vol. 35, no. 1

American

- Civil Liberties

Union

Volume XXXV

SAN FRANCISCO, JANUARY, 1970. . .

Celebrities and Champagne

(Phone 433-2750.)

Gala Evening To Save

CLU Legislative Program

In an effort to raise funds to continue the legislative ac-

tivity in Sacramento and place it on a secure financial footing,

the ACLU of Northern California plans a gala evening, includ-

ing a gourmet buffet and champagne, to be held on January

26, 1970, at the elegant Le Vivoir Restaurant, at the Casa Ma-

drona Hotel in Sausalito. The affair will begin at 7:00 P.M.

There is sufficient parking in the lot on Bridgeway, with ac-

cess to the restaurant by the stairs immediately opposite.

The contribution to ACLUNC will be $100 a couple, tax

deductible, of course. Although a number of movie stars, writ-

ers, legislators, and other notables have promised to be in

attendance, we hesitate to list their names now, before con-

firming the complete list of celebrities. Many other ACLU af-

filiates have been successful with this sort of affair, and hope-

fully this evening will not only provide funds for our legis-

lative program but be one to remember. For tickets, please

contact the ACLU office, 503 Market St.,

San Francisco.

Invasion of Privacy

ACLU Attacks

State Welfare

ComputerSystem

In the spring of 1968, the State Department of Social

Welfare inaugurated a system for the storage of data in a

computer. It required its social workers to code forms on

each client's name, social] security number, and clinical his-

tory - including such sensitive items as past 0x00B0 psychiatric

diagnosis, family surroundings,

likelihood of future welfare

needs, alcohol and drug prob-

lems.

Invasion of Privacy

Many social workers objected

to this, claiming that the inclu-

sion of the client's name and

social security number linked

with a medical diagnosis was not

only unnecessary but also facili-

tated access to this very private

data by outside agencies and in-

Susanne Savio

Granted

Credential

Mario Savio's wife Susanne ap-

plied for a teaching credential

undtr a double handicap. One

was her husband's reputation;

the other was the fact that she

was twice convicted of misde-

meanors.

Mrs. Savio's first conviction

was for her peaceful participa-

tion in the first Sproul] Hall sit-

in in 1964, The second was a dis-

turbing the peace conviction aris-

ing out of an incident at Santa

Rita in 1967 when Mrs. Savio

was visiting her imprisoned hus-

band. A guard-later disciplined

for brutality during the People's

Park crisis-arbitrarily cut short

Mrs. Savio's visit and arrested

her during the ensuing argu-

ment. Not confident of a fair

trial in the local courts, she

pleaded nolo contendere (no con-

test). 8

The Committee of Credentials

first delayed her application for

nine months, then notified her

that the Board of Education had

tentatively denied her applica-

tion. After a hearing in Decem-

ber at which Mrs. Savio was rep-

resented by ACLUNC Assistant

Staff Counsel Charles Marson,

who claimed that Mrs. Savio's

arrest record was irrelevant to

her fitness to teach and an im-

permissable ground for denial

of a credential, the Committee

voted to grant her application.

dividuals, such as police and pri-

vate interests. Moreover, the De-

partment repeatedly refused to

- state who would be authorized to

use the data, and insisted that

the social workers rely on their

superiors' good intentions.

Two Workers Suspended

This satisfied very few, and as

the dispute dragged on, Mrs.

Josephine Belmont and Mrs.

Glenda Pawsey, both psychiatric

social workers in the San Fran-

cisco office, refused to fill out

the required forms on the

the grounds that to do so would

be a violation of professional

_ethics and an intrusion into the

constitutional rights of privacy

of their clients. Each was sus-

pended for a week without pay.

Clients' Rights Violated

ACLUNC agreed to represent

the two in appealing their sus-

pension, on the ground that the

storage of confidential data in a

computer data system without

rigorous limitation on both au-

thorized and unauthorized access

is a violation of the welfare cli-

ents' constitutional right to pri-

vacy, and that disobedience of

an order to cooperate in such a

violation cannot be grounds for

punishing a public employee. At.

a hearing before a hearing offi-

cer of the State Personnel Board

in September, ACLUNC Assis-

tant Staff Counsel Charles Mar-

son advanced that proposition of

law and made a formal offer to

prove the inadequacies of the

Department's computer system.

The Attorney General, in order

to test the legal theory, objected

to the evidence as irrelevant.

Proceedings are now suspended

while the hearing officer re-

ceives argument on and decides

the admissability of the evi-

dence.

Department Retreats

In the meantime, the Depart-

ment of Social Welfare has, in

the face of constant criticism

from its employees, retreated

from its earlier position and ten-

tatively announced that jt will

No. 1

Conviction Of

Draft Card

Burner Upheld |

The Court of Appeals for the

Ninth Circuit has affirmed the

conviction of Jack Peet for re-

fusing induction and for burn-

ing his Notice of Classification.

Peet was represented at trial

and on appeal by ACLUNC,

What Is a "Certificate?"

Attacking the conviction for

burning his Notice of Classifi-

cation, ACLUNC argued that a

Notice of Classification is not a

"certificate" within the mean-

ing of the statute prohibiting

the destruction of Registration

Certificates or other Selective

Service certificates, and if it is,

the law is an unconstitutional

abridgment of freedom of

speech. The court's opinion

simply held that the Notice was

a certificate, and that prohibit-

ing its destruction is permissi-

ble. The Court also held that

several delays of the case by the

prosecution did not amount to a

denial of a speedy trial because

no prejudice appeared to re-

sult, .

Induction Declined

Then, since Peet was _ sen-

tenced concurrently on the two

counts, the court held that it

did not have to decide the cor-

rectness of the conviction for re-

fusing induction. ACLUNC had

argued that since Peet was

ejected from the physical exam-

ination for refusal to surrender

some leaflets opposing the war

and then inducted as a delin-

quent because he "failed to co-

operate" at the physical, the in-

duction not oniy suffered the

due process defects of a puni-

tive induction but was a direct

violation of the First Amendment.

