vol. 37, no. 4

Publication of fhe

American Civil Liberties Union

of

Northern California

Volume XXXVI

California Supreme Court

All Wiretappin

By California

Police "Illegal"

The California Supreme Court on April

- 25 issued a decision which confirms that

any wiretapping by California police is

illegal, based on the Omnibus Crime

Control and Safe Streets Act, passed by

the U.S. Congress in 1968.

The case is one handled by the ACLU

and the law firm of Friedman and Sloan,

involving the arrest for marijuana

possession and transportation of Thomas

Halpin, his wife Rebecca Halpin and

Martin Silva.

Last year, Thomas Halpin was arrested

in Orange County with a camper con-

taining 500 pounds of marijuana. While in

jail, he made a phone call to his wife in

which he made incriminating statements

which were recorded by the police,

without Halpin's knowledge.

The Court unanimously ruled that the

recording of Halpin's statement was an

continued on page 3

California Court of Appeal

Beard Can't Deny

Unemployment $

"The California Court of Appeal ruled

April 27 that unemployment com-

pensation benefits may not con-

stitutionally be denied someone who was

fired for wearing a beard in ACLU-NC's

case of King v. California Unemployment

Insurance Appeals Board.

The Court pointed that they were zot

holding that ``a bearded person has a

constitutional right to a job.'" However,

they stated, "`law in California is explicit

on the point: `A beard, for a man, is an

continued on page 4

Suit on Surveillance

of Bank Records

A joint suit with national ACLU is

being prepared for filing prior to June 1

against new Treasury Department

regulations requiring mandatory

microfilm records by banks of all

customers' check transactions plus

regular reports of unusually large'

currency transactions. Legal Committee

Co-Chairman Henry Ramsey Jr. is

preparing this court test for ACLU-NC of

the law allowing this ``gross invasion of

privacy'' - The Bank Secrecy Act of

1971, Public Law 19-508.

Executive Director Jay A. Miller

describes the regulations as, `` The kind of

intimidation which creates fear on the part

of people that inhibits their freedom of

action. Knowing that the government is .

constantly watching you has a chilling

effect, whether it is by unauthorized

wiretaps, photographic coverage of public

meetings or surveillance of the checks you

write.'

The basic requirement is that all banks

in the U.S. keep photostatic records of

nearly all checks made out by customers,

exempting only large business firms

issuing routine payroll checks.

Banks ate also required to report

directly to the Treasury Department each

withdrawal of $10,000 or more in

continued on page 2

San Francisco, May, 1972

Wd

Annual Dinner Meeting is June 4

Charles Morgan, Jr.

Morgan At Annual Meeting

Main speaker at the 1972 Annual ACLU-NC Meeting will

be the new ACLU National Legislative Director, Charles

Morgan, Jr. Morgan takes over his new duties in Washington

DC this Fall, moving from Atlanta where he is now Director of

ACLU's Southern Regional Office.

Morgan has served as principal attorney in many of the most

important civil rights and civil liberties cases of the past 10

years. These included Reynolds v. Sims (reapportionment

requiring one-man, one-vote), desegragation of the University

of Alabama (Governor Wallace's ``stand in the schoolhouse

door''), heavyweight boxing champion Muhammad Ali's

appeal, the Army's court-martial of Captain Howard B. Levy

and Green Beret Captain John J. McCarthy and proceedings

involving LT Colonel Anthony B. Herbert, and the Georgia

General Assembly's exclusion from membership of

| Enjoy Japanese Banquet

(complete with saki)

The 1972 Annual ACLU-NC Membership Dinner Meeting

is to be held on June 4 at the Kabuki Theatre Restaurant in San

Francisco.

Featured speaker will be ACLU's incoming National

Legislative Director Charles Morgan, Jr., discussing ``A Shift

in Strategy''. Morgan is presently Director of ACLU's

Southern Regional Office in Atlanta.

Meiklejohn

Another highlight of the evening will be presentation of the

First Annual Alexander Meiklejohn Civil Liberties Award,

named for one of Northern California's most outstanding civil

libertarians. The recipient will be the Japanese American

Citizens League for their successful fight for repeal of the

Emergency Detention Act.

Executive Director Jay A. Miller will also present his first

annual report on the activities of ACLU-NC.

Cost.

