted by the membership di-

rectly to the Board of Directors,

provided each nomination be

supported by the signatures of

15 or more members in good

standing and be accompanied by

a summary of qualifications and

the written consent of the nomi-

nee,

k. The terms of all Board of

Director members elected at-

large prior to January 1, 1968,

shall be extended from Novem-

ber 1 to March 1 of the next suc-

ceeding year. At the expiration

on November 1, 1967, of the

terms of present interim Board

members elected from the Chap-

ter areas, each chapter Board

shall be authorized to designate

a member of the ACLUNC Board

for the term from November 1,

1967, to March 1, 1968.

2a. The officers of the Union

shall be: a Chairman, three Vice-

Chairmen, a Secretary-Treasurer,

and an Executive Director, who

shall be elected by and hold of-

- fice at the pleasure of the Board

-of Directors.

b. Officers of the Board of Di-

rectors shall be elected annually

for terms beginning March 1.

c. Each year at the January

meeting the chairman shall ap-

point three members of the

Board to act as a Nominating

Committee for officers of the

Board. The committee shall pre-

sent its nominations to the Board

at the February meeting.

3. The Chairman shall pre-

side at all meetings of the mem-

bership and the Board of Direc-

tors and act_in cooperation with

the other officers and with com-

mittees as found necessary or de-

sirable.

4, The Vice-Chairmen shall act

in lieu of the Chairman in event

of the latter's absence or inabil-

ity to serve.

5. The Secretary - Treasurer

shall perform the usual duties of

such an office.

6. The Executive Director shall

conduct the office of the Union,

issue its monthly publication,

maintain minutes of all meetings

of the Union and the Board of

Directors, keep the records of

membership and of receipts and

disbursements, handle all mat-

ters of civil liberties coming to

the attention of the Union be-

tween meetings of the Board of

Directors and report thereon at

the following meeting of the

Board, secure the services of at-

torneys, appear before public

bodies on behalf of the Union,

and perform such other duties as

may be assigned by the Board of

Directors.

7. Such other committees as

may be found necessary or de-

sirable may be elected or ap-

pointed as determined by the

Board of Directors.

ARTICLE VII

Meetings

la. A general membership

meeting shall be held in San

Francisco at least once each year

for the purpose of receiving re-

ports of activities during the pre-

ceding year, and considering

such other business as the Board

of Directors may lay before it.

b. Special meetings of the

members may be called at any

time by a majority of the Board

of Directors or shall be called by

the chairman on the written re-

quest of at least 10 percent of

the membership, Any such peti-

tion and the notice of such meet-

ing shall state the purpose there

of; notice shall be sent 10 days

before the date set for such

meeting. No business other than

that specified in the notice of the

meeting shall be transacted. The

presence of 15 percent of the

membership at any special meet-

ing shall constitute a quorum.

2. Additional membership

meetings for the transaction of

business indicated in the preced-

ing section shall be held at the

call of the Board of Directors.

3. Luncheon, dinner, mass or

area meetings may be held or

lectures may be sponsored, as di-

rected by the Board of Directors.

ARTICLE VIII

Chapters

The Union by a majority vote

"Resisting Arrest'

Conviction

Attacked In

Supreme Court

In November of 1967 Cleophus Brown was stopped by

the Richmond Police for the purpose of giving him a speed-

ing ticket. Brown produced his driver's license and the police

officer wrote out the ticket. What occurred thereafter re-

sulted in Brown being convicted of resisting arrest.

Defense Case

According to the defense tes-

timony at the trial, the officer

demanded that Brown sign the

citation and Brown declined to

do so without first being permit- .

ted to read the citation. The of-

ficer then grabbed Brown,

ripped his coat, threw him to the

ground, and dragged him across

the street on his hands and

knees, bloodying Brown's mouth.

When they reached the squad

car Brown agreed to go to the

_ police station but, because he

was afraid to be alone with his

assailant, refused to enter the

squad car until another police

officer accompanied them.

Self Protection

Another officer was called for

while Brown remained quietly

by the police car, unrestrained

and making no attempt to leave.

When the other officer arrived,

Brown was taken to the station

house. It was the theory of

Brown's trial attorney, Milton

Nason of Berkeley, that Brown's

testimony established that he

had not resisted arrest but had

simply protected himself from

an unlawful assault.