U.S. Supreme Court

ACLU Seeks

Strike Down F:

Anti-Riot La

The American Civil Liberties Union of Northern Cali-

fornia, together with the National ACLU, contending that

there is a constitutional right to be an "outside agitator",

has filed a brief urging the United States Supreme Court,

to hold the 1968 federal anti-riot law unconstitutional.

Chicago Seven Law

The law, under which the Chi-

cago Seven (the Chicago Eight

minus Black Panther Chairman

Bobby Seale) are currently be-

ing tried, is being challenged by

Larry Carter, Fred Crawford and

Steve Shead, Bay Area Panthers,

who have been held in contempt

of court for refusing to give tes-

timony allegedly relevant to en-

forcement of the anti-riot law to

the Federal Grand Jury sitting

in San Francisco. Federal Dis-

trict Judge Oliver Carter held

the law constitutional.

Ruling Refused

The United States Court of

Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

upheld the contempt citations

but declined to pass on the con-

stitutionality of the law,. ruling

that witnesses before a grand

jury, as distinguished from crim-

inal defendants, cannot challenge

the constitutionality of an Act of

Congress.

ACLU Contentions

The ACLUNC-ACLU brief

contends that the federal anti-

riot law "promises to be the sin-

gle most potent weapon in the

arsenal reserved against those

who dissent," and that the anti-

riot law, which prohibits the use

of interstate facilities with the

"intent to incite to riot' is so

broad that it would include with-

in its sweep a situation in which

"the Secretary of State crosses

Shoultz and Hamilton

U. S. Supreme Court Denies

Review In Two Cases

The United States Supreme Court has declined to exercise

its jurisdiction in two ACLUNC cases.

The cases are Shoultz v. Laird and Hamilton, et al, v.

Municipal Court for the Berkeley-Albany Judicial District.

The Shoultz case involved a security clearance holder

who refused to answer questions

at an "interview" held; before a

Department of Defense investi-

gator. The regulation under

which the interview occurred

provided for no due process

guarantees, such as notification

of charges or the right to con-

front accusers, but did provide

that the failure, on any grounds

to answer questions could result

in the revocation of the security

clearance.

Due Process Issue

Shoultz declined to answer the

questions on the ground that the

regulation violated due process

of law and his security clearance

was revoked but reinstated when

Federal District Judge Robert

Peckham found that the proce-

dure was unauthorized by Con-

gress. The United States Court

of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

reversed Judge Peckham and the

Supreme Court of the United

States, Justices Black and Doug-

change its data processing sys-

tem to satisfy most of the objec-

tions, including deleting clients'

names and social security num-

bers.

Test Case

The problem of "computer pri-

vacy," as it is known, has never

been the subject of court de-

cisions, and this case may be the

first ever to raise the issue in

a constitutional context. The

case will doubtless be finally

decided by the higher courts,

las dissenting, has refused to re-

view that decision.

Hamilton Case

The Hamilton case challenged

the constitutionality of a "gag

rule" issued by Berkeley Munici-

pal Court Judge George Brunn

which prohibited defendants in a

criminal action (arising from a

University sit-in) from making

any public statements about

their case or issues likely to

arise in the trial of their case.

The California Court of Appeal,

in a 2 to 1 decision, upheld the

constitutionality of the gag rule.

First the Supreme Court of Cali-

fornia, Justice Peters dissenting,

and now the United States Su-

preme Court have refused to re-

view that decision. It is not

known at this time whether any

U.S. Supreme Court Justices ex-

pressed a desire to review the

case. =

Silence Through Charges

The issue posed by the Hamil-

ton case, according to staff coun-

sel Paul Halvonik, is one which

the United States Supreme Court

will eventually have to consider.

The Hamilton case was one of

two cases raising the issue be-

fore the court this term. (The

court declined to review the oth-

er case on the same day as its

decision in Hamilton). As things

now stand the government may

silence someone by the simple

expedient of bringing criminal

charges against him.

a state line to keep a speaking

engagement to defend our policy

in Vietnam, knowing that a

group intended to conduct a ri-

otous demonstration if he ap-

peared." Conceding that the Sec-

retary of State is in no real dan-

ger of arrest, the ACLU asks the

question, "But what of the civil

rights leader who goes into a

community knowing that pas-

sions are inflamed and who yet

speaks in the face of a hostile

mob? If the mob resorts to vio-

lence against him, cannot it be

said that he `instigated a riot?'"

Protected Activities

The brief insists that the

Panthers can challenge the con-

stitutionality of the law because

they have a constitutional right

to refuse to answer questions

about their First Amendment

protected activities.

ACLUNC-ACLU filed its brief

in support of a petition present-

ed to the United States Supreme

Court by the Panthers' attorney,

Allan Brotsky of San Francisco.

Fund-Raiser

Luxury San

Francisco

Bay Cruise

The drawing of the two win-

ning tickets for the Bay Cruise

aboard the luxury 90 foot

schooner "Makrele' wil] take

place at the meeting of the

Branch Board of Directors, noon,

Thursday, January 8, at the Ur-

ban Center, St. Mark's Lutheran

Church, 1101 O'Farrell Street,

San Francisco.

Cruise Date

The cruise on the "Makrele" a

Diesel-powered Baltic schooner

will take place either the week-

end of January 24 or January 31,

depending on the weather.

Winners will be guests of the

owners of the `"Makrele,"' Mr.

and Mrs. Paul Ammen and will

decide with them where to sail

and where to dock for the night.

The Ammeng will act as crew

and provide all meals and bever-

ages,

Tickets Stil] Available

Tickets, at $10 each-and tax

deductible, are still available

and may be requested from the

Office at 503 Market Street, San

Francisco. Stubs must be in the

Office no later than 10 a.m.

Thursday, January 8. At noon

that day there will be two draw-

ings. The holder of the win-

ning ticket from the first draw-

ing will (1) obtain two accom-

modations on the "Makrele" and

(2) be entitled to invite another

couple. The holder of the win-

ning ticket in the second draw-

ing will get the two remaining

accommodations.