Cost of the evening is $10 a person, with the dinner

beginning at 6:30 pm, preceeded by no-host cocktails at 5:30.

Reservations should be sent in as soon as possible to insure a

place. The Kabuki Theatre Restaurant is at 1881 Post Street,

San Francisco.

New Meiklejohn Award

At its June 4 Annual Meeting ACLU-NC will present the

first Alexander Meiklejohn Civil Liberties Award, to the

Japanese American Citizens League.

Dr. Alexander Meiklejohn was a world-renowned educator,

recipient of the Presidential Medal of Freedom and one of the

nation's leading civil libertarians. He was one of the 50

founders of the ACLU in 1920. He also helped found the

Northern California branch in 1934, and was active in its

activities until his death in 1964.

Dr.'Meiklejohn had taught philosophy at Brown University

and served as President of Amherst College from 1912 to 1923.

He was founder of the famous Experimental College at the

University of Wisconsin and in San Francisco in the thirties he

headed the School of Social Studies.

Representative Julian Bond.

Death Penalty Fight Continues

Ballot Proposition

Clears Committee

On April 12 the Senate Judiciary

Committee approved a measure to put on

the November ballot a constitutional

amendment permitting California to use

the death penalty.

The bill, approved 8-3, now goes to the

Senate floor and then to the Assembly, |

where it must gain a two-thirds majority.

Language of the proposed measure was

drafted by State Attorney General Evelle

Younger at the request of Sen. George

Deukmejian (R-Long Beach):

`Sec. 27. All statutes of this state

in effect on February 17, 1972,

requiring, authorizing, imposing, or

relating to the death penalty are in full

force and effect, subject to legislative

amendment or repeal by statute,

initiative, or referendum.

`The death penalty provided for

under those statutes shall not be

deemed to be, or to constitute, the

infliction of cruel or unusual punish-

ments within the meaning of Article

I, Section 6 nor shall such punish-

ment for such offenses be deemed to

contravene any other provision of this

constitution. ''

Initiative Petitions

Now in Circulation

Petitions seeking a eturn of the death

penalty to California are being circulated

throughout the state, apparently primarily

by police and prison guard groups. The

petitions seek to place an amendment to

the State Constitution on the November

ballot.

The initiative must gather half a million

signatures of registered voters by June 9 to

qualify.

The Coalition To End The Death

Penalty is recruiting volunteers in each

county in California for a number of tasks

in challenging the initiative. This very

important project might be the difference

between the initiative qualifying or not

qualifying. If you can donate a few hours

' to keep capital punishment abolished in

California, call Dottie Ehrlich at 781-

2597 or write the Coalition at 593 Market

Street, Suite 227, San Francisco, 94105.

_ The Coalition is fortunate in this time of

very tight budget to have the services of

Coro Foundation intern Dottie Ehrlich

and of full-time volunteer June Kingsley,

to coordinate its activities.

Pro-Death Radio Sp a

Draws ACLU Rebuttal

Several San Francisco radio stations

have editorialized in favor of the death

penalty and the initiative to restore it. The

ACLU has provided a rebuttal in each

case. One such rebuttal, by Legal

Committee Co-Chairman Jerome B. Falk,

Jr., follows:

The proponents of capital punishment

frequently manage to frame the issue so

that one is forced to choose between

sympathy for a convicted murderer or for

the victim and his family. When the

question is put that way, our emotions tell

us that capital punishment is right.

But if society is to deliberately take a

human life - even that of a person

convicted of a brutal crime - it must have

a firmer basis than emotion. KCBS defends

capital punishment on the ground -

which it simply assumes as if it were too

obvious to be discussed - that the death

_ penalty deters violent crime.

The fact of the matter ts that capital

punishment does not deter crime. Study

after study has been made;/and the

criminology experts are ee

continued on page 2

ABA Joins ACLU in Challenge

To Draft Hearing Denial

Of Right To Counsel

On May 11, Marvin M. Karpatkin, General Counsel of the National ACLU, will

argue before the Ninth Circuit of the US Court of Appeals that a selective service

Tegistrant has a constitutional right to the advice and assistance of counsel at a personal

appearance before his local draft board.

The case of U.S. v. Thomas W. Weller

is being handled jointly by ACLU-NC and

the National ACLU, and has now been

joined `"amicus curiae'' by the American

Bar Association.