Defense Theory Reported

The trial judge, refused to in-

struct the jury on the defense

theory of the case. The Appel-

of its Board of Directors may

grant a charter to any petition-

ing local group in Northern Cali-

fornia which has given satisfac-

tory evidence of vitality, leader-

ship and devotion to the objec-

tives and program of the Union.

Charters may be revoked for

cause by a two-thirds vote of the

Board of Directors, but only

after a statement of reasons has

been sent by the Board of Di-

rectors to the chapter officers

and members of the chapter

board and a full hearing accord-

ed. Chapter By-Laws shall not

go into effect until they are ap-

proved by the Board of Direc-

tors. The ACLUNC Board of Di-

rectors reserves the right to re-

view the diverse nominating and

electing procedures presently

followed by Chapters if unfore-

seen difficulties arise in apply-

ing the foregoing By-Laws as

they relate to chapter-elected

representatives, and to require

such changes as may be neces-

sary to fulfill its proper respon-

sibility as the governing body of

the corporation.

ARTICLE IX

Rules of Order

Except as covered in the fore-

going, "Roberts Rules of Order,

Revised," shall govern the con-

duct of all meetings of the mem-

bership, the committees and

Board of the Union,

ARTICLE X

Amending By-Laws

These BY-LAWS may be

amended at any meeting of the

Board of Directors by a vote of

a majority of al] the members

of the Board, provided the pro-

posed amendments are first sub-

mitted to the members of the

Board.

late Division of the Contra Costa

Superior Court upheld the trial

court's ruling and held that

Brown's own testimony estab-

lished that he had resisted

arrest.

New Appeal

A habeas corpus petition at-

tacking Brown's conviction was

denied by the Court of Appeal.

Another habeas corpus petition

on behalf of Brown has now

been filed in the California Su-

preme Court. In that petition

Thomas Silk, volunteer ACLU

counsel representing Brown,

argues that:

"Under circumstances like

those in the present case, it is

reasonable to expect citizens

to refuse to place their physi-

cal safety in peril. If a police

officer is capable of beating a

citizen on a public street un-

der the restraining influence

of bystanders, it is reasonable

to expect an escalation of such

violence if the assailant is able

to get the citizen alone. A con-

viction based on the refusal

of a citizen to be left alone

with his assailant is a convic-

tion obtained virtually by en-

trapment. All the police need

do is to use excessive force

and raise it to a level where

the citizen will fear to be left

alone with the officer; if the

citizen refuses to accompany

his assailant alone but asks

that another officer be pres-

ent, he can be prosecuted and

convicted for resisting arrest.

"When the State has,

through the conduct of one of

its officers, deprived a citizen

of his constitutional right not

to be beaten, it is no great

burden to require that the

State provide an independent

police office to accompany the

citizen and the arresting of-

ficer-assailant to protect the

citizen against further depri-

vations-and that it not treat

the citizen's insistence on such

protection as a criminal of-

fense."

| tured. Speakers will include

Mid-Pen. Annual

Meeting Set

For Feb. 27

The Annual Membership

Meeting of the Mid-Peninsula

Chapter of the ACLUNC will

be held at 8:00 p.m. Thursday,

February 27, at the Henry M.

Gunn High School Auditori-

um, 780 Arastradero Road,

Palo Alto.

A panel discussion on "Cri-

sis and Hope at San Francisco

State College" will be fea-

representatives of the dissi-

dent students and faculty, and

the moderator of the panel

will be Stanley Crockett, re-

search sociologist at Stanford

Research Institute and as-

sistant professor at San Fran-

cisco State College.

A IE AS ERD EO SS A EU ST ETE

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

503 Market Street, San Francisco, California 94105, 433-2750

Subcription Rates -- Two Dollars and Fifty Cents a Year

Twenty-Five Cents Per Copy p 151

~ San Francisco State College

ACLU Supports

Teachers

Right To Strike

At the January meeting of the Branch Board the matter

of the right of the San Francisco State College Chapter of the

A.F.T. to strike free of court injunction was placed on the

agenda as an emergency item. The A.F.T. struck the College

on January 6; the Superior Court issued an order temporarily

restraining the strike on Jan-

uary 8. The Board concluded

that, absent a showing of a spe-

cial and compelling state inter-

est, public employees should

have the same right to withdraw

their labor in concert as private

employees.