Purpose of Cruise

The reason for the Ammens'

generosity is their concern for

ACLUNC's current financial

crisis and fear that it will have

to toss overboard some staple

items in its program in order

to stay afloat. Similarly con-

cerned ACLUers may wish to

take pleasant advantage of the

opportunity to help-but they

will have to hurry!

_Three Judge Fed. Court

Test Ban On.

Leafletting On

H.S. Campuses

A three-judge federal court, composed of District Court

Judges Robert Peckham and Alfonso Zirpoli and a judge

from the United States Court of Appeals, has been convened

to hear a challenge to the constitutionality of California Edu-

cation Code sections 9012 and 9013.

Sec, 9012 provides that:

"No publication of a sec-

tarian, partisan, or denomi-

national character, shal] be

distributed, displayed, or

used for sectarian, partisan,

or denominational purposes

on school premises, but such

publications may be used in

school library collections

and for legitimate instruc-

tional purposes."

Propaganda Outlined

Sec. 9013 prohibits the distri-

bution on school premises of any

publication the purpose of which

is to "spread propaganda." It

further prohibits the distribu-

tion on school premises of any

' publication "or article of any

character, the purpose of which ~

is to foster membership in or

Subscription to the funds of any

organization not directly under

the control of the school authori-

ties" unless the organization is

"nonpartisan" and the governing

board of the schoo] district has

approved the distribution.

--~ Campbell High School

The suit was filed last spring

by Everett Rowe, a San Jose at-

torney, on behalf of his son who

had been denied permission by

the Campbell High School Dis-

trict to distribute an "unofficial"

newspaper dealing with school

activities. While the suit is pend-

ing the newspaper is being dis-

tributed pursuant to a restrain-

ing order issued by Judge Peck-

-ham,

ACLUNC staff counse] Paul

Halvonik is participating in the

suit as a friend-of-the-court in ~

support of Rowe. Pre-trial mat-

ters were disposed of last month

and Judge Peckham has an-

nounced that the three-judge

court hearing will likely occur

in January,

Precedents

In attacking sections 9012 and

9013 ACLUNC will rely heavily

on the United States Supreme

Court's decision of last February

in Tinker v. Des Moines High

School District and Judge Peck-

ham's decision in Olff v. East

Side Union High School District.

In Tinker, an Iowa ACLU case,

the Supreme Court held uncon-

stitutional a school regulation

prohibiting the wearing of

anti-war black armbands on a

high school campus, In doing so

the Court said:

In our system, state-operated

schools may not be enclaves

of totalitarianism, School of-

ficials do not possess abso-

lute authority over their stu-

dents. Students in schoo] as

well as out of school are

"persons" under our Consti-

tution, They are possessed

of fundamental rights which

the State must respect, just

as they themselves must re-

spect their obligations to the

State. In our system, stu-

dents may not be regarded

as closed-circuit recipients

of only that which the State

chooses to communicate.

They may not be confined

to the expression of those

sentiments that are officially

approved, In the absence of

a specific showing of consti-

tutionally valid reasons to

regulate their speech, stu-

dents are entitled to free-

dom of expression of their.

views.

Long Hair Case

In Olff, an ACLUNC case,

Judge Peckham held unconstitu-

tional 4 high school regulation

prohibiting long hair on male

students. In that case Judge

Peckham said:

The state in the case at bar

has no such rational ground

for dictating hair style to a

pupil in a general high

school as to support an of-

ficia] order interfering with

his liberty to express in his

own way his preference as

to whatever hair style com-

ports with his personality

and his search for his own

identity.

Vague Regulations

Federal Court Won't

Reinstate Dan Siegel

Federal District Judge William T. Sweigert has declined

to revise his decision refusing injunctive relief to Dan

Siegel, a Boalt Hall law school student who was elected

president of the Associated Students of the University of

California last spring, and who was prohibited from assum-

ing his duties this year be-

cause of University discipline

prohibiting him from participat-

ing in student activities. The dis-

cipline was meted out because of

Siegel's remark, "go down there

and take the (People's) Park,"

made to a rally held at the Uni-

versity on May 15, 1969. The Uni-

versity felt that Siegel had "in-

cited a riot" but punished Siegel

not under a narrowly drawn in-

-citement regulation but under

rules prohibiting such things as

"conduct which adversely effects

the student's suitability as a

member of the academic commu-

nity."

Regulations Attacked

Siegel brought suit in the Fed-

eral District Court challenging

the constitutionality of the Uni-

versity action and contending

that the regulations under which

ACLU NEWS

JANUARY, 1970

Page 2

he was disciplined were too

broad and vague to serve as stan-

dards for punishing an alleged

"incitement."

In October Judge Sweigert, in

a decision denying relief to Sie-

gel, found that his speech was

not First Amendment protected

because it was a "verbal act."

Siegels attorney, Doris Walker

of Oakland, asked Judge Swei-

gert to reconsider his decision

and staff counsel Paul Halvonik

filed a legal memorandum and.

appeared before Judge Sweigert

as a friend-of-the-court in sup-

port of that motion.

Further Appeal

After keeping the matter un-

der submission for a month,

Judge Sweigert has concluded

that his original decision was

correct and, accordingly, has de-

nied Siegel relief. Siegel will

appeal Judge Sweigert's ruling

to the United States Court of

Appeals, ACLUNC will continue

its amicus curiae support.

ACLU Attacks

Insanity Test in

Federal Court

An appeal has been filed in

the Court of Appeals for the

Ninth Circuit on behalf of Bur-

ton Marks, who was convicted

last spring of burning his draft

card. Marks, who suffers from

hypertension and wanted to be

drafted but had twice failed the

physical exam, burned his card

in the offices of his local board

after taking LSD. He was not in-

ducted, and after more than nine-

teen months of mysterious delay,

he was finally indicted.