Weller had applied for conscientious

objector status, but been denied both that

classification and permission to bring his

counsel to the hearing. When he was

prosecuted for refusing to submit to in-

duction his attorney contended that the

regulation prohibiting counsel was |

""unauthorized'' by Congress.

Federal District Judge Robert Peckham

concurred, stating that, although

Congress granted sweeping powers to local

draft boards, there is no_ explicit

authorization for exclusion of counsel

from fact-finding hearings.

The government originally appealed the

- ruling directly to the U.S. Supreme Court,

which agreed to hear the case. But when -

the government changed its mind and

asked that it be sent to the Court of

Appeals, the Court changed its position

and decided that it didn't have jurisdiction

and remanded the case.

The ACLU contends that exealnig

counsel from hearing violates both the

Fifth Amendment right to due process of

law and the Sixth Amendment right to

counsel. The brief points out that the

Supreme Court has already held that the

presence of counsel is essential to due

process of law in administrative hearings

involving security clearances and the

withdrawal of welfare benefits. A hearing

contesting a draft classification has the

- same kind of AY and aiicieabve

character.

For the conscientious Sooeean denied

draft exemption, who later refuses in- _

duction, the local board hearing is the

beginning of a criminal prosecution.

Hence, this hearing is a` "critical state'" of

the proceedings where denial of the right

to counsel seriously prejudices both the

CO's ability to defend himself at the time,

and at a subsequent trial to raise

arguments lost due to his failure to know

about or raise them during the ad-

ministrative process.

unanimous in finding that the case for

deterrence is not proven. The finding of

our State Supreme Court that the death

penalty in California is not an effective

deterrent could only be disputed by one

who refuses to take a hard-headed look at

the evidence. -

Yet we have paid a terrible price for the

retention of this inefficacious punishment.

Any realistic prosecutor will admit that

capital cases require an enormous com-

mitment of resources. Cases that might

otherwise be resolved by a guilty plea go

on endlessly - often for several months.

These cases that clog our courts only

rarely result in a death sentence let alone

an execution. Don't blame the courts for

this, the explanation is that juries seldom

will bring in a death verdict. In. 1969, for

example, there were 87 first degree

murder convictions in California but only

8 death sentences

_ Capital punishment has outlived its

usefulness. For some, however, it remains

a symbol of vigorous law_enforcement.

We do have a crime problem in California.

To combat it meaningfully, we must do

away with such symbols and seek real

Solutions.

Page 2

MAY

aclu NEWS

Department of Justice

Corruption Charged

The ACLU has charged the California

Department of Justice with a violation of ~

the First Amendment's guarantee of

freedom of speech in the firing of a Fresno

Narcotics Bureau chemist who blew the

whistle on alleged corrupt conduct of his

superior.

This challenge to the dismissal of Drug

Abuse Chemist Joseph A. Power, Jr.

came in a ``friend-of-the court''

memorandum on April 20 to the State

Personnel Board. :

Power was fired last September for

charges he had made a year earlier against

his superior, Bureau of Narcotics En-

forcement Area Supervisor Robert P.

Mannen. These charges included

allegations of drinking and gambling in

state offices, drunk driving, falsification of

reports, illegal wiretapping and blackmail

of a high official in the California

Department of Justice.

Power was notified that his dismissal

was for writing Governor Ronald Reagan,

charging that Mannen was blackmailing

Justice Deputy Director Orville J. -

Hawkins. Power had taken this action

following a denial of his request to file

charges by the State Personnel Board.

Executive Director Jay A. Miller

comments, ``This turn of events is

shocking. One would expect that a letter

describing malfeasance within the

Department of Justice would result in an -

independent and impartial investigation.

Instead Power was fired, for `discourtesy'

"to another employee. Public servants

should surely not be punished for good-

faith attempts to expose corruption in

government. In fact, if the charges prove -

true, such courage should be rewarded."' _

~The ACLU memorandum, by Legal

Director Paul Halvonik, points to prior

court decisions which state our,

"`profound national commitment to the

principle that debate on public issues

should be uninhibited, robust, and wide- -

open, and that it may well include

vehement, caustic, and sometimes un-

pleasantly sharp attacks on government

and public officials.'' Halvonik states that

a charge of discourtesy, ``is not the kind of

precise standard that should be used to .

limit our most basic liberty - freedom of

speech. 99

Banks

currency by a customer not ordinarily :

expected to take out that much money,

and sums of $5,000 or more transferred to

foreign countries.