Court Appearance

Accordingly, staff counsel

Paul Halvonik has appeared as

amicus curiae in support of the

A.F.T, and their attorneys, Vic-

tor Van Bourg and Stewart

Weinberg, at injunction hearings

in the San Francisco Superior

Court. The hearings are to de-

termine whether the temporary

order restraining the strike

should become a permanent in-

junction. In urging that there

be no injunction, Halvonik re-

lied on cases holding that pub-

Draft Card

Burning

e

Cases in Doubt

ACLUNC is defending two

young men who allegedly burn-

ed their draft cards. Neither has

come to trial, although seven-

teen months have passed since

Jack Peet supposedly offended

the law, and nineteen months

since Burton Marks is said to

have done the same, In January

ACLUNC moved to dismiss both

eases, arguing that the defen-

dants' rights to a speedy trial

under the Sixth Amendment

and to due process under the

Fifth Amendment had been vio-

lated by the delays. In addition;

in the Peet case ACLUNC point-

ed out that Peet was accused

of burning his Notice of Classi-

fication, not his draft card (des-

cribed by the statute as a "cer-

tificate"), and argued that it is

an unconstitutional infringement

_ of freedom of speech to outlaw

the burning of a notice of clas-

sification.

These arguments were heard

by Judge Albert Wollenberg of

the Federal District Court but

not decided; instead, the judge

set a hearing in February at

which the government may show

its reasons for the delays, Mean-

while, the trials have been post-

poned, over ACLUNC's objec-

tions.

Real Estate

License Secured

In Pot Case

David Carter recently moved

from Montana to California, He

has been arrested for possession

of marijuana in Montana, but his

case has not yet come to trial.

Carter, a real estate salesman,

applied to the Real Estate Board

for a license to sell. When the

Board indicated that they were

considering denying the license

on the basis of the unresolved

marijuana arrest, Carter con-

tacted the ACLUNC.

After lengthy discussions with

counsel for the Real Estate

Board, in which ACLUNC point-

ed out that very little was left of

the presumption of innocence or

of due process if Carter could be

punished before he was convicted

of a crime unrelated to his abil-

ity or integrity as a real estate

agent, Carter was granted a

license,

lic employees are entitled to the

same constitutional rights as

other citizens.

No Public Danger

Public employees, as first-class

citizens, should have the same

rights as other citizens unless

the exercise of their rights poses

some special danger to the com-

munity. Strikes by policemen or

firemen might pose such a spe-

cial danger to the safety of the

community but a strike by col-

lege teachers does not. A strike

by college teachers, true enough,

is a great inconvenience but so

are strikes by telephone opera-

tors and cab drivers.

Free Speech Violation

ACLUNC also has attacked the

temporary restraining order as

an overbroad violation of the

right of free speech. The order

enjoins the union, members and

persons in concert with the

members, from "inducing a

strike," "picketing in advocacy

of a strike" or "giving any no-

tice stating or implying that

such a strike exists." The latter

restraint makes it unlawful to

state something which is in fact

the case.

At this writing San Francisco

Superior Court Judge Rolph has

yet to decide whether college

teachers have the right to strike.

Obscenity |

Victory in

High Court

The California Supreme Court

has reversed a San Francisco

Municipal Court judgment find-

ing Larry Panchot guilty of dis-

tributing obscene material. The

high court found that, as a mat-

ter of law, the material (pictures

of nude females) distributed by

Panchot is protected by the Free

Speech guarantees of the First

Amendment. In its opinion the

Court made it crystal clear that

pictures of nude human beings,

absent "graphic depiction of

sexual activity," are not obscene.

Friend of the Court

Panchot was represented by

San Francisco attorney Milt

Stern. ACLUNC participated in

the case as a friend of the court.

Marshall Krause and volunteer

attorney Eugene Rosenberg ap-

peared in the lower courts and

staff counsel Paul Halvonik filed

a brief and argued the case be-

fore the Supreme Court on be-

half of ACLUNC,

ACLU Position

ACLUNC took the position not

`only that the pictures were not

obscene but that the conviction

was procedurally infirm because

of the failure of the prosecution

to introduce expert testimony

on the question of whether the

pictures violated "contemporary

community standards." Since the

Court found the pictures not ob-

scene it did not become neces-

sary for it to pass on the question

whether the prosecution must,

in an obscenity prosecution, in-

troduce expert evidence that the

allegedly obscene material ex-

ceeds contemporary community

standards. In a decision rendered

a month before Panchot, how-

ever, the Supreme Court adopted

such a rule. TTT.