Law Institute Test

The brief filed on Marks' be-

half, written jointly by Paul Hal-

vonik and Charles Marson, ar-

gues that the Court should dis- -

card the ancient "right-wrong"'

test of criminal responsibility as

an inappropriate, inadequate,

and unjust criterion of criminal

insanity, and substitute a test

adopted in several circuits and

supported by the American Law

Institute, which incorporates

modern psychiatric knowledge

and emphasis volition as well as

cognition-that is, whether a de-

fendant was capable of acting

legally even if he knew his act

was wrong. The test is whether,

at the time of the act, (the de-

fendant) "as a result of mental

disease or defect," lacks substan-

tial capacity either to appreciate

the criminality of his: conduct or

to conform his conduct to the

requirements of law." Such a test

would benefit Marks, who, ac-

cording to psychiatric testimony |

at the trial, knew his act was

wrong but could not prevent

himself from doing it.

Speedy Trial Denied

In addition, the brief argues

that Marks was denied a speedy

trial by the unexplained delay of

nineteen months before his in-

dictment. This plea was denied

in the District Court on the

ground that the defendant could

not show how he was prejudiced

by the delay. The brief argues

that the requirement of preju-

dice should be discarded because

it is almost impossible for a de-

fendant to show how he is preju-

diced, because a true claim of

prejudice would also be a denial

of due process, thereby making

the Sixth Amendment's: speedy

trial guarantee redundant, and

because the courts should use

the speedy trial clause as a tool

to stop unjustified prosecution

delay. Argument will be heard

in the spring.

@

New Interview

@

For Long-Haired

: =

Job Applicant

Last month, John F, Fisher,

the Executive Director of the

State Personnel Board, agreed to

grant a new interview to an ap-

plicant for the position of clerk

who claimed he had been found

unacceptable for State employ-

ment because he refused to cut

his long hair and shave off his

beard.

The disqualification of Gary

Glauberman, a San Francisco

resident, was made by a panel

headed by Edward Less, a rep-

resentative of the Personnel

Board. The ACLU discussed the

matter with Mr, Less and con-

firmed Glauberman's complaint.

The official record, however, dis-

closed that Glauberman had

been disqualified under a regu-

lation requiring neatness and

good grooming,

The ACLU suggested to Mr.

Fisher that the panel had acted

arbitrarily in equating neatness

and good grooming with the ab-

sence of long hair and a beard.

The ACLU was assured that ap-

propriate action would be taken

to secure a proper intepereta-

tion of the particular regulation

in its San Francisco office,

Four ACLU Cases

Report On

State Supreme

Court Action

The California Supreme Court has granted review in a

case in which ACLUNC is seeking a trial transcript, at

county expense, for two indigent criminal defendants. The

defendants are Joy Magezis and Barry Biderman who were

found gulty of "loitering about a school' for their perform-

ance of a play (entitled "Lulu

the Red and the Three Pigs')

hear a San Francisco high

school. After the conviction their

attorney, staff counse] Paul Hal-

vonik, made a motion for a trial

transcript at county expense, ex-

plaining that a transcript of the

trial was necessary to detect the

defendants' rights on appeal and

that, if they were not indigent,

he-would purchase a transcript

at their expense. The Municipal

Court, however, refused to grant

the motion. The Superior Court

and the California Court of Ap-

peal refused to overrule that de-

cision.

In another ACLUNC case, the

habeas corpus petition of Theo-

dore Cox, the State Supreme

Court has issued an order to

show cause which means that the

court will likely consider the

case. Cox is challenging a San

Rafael "anti-hippie" ordinance

which prohibits any person from

remaining upon business prem-

ises after being notified by the

person in charge thereof to re-

move himself,

Marin Municipal Court Judge

Arthur H. Goldstein, Jr., found

the ordinance unconstitutional

and sustained ACLUNC volun-

teer attorney Stanley Friedman's

demurrer to a complaint charg-

ing Cox with failure to leave

business premises. The appellate

department of the Marin Supe-

rior Court, .however, overruled

Judge Goldstein. ACLUNC then

sought pre-trial] habeas corpus

relief for Cox first in the Cali-

fornia Court of Appeal and,

when that was unsuccessful, in

the Supreme Court of California.

In another recent action, the

State Supreme Court has refused

to consider two cases in which

ACLUNC is involved. In one

case, that of Cleophas Brown of

Richmond, the California Court

of Appeal refused to vacate a

misdemeanor conviction for re-

sisting arrest even though the

California Attorney General con-

ceded that the Municipal Court

Judge should have instructed the

jury that Brown had a right to

defend himself from excessive

force employed by police offi-

cers. The Court of Appeal held

that a failure to give proper jury

instructions could not be re-

viewed on habeas corpus.

Defendant's Case _

In the other case, Ruiz v. Su-

perior Court, ACLUNC, as a

-friend-of-the-court in support of

Jerry Levitin, Ruiz's attorney,

had asked the Court of Appeal

to strike down in its entirety a

Superior Court order requiring

a defendant to "make available

for. inspection and copying to

the District Attorney" the names

of any witnesses other than the

defendant. The Court of Appeal -

did hold the order unconstitu-

tional but on the ground that it

called for the names of witness-

es other than those the defend-

ant intended to call. Levitin

asked the Supreme Court. to re-

view the case and hold that the

Fifth Amendment bars the pros-

ecution from discovering. any

witness names. from the defend-

ant. Although the Supreme

Court of California declined to

consider the case, a United

States District Court Judge in

Southern California has recently

held that a defendant need not

divulge any of his case to the

prosecution.

Alfred J. Azevedo

Albert M. Bendich

Leo Borregard

Price M. Cobbs, M.D.

Prof. John Edwards

Jerome B. Falk, Jr.

Prof. Mare Franklin

Robert Greensfelder

Rey. Aron S. Gilmartin

Evelio Grillo

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

Francis Heisler

Neil F. Horton

Daniel N. Loeb

Ephraim Margolin

Dr. John N. Marquis

John R. May

Richard L. Mayers

Martin Mills, M.D.

Richard Patsey

Mrs. Esther Pike

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

Eugene N. Rosenberg.