Rumors that the Treasury Department

- was about to implement the Bank Secrecy (c)

Act began circulating in March, but were -

flatly denied. The announcement came

April 5.

Even before the regulations made it

legal, and in violation of the procedures

specified, the San Anselmo branch of the

Wells Fargo Bank released a customer's

records to the FBI, with no apparent

authorization.

The ACLU issued a call for legilacor

prohibiting this kind of illegal sur-

veillance, with letters to Senators

Cranston and Tunney, plus several U.S.

Congressmen and the ACLU National

Legislative Office in Washington, D.C.

Letters to the Editor

__Franklin's urging his audience

Franklin Decision

Questioned

Dear Editor :

The presentation (in the March-April

ACLU News) of the Board's arguments in

favor of representing Professor H. Bruce

Franklin, left me unconvinced that

Franklin's civil liberties had been violated

and should be defended.

Strike

For example under your point 2,

"`to shut

down...the Computation Center'' goes

distinctly beyond your conclusion that he

simply spoke in `"`support of some form of

strike or boycott''. I recall having heard

_ Franklin, on TV broadcasts, advocate

_ actions to disrupt University processes and

to deny the possibility to speak on campus

for others who disagree with his views. (c)

Academic Freedom

Tf you must defend Franklin please

restrict yourselves to the First Amend-

"ment argument, which is a right that all

citizens share and which should not be

confused with the issue of academic

freedom. The latter is a special issue

involving the performing of one's

University ot academic functions without

certain limitations or controls; I cannot

see where Franklin was abused at all in

this respect. It is difficult enough to gain

adequate public understanding and

support for real academic freedom. If

academic freedom is identified with a.

license to behave like Franklin, we may all

lose our real academic freedom.

Quit ACLU |

If you can't produce a_ better

justification for defending Franklin against

Stanford University, you may find more of

us than just the letter-writing Stanford'

Professor (ACLU News, March) who are'

not able to maintain an association | `with 0x00B0

the ACLU on this matter.

B. Libet

Professor of Physiology

_ University of California,

San Francisco

(Title given for identification

. purposes only.)

`Franklin Decision

Explained

ACLUN_1946 ACLUN_1946.MODS ACLUN_1947 ACLUN_1947.MODS ACLUN_1948 ACLUN_1948.MODS ACLUN_1949 ACLUN_1949.MODS ACLUN_1950 ACLUN_1950.MODS ACLUN_1951 ACLUN_1951.MODS ACLUN_1952 ACLUN_1952.MODS ACLUN_1953 ACLUN_1953.MODS ACLUN_1954 ACLUN_1954.MODS ACLUN_1955 ACLUN_1955.MODS ACLUN_1956 ACLUN_1956.MODS ACLUN_1957 ACLUN_1957.MODS ACLUN_1958 ACLUN_1958.MODS ACLUN_1959 ACLUN_1959.MODS ACLUN_1960 ACLUN_1960.MODS ACLUN_1961 ACLUN_1961.MODS ACLUN_1962 ACLUN_1962.MODS ACLUN_1963 ACLUN_1963.MODS ACLUN_1964 ACLUN_1964.MODS ACLUN_1965 ACLUN_1965.MODS ACLUN_1966 ACLUN_1966.MODS ACLUN_1967 ACLUN_1967.MODS ACLUN_1968 ACLUN_1968.MODS ACLUN_1968.batch ACLUN_1969 ACLUN_1969.MODS ACLUN_1969.batch ACLUN_1970 ACLUN_1970.MODS ACLUN_1970.batch ACLUN_1971 ACLUN_1971.MODS ACLUN_1971.batch ACLUN_1972 ACLUN_1972.MODS ACLUN_1972.batch ACLUN_1973 ACLUN_1973.MODS ACLUN_1974 ACLUN_1974.MODS ACLUN_1975 ACLUN_1975.MODS ACLUN_1976 ACLUN_1976.MODS ACLUN_1977 ACLUN_1977.MODS ACLUN_1978 ACLUN_1978.MODS ACLUN_1979 ACLUN_1979.MODS ACLUN_1980 ACLUN_1980.MODS ACLUN_1981 ACLUN_1981.MODS ACLUN_1982 ACLUN_1982.MODS ACLUN_1983 ACLUN_1983.MODS ACLUN_1983.batch ACLUN_1984 ACLUN_1984.MODS ACLUN_1985 ACLUN_1985.MODS ACLUN_1986 ACLUN_1986.MODS ACLUN_1987 ACLUN_1987.MODS ACLUN_1988 ACLUN_1988.MODS ACLUN_1989 ACLUN_1989.MODS ACLUN_1990 ACLUN_1990.MODS ACLUN_1991 ACLUN_1991.MODS ACLUN_1992 ACLUN_1992.MODS ACLUN_1993 ACLUN_1993.MODS ACLUN_1994 ACLUN_1994.MODS ACLUN_1995 ACLUN_1995.MODS ACLUN_1996 ACLUN_1996.MODS ACLUN_1997 ACLUN_1997.MODS ACLUN_1998 ACLUN_1998.MODS ACLUN_1999 ACLUN_1999.MODS ACLUN_ladd ACLUN_ladd.MODS ACLUN_ladd.bags ACLUN_ladd.batch add-tei.sh create-bags.sh create-manuscript-bags.sh create-manuscript-batch.sh fits.log Dear Professor Libet:

`It is a measure of our disagreement that

while you do not think Franklin's case

should be taken at all, the Board of

Directors of ACLUNC voted unanimously

to take it. Some of the reasons for their

unanimity may emerge from an

examination of the points you raise.

Strike -

First, carefully excerpting six words

from an entire speech, you characterize

_Franklin's February 10 speech as urging

students ``to shut down...the Com-

putation Center,''

meant much more than a strike or boycott.

All of the preceding language, including a

and argue that he (c)

discussion of a "`strike'' the previous

year, has led us to the conclusion that

Franklin was indeed urging a ``strike'' in

the traditional sense.

Imminent Action

However, even if Franklin urged.

illegality, you omit the facts that 1) his

was only one of several speeches, after

which 2) a vote was taken as to what to do.

Since the law requires that the urging of

illegality demand "`imminent unlawful -

action'', among other things, before the

protection of the First Amendment is lost,

even on your interpretation Franklin's

remarks `hardly exceeded permissible

bounds. If many Senators speak on the

Senate floor and one urges illegality, the

matter is pondered and a vote taken, can

we say the Senator went so far as to. pose a

clear and present danger of imminent

unlawful conduct?

Other Speech

Second, whatever Franklin may have

said on television is hardly relevant here.

Even the University has not gone so far as

to argue that anything Franklin said on

TV was related in any way to his firing. It

is not and never has been a charge made by

Stanford against him. Would you have us

refuse to defend a man wrongly accused of

violating the law by speech A, simply

because speech B offended us?

Academic Freedom

Third, you abjure us not to confuse the

_ First Amendment with academic freedom.

In our view the two are inseparable. We

rarely have an academic freedom case that

involves anything but the First Amend-

ment. You refer to ``real academic

freedom'',- which. you -describe as ``a

special issue involving the performing of

one's University or academic functions."'

If ``real'' academic freedom does not

permit the criticism by a professor of the

behavior of his own university, that kind

of academic freedom is a fraud, and not -

worth fighting to preserve.

_ Sincerely,

CHARLES C. MARSON

Staff Counsel

Spousal Consent

Dear ACLU:

You may recall that several months ago

we wrote to Mr. Procunier at your request

to delete. the requirement of spousal

consent prior to. visiting an inmate. En-

closed is the response we received.

Alan Sieroty

Dear Alan:

I have reviewed the regulations that

require the approval of the spouse for a

person to visit an unrelated inmate.

I have directed that this requirement be

eliminated and new forms are being

printed peleOE this requirement.

ee R. K. Procunier

[ee

Director of Corrections

Howard Jewel, Chairman of the Board

aclu NEWS

9 issues a year, monthly cor bienronthiy in March April, fi August,

and November-December

Published by the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California

Second Class Mail privileges authorized at San Francisco, California

William Kane, Editor and Public Information Director

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

Membership $10 and up of which $2.50 is the annual subscription fee for aclu News.