ACLU Policy Statement |

'

Government Employees

And the Right to Strike

Last month ACLUNC appeared as a friend of the court

in opposing issuance by the San Francisco Superior Court of

an order to prevent the members of the American Federa-

tion of Teachers at San Francisco State College from striking.

That appearance was based on ACLU's long-standing policy

of supporting the right of public

employees to organize and to

strike except where a _ strike

would endanger the public

health, safety and welfare. Of

course, the ACLUNC takes no

position on the merits of a strike

or the wisdom of calling it.

ACLU's policy statement spe-

cifically supports the right of

teachers to organize and to

strike.

Following is the text of the

ACLU policy declaration:

Government Employment

a) Government employees, like

other members of the commun-

ity, are entitled by the rights of

free speech and association to

protect their interests through

self-organization: to form or to

join organizations through which

to negotiate with their superior

officers concerning terms and

conditions of employment, or

through which to seek legislative

consideration of their desires.

The right to strike may not be

denied to public employees any

more than to private employees,

even if a strike should cause

great inconvenience to the pub-

lic. In those very few areas where

even momentary interruption of

service could lead to great catas-

trophe-as in a strike by munici-

pal firemen or policemen, for ex-

ample-limitations of the right

to strike may be appropriate, but

only when and if adequate ma-

chinery for handling employer-

employee relations has been es-

tablished. Such an alternative

procedure must include:

- (1) effective grievance machin-

ery, with arbitration as a

terminal step if necessary,

to handle complaints of al-

leged violations of legisla-

tive rules or of administra-

tion-employee agreements;

permission for public em-

ployees, acting through

their chosen representa-

tives, to seek revision of

rules, pay, or other terms

of employment; and

provision for the appoint-

ment of a fact-finding

board to inquire into prob-

lems that threaten a ma-

jor impairment of em-

ployee morale that might,

in other circumstances,

-_ lead to a strike and a nego-

tiated settlement.

It must be emphasized, how-

ever, that even partial curtail-

ment of the right to strike can

be justified only to prevent pub-

lie disaster.

b) Like other occupational

groups in an industrial society,

ever concerned with the main-

tenance of living standards,

teachers should be free to join

unions of their own choosing,

whether locally organized or part

of a nation-wide federation. The

right to participate in union ac-

tivity should include the right to

strike. A teachers' strike cannot

(2)

(3)

ordinarily be interpreted as en-

dangering the public health, safe-

ty, or welfare, Where laws for-

bidding strikes by teachers exist,

teachers and their organizations

are justified in taking all steps

necessary {0 test their constitu-

tionality and to work for their

repeal.

Welfare Recipients

Seek Hearings

Before Stopping

Payments

The American Civil Liberties has urged the U.S. Supreme

Court to broaden its review of lower court rulings on due

process rights for welfare recipients. On appeal before the

high court is the California case of Mae Wheeler whose

assistance checks under the federally financed program of

Aid to the Aged were cut off

summarily contends the ACLU

in its friend of the court brief.

New York Case

The ACLU asks the Court to

consider the facts and the favor-

able ruling in a similar New

York case of Kelly v Wyman.

The Wheeler and Kelly cases are

the only two welfare prior hear-

ing cases to have reached a de-

cision before a three-judge fed-

eral court, The ACLU brief in-

troduces to the `attention of the

U. S. Supreme Court the text of

the ruling in Kelly v. Wyman

articulated for the Court by U.

S. Circuit Court Judge Wilfred

Feinburg.

Lived on Handouts

Judge Feinburg cites the case

of Mrs. Esther Lett as a typical

example of what must be avoid-

ed. When her welfare payments

were suddenly stopped, Mrs. Lett

and her four children lived on

handouts from neighbors. She

and her children eventually en-

tered a hospital after eating

spoiled food which was their |

only meal that day. She later

went to a local center for emer-

gency aid and fainted due to

lack of food. After waiting eight

hours, she was given fifteen dol-

lars to feed herself and four

children.