Mrs. Muriel Roy |

John Brisbin Rutherford

~ Prof. John Searle ;

Warren H. Saltzman

Mrs. Alec Skolnick

Stanley D. Stevens

Jerry fucker

Justin Vanderlaan

Don Vial

Joe J. Yasaki

Dr. Marvin J. Naman-

Mrs. Theodosia Stewart

Rt. Rev. Sumner Walters

Richard Johnston

Roger Kent

Mrs. Ruth Kingman

Prof. Theodore Kreps

`Seaton W. Manning

Rey. Robert W. Moon

Clarence E. Rust

Prof. Hubert Phillips

Norman Lezin

EA ETN SEI GTR

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 ee

Twenty-Five Cents Per Copy

GEORGE W. PARKER

FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA

CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT

San Francisco, California

Board of Directors

American Civil Liberties Union

of Northern California

San Francisco, California

| have examined the Balance Sheet

of the American Civil Liberties Union

of Northern California as of October 31, 1969, and the related Statement of

Receipts and Expenditures for the year then ended. My examination was made

in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards, and accordingly

included such tests of the accounting records and such other auditing procedures

as | considered necessary in the circumstances. :

Although the accounts are maintained principally on a cash basis, and

modified with respect to unearned dues

income and provisions for biennial and

biennial recurring expenses, the differences between the modified cash basis

and the accrual basis are relatively immaterial.

In my opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly -

the financial position of the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern

California at October 31, 1969, and the results of its operations for the year

then ended, in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles applied

on a basis consistent with that of the preceding year.

/s/ GEORGE W. PARKER

November 10, 1969

Balance Sheet

ASSETS

Cash

Wells Fargo Bank

Commercial account 2 2555. = $ 1,728

Savings account 83a) 3 a ee ges 3,910

Time. certificatesof deposit... = 5,000

$ 10,638

. San Francisco Federal Savings and Loan Assoc. _. 10,000

= Security Savings and Loan Association... 10,000

-American Savings and Loan Association... 10,244

Golden West Savings and Loan Association... 15,000

Twin Pines Savings and Loan Association............... 10,000

Betty Gash Rundi. 8035 = 10

. 65,892

Investments

Marketable securities, at cost (Note 1)... 14,185

U. S. Treasury Bonds, at cost (Note 2)... 4,500 18,685

Total: Assetsiten se ea $ 84,577

LIABILITIES AND NET WORTH

Employee's payroll taxes withheld... $ 1,331

Obligated funds (Note 3).......... Sede om eae 12,004

Deferred income-

Dues for the year ended Oct. 31, 1970... 3,500

Net-worth - ae ,

- Unappropriated balance October 31, 1968 $ 68,168

~--Provision for triennial report 4,500

Provision for biennial conference... 400

Excess of expenditures over receipts, year :

ended October 3f, 1969. (5,326) 67,742

Total Liabilities and Net Worth... ; $ 84,577

ACLUNC Suffers Deficit

During Last Fiscal Year

_ The audited financial report which appears on this page

shows that the ACLUNC suffered a deficit of $5,326. in its

Operating Fund during the last fiscal year and a $70 loss in

its earmarked or reserve funds.

As a matter of fact, the Operating Fund deficit was more

- than $10,000 because while the

' budget provided $6,000 for legal

cases, the $8,000 in expenses

were all charged to ear-marked

funds, including $5,258 to the

General Legal Defense Fund.

The Obligated Funds suffered

only a $70 deficit because more

- than $5,000 was received for

abortion and draft cases. Also,

$525 was received for the Ghetto

Project which may have to be

returned if the project does not

get off the ground.

Net Worth Reduced

By reason of the Operating

Fund deficit, the Net Worth has

Mt. Diablo

Annual Meeting

January 18

The Mt. Diablo Chapter of

ACLUNC will hold its annual

meeting and election of board

members on Sunday, January

18, 1970 at 7:00 P.M. in the

Social Hall of the Hillcrest

Congregational Church, 404

Gregory Lane, Pleasant Hill.

William O'Malley, Contra

Costa county District Attorney

will discuss the role of the

District Attorney in law en-

forcement and. maintenance

of civil liberties.

been reduced to $67,742. Last

year, interest and dividends on

our Reserve Funds amounted to

$4,519 which was used as operat.

ing income.

The revised budget for the

new fiscal year is now $139,-

985.49, which includes the legis-

lative program. The $5,000 legis-

lative program was bailed out

by a contribution of $2,500 from

Mrs. Helen Salz, pledges of $550

secured by Francis Heisler in

Monterey county, not to speak of

many other smaller contribu-

tions and an increase of general

membership contributions of

more than 10% during the first

two months of the fiscal year or

about $5,500. At the January

board meeting, in view of the

ear-marked contributions, the

legislative program will most cer-

tainly be restored to the budget.

New Deficit Looms

A $10,500 increase in contri-

butions isn't going to solve the

branch financial problems. With

such an increase in income, there

will still be a deficit of $14,000

for the fiscal year. While at this

writing more than 4,100 mem-

bers have sent in' their contri-

butions the ACLU must still hear

from 3,700 members. Hopefully

their contributions, will also rec-

ognize the ACLU's growing fi-

nancial needs and the Fiftieth

Anniversary of the organization.

: October 31, 1969

Statement of Receipts.

and Expenditures

Year ended October 31

Receipts

Membership. 2 5

Special funds appeal ................. $

Less portion directed to

obligated funds: 22

Special gifts

Casha a ee

Market value of securities rec'd.

Memorial gifts... 3.5)

Interest income ...........

Dividend income =.= = 23

Operation Correction ...................

Publication sales, notary fees,

and-= miscellaneous :.. 2 7

Total Income...

Expenditures

- Salaries

Printing, stationery, office expense

Rentee =) 22 a See SU

As GLU News = 3 Ss

Postages 4. 2, ese ee

Mailing service ......

Telephone: S62 s ssn es

Taxes and insurance

Travel and transportation

Provision for triennial report ..........

Retirement and pension plan ..........

Employee hospitalization _................ 2

Audit

Legislative program 2...

Furniture and equipment ...............

Publications# 22 3) Seta sey

Annual. meeting 22293. sone

Biennial conference 20...

Miscellaneous

Total Expenses 2.0.0.2...

Excess of expenditures over receipts...

1968 1969

$ 94,976 $ 99,847

7,309 $ 9,417

3,081 4,228 1,573 7,844

12,814 1,855

1,694 14,508 0 1,855

807 228

3,647 3,694

505 825

131 232

608 768

119,410 115,293

75,292 76,166

5,050 6,298

7,408 7,572

4,632 4,129

6,895 6,597

3,538 3,685

2,867 2,522 |

3,799 4,039

881 870

1,800 1,500 -

2,028 1,199

431 534

645 785

3,187 3,338

178 93

478 569

105 82

48 400

232 241

119,494 120,619

$ 84 $ 5,326

Notes fe Financial Statements

YEAR ENDED OCTOBER 31, 1989 : ;

|. Market value of securities owned by the American Civil Liberties Union of

Northern California at October 31, 1969 was as follows: :

Number of

Shares

136 Eundamenital Investors, Ince. = $ 1,404

316 Winfield Growth Industries Fund Inc. ............... 1,953

28 Real Estate Investment Trust of America eee 609

53 Fidelitys Fund, -Incmae = a ea ee 947

23 Portland General Electric Co... 466

il GrockerGitizens Bank =.) = eg 411

5 BMS ec ethos fo i ee 1,802

20 San Jose WatersWorks:=. 25 se ge a: 590

209 American Metal--Glimax,2Inc. =... 6,766

$ 14,948

2. Three $500 U. S. Treasury Bonds are posted as bail in the United States

District Court, San Francisco.

3. Transactions in obligated funds, year ended October 31, 1969:

Palo Alto School

Board Changes

Restrictive Regs.

In October ACLUNC filed a

~ suit on behalf of the Bay Area

High School Students Union, an

organization of Palo Alto High

School students, who wished to

distribute literature about Viet-

nam Moratoriums on high school

campuses. Only officially rec-

ognized student organizations

were permitted to pass out liter-

ature and invite speakers to Palo

Alto High Schools and the Bay

Area Students Union had been

denied official recognition be-

cause of a school district policy

which provided: "Student organ-

izations shall not be permitted to

engage in political advocacy or

activities of a partisan political

nature."

ACLUNC volunteer attorney

John Thorne of San Jose con-

tended that the regulation was a

violation of the First Amendment

right of students. The case was

taken under submission by Fed-

eral District Judge Robert Peck-

ham but will probably now be

abandoned because the Palo Alto

Unified School District has re-

voked its old policy and enacted

a new one which only prohibits

official recognition to `"organiza-

tions that attempt to incite vio-

lence, truancy or other illegal

actions. or that disseminate or

assist in disseminating literature

of a libelous or obscene nature."

Paul Halvonik

Appears On TV

Abortion Show

On January 11, 1970, at 12:00

p.m., KGO-TV's new "Revise or

Consent" series will deal with

the proposition: "Resolved, Cali-

fornia's anti-abortion law should

be repealed." Each side of the

proposition is given a half-hour

to present its case by means of

a lawyer presenting expert testi-

mony.

Affirmative

The affirmative side. of the

abortion repeal question will be

presented by ACLUNC staff

counsel Paul Halvonik; his ex-

pert witnesses are Pat Maginnis

of the Society for Humane Abor-

tion and Dr. Sadja Goldsmith. of

Planned Parenthood.

Negative

The case in favor of retaining

the anti-abortion law will be pre-

sented by San Francisco attor-

ney James: MacDonald. His wit-

nesses are Mary Ann Colwell,

mother of seven and peace acti-

vist, and Dr. Michael McGlynn,

San Francisco obstetrician.

Receipts

Beginning Special Expendi- - Trans- Ending

5 Balance Appeal Other tures fers Balance

General defense fund -- = = $ 10,586 $ 560 $ 95 $ 5,258 $ 888 $ 6871

Teacher's loyalty oath case = == 5 5 24I 24

Juvenile; court) 265 265

EiSU AL Co 2 ee 103 103

People vs. Gurner and Maginnis _... 580 580

People vs. Dixon ("The Beard"')...... 65 42 ll 96

People vs. Budd2 20 A ay (_ 23) 4 (19)

Mindel vs. Civil Service = = 2 Il 181 292

Abortion and Vascetomy issue ............... 421 4,205 (1,000) 3,626

Death penalty cases 0.0.00. 120 23 28 115

Peaceable assembly cases ............... 47 219 437 ( -171)

Hamilton vs. Superior Court .......... 600) 1,092 ( 1,692)

Meyers vs. Board of Education == (2 121) etl -

Drattcases = 270 404 846 790 730

Mutiny. -case 2 = _ 84 17 101

Amick: and Stolte == _ . 56 724 439 341

Ghetto project: _ 525 525

6.412 $ 8,055 - $ 12,004

Total: Obligated Funds == = $ 12,074 $ 1,573 $

Bus Terminal

Pamphleteers

Acquitted

Ann Breen and David Simpson

have been acquitted of the

charge of trespassing in the San

Francisco Greyhound Bus Termi-

nal. The arrest occurred last Au-

gust when the two anti-war pam-

phleteers refused to leave the

Greyhound terminal when re-

quested to do so by company of-

ficials. They explained to the of-

ficials that the Supreme Court of

California had ruled that transit

terminals could; not be foreclosed

to the exercise of the First

Amendment rights but `neither

the officials nor the police offi-

cers, who took Breen and Simp-

son into custody, seemed inter-

ested in the law,

It was a different story in

the Municipal Court. The case

was submitted to San Francisco

Municipal Court Judge Harry

Low on the basis of the police

officer's own report of the ar-

rest: Judge Low found the de-

fendants not guilty almost as

soon as he had read the report

ACLU NEWS

JANUARY, 1970

Page 3

erties Union.

Police Complaints:

A Handbook

Just issued by the National ACLU is a new, 22 page, book-

let, Police Complaints: A Handbook by Paul G. Chevigny. Che-

vigny, currently on the legal staff of the New Yok Civil Liber-

ties Union is the author of the widely publicized book Police

Power: Police Abuses in New York City which was published

last year by Pantheon Books and was the product of a 1966-67

Police Practices Project conducted by the New York Civil Lib-

Content

This booklet is primarily intended for police complaint

centers and provides essential information in brief form. It

deals with the complaint, criminal defense, affirmative reme-

dies and contains general recommendations for community

action. It also includes two sample complaint forms.