Mistakes Not Rare

Similarly, Mrs. Angela Velez, -

when her welfare payment was

stopped, moved with her four

children into a relative's apart-

ment who had nine children and

who was on welfare. Consequent-

ly, thirteen children and two

adults were living in one apart-

ment. In both cases, it was de-

termined months later that the

payments should not have been

stopped. The fact that such mis-

takes are not rare, Judge Fein-

burg found "startling."

Judge Feinburg states in the

Budd Case Goes

To Federal |

Court of Appeals

Continued from Page 1-

exercise care for his own safety

or the safety of others." This

extra condition in the California

law makes simple inability to act

a crime. If the inability of an al-

coholic to care for himself or

others can be made a crime then

the inabilities to "act" created

by any other disease could equal-

ly be made a crime. Moreover,

the criminal standard of "in-

ability to exercise care for one's

own Safety or the safety of

others" is unconstitutionally

vague. There is no criterion of

what degree of care the individ-

ual is required to be able to

exercise without violating the

law. Does one comply with the

law, for example, if he can safely

find his way home after a taste

at the local tavern or must he be

able to rescue an invalid from

a fire?

The Budd brief concludes

with the following remark:

`Criminal prosecution of

persons like Mr. Budd cannot

stand scrutiny. Such futile

abuse of pathetically sick

people has become a thought-

less social habit, a remnant of

an outmoded morality which

brands alcoholism a voluntary

vice..."

written decision that ". . . to

cut off a welfare recipient in

the face of this kind of `brutal

need' without a prior hearing of

some sort is unconscionable. .. ."

He also stated that "The obvious

fact is that there is no way

truly to make whole a recipient

like Mrs. Velez for the indignity

of living with her sister and

thirteen children in one apart-

ment because of a wrongful ter-

mination. The equally obvious

remedy is to take greater care to

prevent such injustice before it

occurs."

Vague Procedures

The ACLU brief argues that

safeguards must be provided be-

cause many of the standards and

procedures in the welfare sys-

tem are vague and in conflict

with each other leaving answers

to crucial questions up to the

individual caseworker. The wel-

fare agencies are generally in-

adequate, overworked and~insuf--

ficiently trained, yet staff mem-

bers make decisions ranging

from whether to give a special

grant for clothing to whether

the regular payments should be

stopped altogether.

Frequent inspections and

searches of homes, intrusive

questioning, and requests for

self-incriminating answers vi0-

late other Constitutionally pro-

tected freedoms. Welfare recipi-

ents seldom object to these prac-

tices because such an objection

could threaten their regular

grants. Under such circum-

stances, the brief argues, when

welfare recipients do organize

and petition welfare depart-

ments for redress of grievances,

their: First Amendment rights

are threatened as well.

The Remedies

The New York three-judge

panel, in unanimous decision, in-

dicates what the remedies are. A

hearing must be provided before

the payments are stopped, and

this hearing must meet Due Pro-

cess requirements such as notice

of the true reasons for cutting

off a welfare grant; an opportun-

ity to appear in person with evi-

dence; cross-examination of wit-

nesses whose reliability the re-

cipient questions; a decision

based solely on the evidence

which the recipient has review-

ed; and finally, the reviewing

official must be impartial. A

trial type hearing which is now

provided months after termina-

tion of welfare grants must still

be continued, However, such a

trial without a pre-termination

hearing as well does not satisfy

Due Process requirements in a

situation of "brutal need."

Fair Treatment

The Wheeler and Kelly cases

provide an opportunity for the

U.S. Supreme Court to require

states to administer federally fi-

nanced programs in a uniform

manner consistent with Constitu-

tional rights. The ACLU brief

asks the Court to ". . . close the

gap between the harsh actuali-

ties of welfare administration ...

and abiding constitutional guar-

antees of fair and equal. treat-

ment."

ACLU NEWS

FEBRUARY, 1969

Page 3

1969 Legislature

Difficult Year

Ahead For

Civil Liberties

The legislative session has opened in Sacramento in mass

confusion. The Republicans, for the first time in many years,

control both houses. Consequently, both houses are being

totally reorganized by the Republican leaders. The month of

January was consumed in jockeying for power, selection of

committees and their chairmen,

and no small amount of inter-

and intra-party warfare.

The Senate

In the Senate, after the elec-

tion, the party balance was 20-

20. On New Year's Day, how-

ever, Senator George Miller Jr.

(D-Contra Costa) died; a special

election will soon be held for |

his seat. The expected candi-

dates are George Miller III, who

is a 23-year old law student but

has been active in Democratic

politics in Contra Costa County

for several years, and John Nej-

edly, the District Attorney and

a Republican. Until that election,

the Republicans hold a tiny 20-

19 margin. :

President Pro Tem.

Hugh Burns, a Democrat and

for many years President pro

tempore of the Senate, has been

allowed to remain in that of-

fice at the pleasure of the Re-

publicans (who could not agree

on a candidate of their own).

Burns, a conservative, who en-

dorsed Nixon in 1968, was sup-

ported for the most part by all

but four Republicans, and was

rejected by eight of his own

party in a revolt led by George

Moscone of San Francisco, The

_ parliamentary procedure under-

lying Burns' continuation in of-

fice is such that the Republicans

may remove him whenever they

wish,

The Senate committees have

been announced. The Senate has

traditionally been more conserv-

ative and more hostile to civil

liberties than the assembly: this

tendency will be worsened this

year, A great deal of repressive

legislation can be expected to

gain approval from the Senate

this session.

The Assembly :

The Republicans' margin of

power in the Assembly hangs

by a hair; presently the balance

is 41-39. This has meant that

Jesse Unruh has been deposed

from his position as Speaker,

and that Bob Monogan (R-Tracy)

has become the Speaker and the

single most powerful member

of the Assembly. The Speaker,

among his other duties, names

all committees, their chairmen,

and their composition. By the

time this article is printed he

will have done so, and, judging

by present indications, the Dem-

ocrats will be extremely unhap-

Committee Chairmen

Monogan announced his com-

mittees and their chairmen on

Thursday, January 23, He award-

ed 15 of 21 chairmanships to

members of his own party. Al-

ready Democrats are claiming

that this is far too greedy an

arrangement, in view of the Re-

publicans' slim majority. They

point to the "Unruh Years," in

which Republicans had a great-

er proportion of committee

chairmanships when the Demo-

cratic majority was similarly

narrow. Some are threatening

retaliation by deliberately hold-

ing up measures requiring more

than a majority vote (such as

the budget) as a power tactic to

achieve more equitable repre-

sentation.

Criminal Procedure Comm.

Although the members of the

ACLU NEWS

Page 4

various committees have not yet

been named, a great deal of spec-

ulation has occurred - most

notably over the Criminal Pro-

cedure Committee. W. Craig

Biddle (R-Riverside) has chaired

the Committee in the past; its

membership has been balanced

5-5 between the parties, Biddle

has become Majority Floor Lead-

er, and Frank Murphy (R- Santa

Cruz) has been appointed chair-

man by Monogan. It is rumored

that Biddle will remain on the

committee, which may be ex-

panded to include another Re-

publican.

Repressive Measures

_ Few bills are being considered

yet, but those already introduced

indicate the direction the legis-

_lative battles will take this year.

There is a rash of obscenity bills,

many of which aim at protecting

children from "harmful matter"

-a somewhat circular approach.

The Government strongly sup-

ports these bills. Several bills

will propose allowing local gov-

ernments to pass ordinances

making illegal conduct that the

state Penal Code does not pro-

hibit, such as topless dancing.

Perhaps the largest single group

' of bills attempts to suppress dis-

turbances on state college and

university campuses by providing

for arrest and/or suspension

and expulsion of those who "wil-

fully disrupt" the "peaceful con-

duct of the activities" of colleges

or universities. A fourth group

of bills will aim at establishing

wiretapping authority for police

departments, These proposals al-

most certainly will provoke a.

- floor fight.

Pro-Civil Liberties Bills

Legislation favorable to civil

liberties rarely landed in the

hopper this month. Assembly-

man Alan Sieroty (D-Beverly

Hills) introduced a bill to abolish

the death penalty; its chances

of success are slight. Senator

Moscone will try. again with his

bail reform proposals. Most of

the effort, however, will neces-

sarily be defensive. This prom-

ises to be a difficult year for

civil liberties-Charles Marson.

-Supreme Court

Asked to Review

`Nuisance' Law

The Supreme Court of Cali-

fornia has been asked to pass

on the constitutionality of Cali-

fornia's law making it a mis-

demeanor to "maintain or com-

mit" a public nuisance.