How to Order

ACLUNC is now taking orders for the booklet. In ordering,

please specify "Police Complaint Handbook" and enclose mon-

ey sufficient to cover the price of 50 cents per copy and 6

cents postage for each copy. Address orders to: ACLUNC, 503

Market Street, San Francisco, California 94105.

WIPING OUT YOUR

JUVENILE RECORD

I. INTRODUCTION:

"SEALING" A JUVENILE RECORD

Many young men and women who have had a brush

with the law before their 18th birthday can, under Cali-

fornia law,

"seal'' their juvenile record. If you qualify, the

law. specifically permits you, under oath, including all

military forms, to say:

1) "I have never been a

ward of the Juvenile

court."

2) "I was never on proba- |

tion as a juvenile."

3) "I have never had a juve-

nile record."

4) "I was never arrested, or

taken into custody, as a

juvenile."

If you qualify, this is very

valuable for:

@ Job applications;

@ Joining one of the mili-

tary services; |

@ Applying for university,

college, or technical train-

ing;

@ Getting car insurance at a

lower cost (in some in-

stances);

@ Qualifying for many ca-

reers which require char-

acter investigations (law,

medicine, real estate,

etc.); and

@ Many other things, includ-

ing the feeling that you

are "clear with the law."

II. WHO IS ELIGIBLE?

Any person in California is

eligible to petition to have his

juvenile record sealed if:

(a) It has been at least five

years or longer since he has

been a "ward" of the Juvenile

Court, been on probation, been

summoned to appear before a

probation officer, been re-

leased from a juvenile hall or

state institution, or otherwise

come under Juvenile Court

jurisdiction (it can be less

than five years if he is 21

years of age or older-in fact,

just as soon as he turns 21);

-and

(b) During the.required pe-

riod, the applicant has not

been convicted of a felony or

any serious misdemeanor (the

legal term for this is `mis-

demeanor involving moral

turpitude"); and

(c) The applicant demon-

strates to the satisfaction of

the Juvenile Court that `re-

habilitation has taken place."

Stripped of the legalisms,

this is not difficult nor does

it cost you anything.

If you haven't gotten into

' trouble for the required peri-

od, the chances are excellent

that the Juvenile Court will

grant your petition. Some

Judges are very cooperative.

After the Juvenile Judge

grants your petition, the only

way anyone can ever look at

your juvenile records is with

your express permission and,

even then, a Court Order must

first be obtained.

ACLU NEWS

JANUARY, 1970

Page 4

III. HOW DO YOU DO IT?

If you think you qualify,

you can:

(R) Contact a private attorney

(ask his fee first)

@ Contact the probation of-

ficer in charge of the

sealing program at Youth

Guidance Center or your

local Juvenile Court

building

@ Contact the Legal Aid Ju-

venile Panel

@ Contact an office of the

Neighborhood Legal Serv- -

ices, or the Legal Services

Foundation in the area |

you live in

You file a petition, which

your lawyer or the appropri-

ate probation officer will help

you fill out, with the Juvenile

Court. There are no court

costs for the petitioner.

In many cases someone with

a minor juvenile record (for

example: truancy at age 13:

petitioner, 19, is now working

and has had no trouble for

six years) does not need an

attorney. In all cases, how-

ever, you are entitled to be

represented by a lawyer. If

the petitioner has been in-

volved in a more serious of-

fense, or has had a number

of juvenile arrests, it is best

if he is represented by an at-

torney,

IV. AFTER YOUR. PETITION,

WHAT HAPPENS?

The Juvenile Court must

notify the District Attorney

and the Probation Depart-

ment (unless the Probation

Department is petitioning on

your behalf), The District At-

torney or Chief Probation Of-

ficer, or any of their deputies,

are permitted to offer testi-

mony at the hearing. How-

ever, the judge has the power

to seal the record, even if the

District Attorney argues

against sealing.

In San Francisco hearings

are held monthly before the

Juvenile Court Judge at the

Youth Guidance Center, 375

Woodside Avenue. Hearings

are not open to the public.

In areas of Northern Cal-

ifornia other than San Fran-

cisco, the hearing will be

held by a judge at the local

juvenile courtroom.

If the judges decides that

your record should be sealed,

he issues a California Superi-

or Court Order directing all

agencies to do this. This or-

der is then sent to any agen-

cy which might have a copy

of your juvenile record (for

example, the local police de-

partment and sheriff, Cali-

ifornia Bureau of Criminal

Investigation and Identifica-

Barb Vendor

Appeals Refusal

To Return Papers

John Richardson, a street ven-

dor selling the Berkeley Barb,

was arrested in September at

Sixth and Market Streets, San

Francisco, on a variety ot

charges, including obscenity.

(The issue portrayed, on _ its

cover, a drawing of President

Nixon being saluted by a house-

wife, a general, and a crewcut

child, An American flag is pic-

tured as flying from the top of

the President's penis, the size of

which is unlikely. An article ac-

companied the cartooon.) ACL-

UNC undertook his representa-

tion and, after a demurrer was

overruled, moved for the return

of the Barbs, confiscated from

Richardson and for their sup-

pression as evidence.

At the hearing the arresting

officer admitted that he had not

attempted to buy a copy of the

paper as evidence, or to get a

warrant-he had simply confis-

cated all the papers. ACLUNC

Assistant Staff Counsel Charles

Marson, pointing to decisions by

the United States and California

Supreme Courts, argued that ma-

terial protected by the First

Amendment, even if charged as

obscene, cannot be confiscated

without a warrant and a prior

judicial determination of obscen-

ity. Recognizing this to be gen-

erally true, Muncipal Court

Judge Leo R. Friedman never-

theless denied the motion, ac-

cepting the District Attorney's

argument that an exception

should be made for the vendors

of underground newspapers,

since they are known to be `"`tran.

sient" and might "disappear."

The ruling is being appealed

prior to trial.

tion, California Youth Au-

thority, Department of Mo-

tor Vehicles, Board of Edu-

cation, and any other agency

which would have informa-

tion concerning your juvenile

problems).