The Code defines a nuisance,

in part, as "anything (which)

unlawfully obstructs the free

passage or use, in the customary

manner, of any public park,.

square, street or highway."

Judge Robert Drewes of the

San Francisco Superior Court

ruled that the law was intended

to reach obstructions by inani-

mate objects and could not con-

stitutionally be applied to per-

sonal conduct,

Lower Court Reversed

The Court of Appeal over-

ruled Drewes' decision holding

that the nuisance law could be

applied to persons and that such

an application would not make

the statute unconstitutional. The

petition to the Supreme Court,

asking it to vacate the Court of

Appeal decision, has been filed

on behalf of Duncan Pain, whom

the City of San Francisco has

charged with being a _ public

nuisance. Pain is represented by

Paul Halvonik and cooperating

attorney Ephraim Margolin.

Inanimate Things

The petition supports Judge

Drewes' ruling and contends

that the word "anything" does

not include people. There are

other laws on the books less

vague and more precisely drawn

which prohibit malicious block-

ing of streets and sidewalks by

persons. The very existence of

such laws indicates that the leg-

islature intended the nuisance

law to be applied only to the

maintenance of inanimate things

which block streets, parks and

sidewalks. The contrary -deci-

sion of the Court of Appeal re-

sults, because of the vagueness

of the "obstruction" language

in the nuisance law, in the po-

lice having the power to deter-

mine what are the proper uses

of the sidewalks.

Free Speech Area

Sidewalks are a most impor-

tant forum for communication.

Sidewalks are the places on

which persons who do not have

access to the mass media ex-

press their views. They are the

places where labor unions, by

way of picketing and pamphlet-

ing, inform others of labor dis-

putes, They are the places where

young people vend the "under-

ground" newspapers. A_police-

man ought not be able to ar-

rest a newspaper salesman on

the ground that by selling the

newspaper he obstructed the

`""customary free passage" of the

`sidewalk.

Oppose Attorney General

Mitchell's Wiretap Plans

The American Civil] Liberties

Union last month pledged an all-

out fight against the wiretap-

ping, bugging and _ electronic

eavesdropping program announc-

ed by U. S. Attorney General

John N. Mitchell in his appear-

ance for clearance before the

Senate Judiciary Committee.

The ACLU has supported the ~

financial aid promised to state

and local enforcement agencies

by the 1968 Crime Control and

Safe Streets Bill. But, it has

vigorously opposed Title II of

the Act which invades the inde-

pendent judicial powers of the

Supreme Court and Title III

which empowers federal, state

and local agencies to undertake

wiretapping, bugging and elec-

tronic eavesdropping guided by

very loose controls.

Mr. Mitchell indicated that he

would widen the use of wiretaps

and eavesdropping devices, and

that this would distinguish his

Administration from the present

FEBRUARY, 1969 one which has refused on pri-

vacy grounds to use electronic

surveillance in any but national

security investigations.

"We promise Mr. Mitchell a

tough fight," said John de J.

Pemberton, Executive Director

of the ACLU.

"Authorization under the 1968

Act undercuts specific provisions

of the Fourth Amendment

against the uSe of general war-

rants and searches by govern-

ment officials and the basic right

of the citizen to the protection

of his privacy.

"We certainly favor crime con-

trol and safe streets, and legiti-

mate measures to achieve them.

"It is our contention, however,

that the wiretap provisions of

the 1968 Act and Mr. Mitchell's

stated intention to broaden use

of them are dangerous, heavy-

handed intrusions by govern-

ment into the private lives of

individuals and we intend to

seize every possible opportunity

to challenge and test them until

they are overturned," Mr. Pem-

berton concluded.

Selective Service Case

ACLU Defends Objector

To A Particular War

Andrew H. Stewart, Jr.. a New York businessman and

graduate of Yale University, will be defended by the Ameri-

can Civil Liberties Union and the New York Civil Liberties

Union in the first major test of the right of a civilian to claim

selective conscientious objector status. Mr. Stewart refused

induction into the armed serv-

ice in New York City on De-

cember 12.

Basing his refusal equally on

moral and intellectual grounds,

Mr. Stewart has stated:

"I cannot in good conscience

support the use of United

States military force in Viet-

nam, and cannot serve in the

Army in any capacity which

assists this endeavor. Further-

more, I believe that the de-

cision to employ military force

at any other place and time

is a sufficiently serious one to

demand careful consideration

on my part before consenting

to take any part in such ac-

tivity.