The judge's order. directs

that these records be placed

in a separate, sealed enve-

lope, which no one can see

without a Court Order. This

can be granted only if the

person whose records have

been sealed asks the Court

to open them, And the

judge's order is itself sealed.

If a juvenile record has

been forwarded to the Fed-

eral Bureau of Investigation,

the public agency which sent

it is ordered to notify the

FBI and to request sealing by

the FBI. Current FBI policy,

according to the Juvenile

Court's probation department,

is to mail the entire record

back to the police agency

which sent it to the FBI..That

agency, naturally, will then

place the. FBI file in the

sealed envelope, along with

its own records,

V. IF SOMEONE FINDS OUT.

DESPITE THE SEALING?

If for any reason there is

a slip-up and anyone-the (c)

military, a potential employ-

er, or anyone else-learns

that you did have a juvenile

problem, the Court asks that

you notify it immediately, not

only to clear up your own

case but to help the Court to

prevent others in the future

from having their sealed rec-

ords leaked. The Court has

the power to begin an investi-

gation of the leak, If the

facts warrant, officials who

released your record after the

Court orders it sealed could

be jailed for contempt of

court. You may also contact

your own attorney or any

local office of Legal Assist-

ance Foundation, who will as-

sist you in clearing up the vi-

olation of your rights,

VI.HOW DO YOU ANSWER A

QUESTION AS TO WHETH-

ER YOUR JUVENILE REC.

ORD HAS BEEN SEALED?

Occasionally you may be

: Maginnis and Gurner

Crusaders Case

In State Court

Of Appeal

The case of Patricia Maginnis and Rowena Gurner was

heard, and taken under submission, by the California Court

of Appeal last month. The two militant crusaders for abor-

tion law reform were arrested in February of 1967 in Red-

wood City for conducting classes in abortion techniques and

distributing literature about

abortions.

Free Speech Issue

The law under which they

were arrested, section 601 of the

State Business and Professions

~Code, which makes it a felony to

write or publish any material

concerning ways to produce

abortions, was attacked in the

San Mateo Municipal Court by

former ACLUNC staff counsel

Marshall Krause who contended

it violated the freedom of speech

guarantees of the United States

Constitution. Municipal Court

Judge Roy W. Seagraves agreed

with the ACLU and held the law

unconstitutional. The Superior

Court of San Mateo County, how-

ever, overruled Judge Seagraves

and found the defendants guilty

of violating the law. It is an ap-

peal from that conviction which

the Court of Appeal As consid-

ering.

State's Argument

In the argument to the Court,

the State Attorney General con-

tended that California may con-

stitutionally forbid "the indis-

criminate dissemination of

knowledge about how to perform

abortions and use abortifaci-

ents," and that section 601 may

~be read to permit the dissemina-

tion of abortion. information only

to such persons as "medical stu-

dents and physicians."

ACLU Contentions

Paul Halvonik, ACLUNC staff

counsel, on the other hand, has

argued that the statute by its

asked orally or in writing

whether your juvenile record

has been sealed. Such a ques-

tion is an `obviously unfair

attempt to defeat this impor-

tant protection given you by

the law and, in the opinion of

Juvenile Court legal] special-

ists, you may definitely an-

swer such a question with a

clear "no". Do not hesistate

in your answer or you may

give your questioner an op-

portunity to pressure you into

agreeing to reveal your sealed

record, which is not only

harmful to you, but against

the law's policy of rehabilita-

tion,

The ACLU has plans to re-

write and distribute the fore-

going material to persons

with limited education and

experience, In its present

form, the information will be

distributed to lawyers and

others.

words prohibits distribution of

abortion information even among

physicians. Halvonik also main-

tains that Attorney General's

reading of the statute is uncon-

stitutional because "it assumes

that there is a bit of arcane

knowledge that can constitution-

ally be restricted to a particular

group. Although there are consti-

tutions that countenance the no-

tion of keeping a special body of

knowledge from the `masses,' the

United States' is not one of

them."

Test Case

The first California law forbid-

ding dissemination was adopted

in 1874 and was substantially the

same as section 601. The Magin-

nis and Gurner case is the first

challenge of the law in an appel-

late court.

Legislative

Activity To

Be Renewed

Having narrowly survived a

fall. season of financial uncer-

tainty, the ACLUNC Legislative

Program is beginning again,

thanks to the generosity and

hard work of chapters and sev- |

era] private donors. A new Sac-

ramento office is open at 1220

H Street, telephone (916) 442-

1036. A secretary will be on

duty in the mornings,

Political Tests

ACLUNC Legislative Repre-

sentative Charles Marson pre-

dicts that, barring any major

campus uprisings, the Legisla-

ture will leave students alone

this year and concentrate on

teachers. The Angela Davis case

is expected to provoke a flurry

of bills proposing new loyalty

oaths and political tests. The

Legislature has been consider-

ing abandoning the system of

tenure, and recent campus con-

troversies will undoubtedy en-

courage this move. _

Other Issues

The unsuccessful attempt: Jast

year by law enforcement: ;agen-

cies to authorize wiretapping. and

electronic eavesdropping will be

renewed; the controversy over

marijuana penalties will continue,

another attempt will be made

to expand the Governor's mar-

tial law powers; and the parole

and probation procedures will be

studied closely, although sub-

stantial improvement may not

result. Issues will be reported on

as they arise, and questions and

suggestions are always welcome.

The first right of a citizen

Is the right

To be responsible

JOIN TODAY

eee 151

SU

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION

OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA

Patron Membership ........

Sustaining Membership

NAME

oe e oe

CC ee

cece ecw eee

TELEPHONE NWMBER ...........

503 Market Street

okt re aie Pee | $100

Business and Berets Membership 2... :5. 4.5.55.

Family Membership ........

Annual Membership .......

Student Membership ...... cs

ACLU News Subscription ...

peruse 15

a 10

ee og

ee $2.50

eco eere esr ee eee ee est oer eerr eee

Ce

ee. AMT. ENCLOSED..........

San Francisco, 94105