"I do not object, however,

to being drafted for the pur-

pose of serving the United

States government, in Vietnam

or anywhere else, provided the

work I am assigned is con-

structive, non-military, and

work for which I am quali-

fied."

This case closely parallels that

of Capt. Dale Noyd, which is also

being handled by the ACLU.

Both men have refused to par-

ticipate in combat activities of

the war in Vietnam without

claiming conscientious objector

status to all wars, however, Capt.

Noyd is a career Air Force offi-

cer and Mr. Stewart is a civilian.

The World Council of Churches,

the Lutheran Church in Amer-

ica, the Conference of Catholic

Bishops, and the American Jew-

ish Congress have all endorsed

the principle of selective con-

scientious objection although it

has failed to receive military or

judicial recognition.

Considered Judgment

Mr. Stewart's conviction that

"we are offering the Vietnamese

nothing intelligent or positive

that would justify the chaos we

have created is the result of this

careful perusal of the coverage

of the war by the mass media,

and of his appraisal of testimony

before Congress.

His decision to act upon his

conviction by refusing to be (c)

drafted is the result of his belief

that it is the responsibility of a

moral person to recognize that

hate and misery are prevalent in

the world, and to act to rectify

the balance, even at cost to one's

self. A Presbyterian, Mr. Stewart

believes that his concept of edu-

cation which acts as a tool for

building a better world is no less

responsible for his stand against

the War than his more formal

religious beliefs.

Of his decision to actively re-

fuse draft induction, he has

idealistic course of action at a

time when to be cynical has so

many advantages, must somehow

reflect the seriousness of my be-

liefs. The confidence that this

decision is an action totally con-

sistent with my deepest religious

feelings as well as my reverence

for the choice of reason over

armed force explains my com-

mitment and the courage to keep

this commitment."

Righis

Of Indigent

Defendants

The Supreme Court of Cali-

fornia has asked the State At-

torney General to answer an

ACLUNC brief which supports

the right of an indigent accused

to have court-appointed and

court-compensated experts and

investigators whenever he can

show that there is a reasonable

possibility that their assistance

can contribute to his exonera-

tion.

Unpaid Counsel

The criminal defendant, David

Major, is represented by Eph-

raim Margolin who, represent-

ing Major without fee, asked the

Superior Court to grant reason-

able costs to cover the expenses

for an investigator and a crimi-

nologist. The Superior Court re-

jected Margolin's contention that

he could not effectively repre-

sent Major unless the motion

were granted. The Court of Ap-

peal upheld the Superior Court

determination and Margolin

sought review in the Supreme

Court,

The Supreme Court has not

as yet agreed to hear the matter

but by requesting the Attorney

General to file a response to the

ACLU brief (a friend-of-the-court

brief filed by Paul Halvonik) it

indicated that it is at least in-

terested in the problem.

ACLU Contentions

The amicus curiae brief con-

tends that the denial of Mar-

golin's motion resulted in: 1) a

denial of due process of law be-

cause it prevents Major from

obtaining a fair trial; 2) a viola-

tion of the equal protection of

the law because the only bar to

Major's properly defending him-

self is his lack of funds; 3) a de-

nial of Major's right to the ef-

fective assistance of counsel;

counsel, after all, cannot assist ef-

fectively in the defense of an

accused if he is denied the ability

to develop and dispute the facts

said: "To be committed to an as presented by the prosecution.

The first right of a citizen

Is the right

To be responsible

ene

SNe

TODAY

1

JOIN

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION

OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA

Patron: Membership'... .:2.2.. 0.0... 2. 9100

Sustaining Membership ............. pe ee 50

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

Family Membership .............. Co =. 15

Annual Membership. .........5........ ee 10

Student Membership ..... ees ia eae es cote

ACLU News Subscription ....... Oe ees oe. $2.00

NAME ...... Bae secs eee gis oe iS eovlene cs ieidiccots 6 o's "ess sv slo's 6 sis "is

ADDRESS and ZIP CODE sere eeececeeee ees oe ene se eceecceces

TELEPHONE NUMBER ........ ee AMT. ENCLOSED...... woes

303 Market Street

San Francisco, 94105