Jay Miller, Executive Director

Marin Sun Printing

Eason Monroe

Returns to SF State

Eason Monroe has announced his

retirement as Executive Director of ACLU

of Southern California to return to teach at

San Francisco State College, where he was

fired 20 years ago.

Monroe's dismissal was for refusing to

sign a loyalty oath during the McCarthy

era. At the time ihe oath was Ss required of

all state college and University. of

California faculty members.

Long Sabbatical

The oath was ruled unconstitutional in

1967. Last December Monroe was

reinstated as a professor at SF State, where

he once headed the language arts division.

He describes the 20-year wait as, ``the

longest sabbatical in history.''

Monroe will be teaching ``Literature |

and the Bill of Rights'? and ``Public

Discussion''.

`fhe had it to do over, would he een

refuse to sign the oath?

"Tt most Centaealy: would;: pe he said.

@

Wir retap

illegal seizure and that the evidence thus

obtained may not be used against him.

According to Legal Director Paul

Halvonik, ``the court ruled that the

wiretap was illegal because California does

mot have a statute satisfying federal

requirements that police seek a search

warrant from a magistrate before making a

tap. The Attorney General argued that

Congress does not have the authority to

restrict the states' power to wire-tap, but

the Court has ruled against him. That

means that although Kleindienst may be

listening on your phone, Evelle Xquiiaes

won't be.""

At the urging of the ACLU's legislative

representatives, the California Legislature

has consistently refused to adopt a search

warrant procedure for eavesdropping, in

spite of yearly warrant-eavesdrop. bills

from the District Attorney and Peace

Officers Associations.

A clue to the Legislature's lack of

_ interest in wiretapping is found in the

ACLU brief's analysis of the costs and

_ results of the use of wiretap by federal

_ Officials and those states which have

adopted it. The conclusion is clearly that it

has been of "`little value to law en-

`forcement.''

while wiretapping is usually justified by

the state as sound precaution against

crimes of violence, such as homicide and

kidnapping, its use, expecially at the state

level, normally results in the ap-

prehension of a few small- -time book-

makers.

The brief was prepared by Paul :

Halvonik and Coleman Blease, Legislative

Director for ACLU of Southern California.

: Printing Co.

use of wiretapping,

The figures point out that

*`Real '' crime, that is the injury to

persons and the loss of property, has

grown so rapidly in recent years that we

now face a major crisis which probably

will lead to dramatic changes in the

process of criminal justice.

A survey conducted by LIFE magazine,

in which 43,000 readers responded to a

questionnaire (see January 14, 1972

issue), indicated that 78 percent of them

""sometimes feel unsafe in their own

homes'', and that `43 percent of families

(responding) were' crime victims last

year."

Fear

_Itis also true that the population's fear

of real crime is growing at an even more

rapid rate than actual incidents of crime.

We are a nation of people becoming

desperate, possibly to the pa of

irrationality.

. The Government has resiended by

proposing preventive detention, increased

"no-knock'? house

searches, reversal of recent U.S. Supreme

Court decisions guaranteeing minimum

rights to suspects, and in general the

increase of police powers.

Cause

However, it is unlikely that real crime

will be substantially reduced, even should

these measures be upheld by the Courts

and put into general practice, since none

of them eliminate the causes of growth in

crime. In fact, measures such as the ``no-

knock'' law are actually `meant to deal

with victimless, rather than real, crime. A'

recent analysis by the ACLU of the results

of wiretapping show that the typical payoff

is the apprehension of a few small-time

bookmakers.

But it is likely that if no alternative is

presented public pressure will lead to

substantially increased police and

prosecutor powers, with the possible

_ fesult that we will, indeed, find ourselves

in a police state. It is probable that under a...

total police state. crime would be reduced

- but at what cost?

Victims

Over half of the arrests and work of the

average large city police force involve -

crimes without victims - namely, crimes

in which property has not been destroyed,

or stolen, or anyone physically injured,

but rather a "`sin'' has been committed or

a person has, perhaps, injured himself.

Examples include homosexual acts,

prostitution, vagrancy, loitering, use of

drugs, gambling, drunkeness, abortion,

and various forms of "disorderly con-

duct.""

In 1970, feorang to the Bureau of

| Criminal Statistics, 44.9 percent of all the

felony cases filed in the Los Angeles

Superior Court were drug cases. The

steadily rising number of drug cases

excludes marijuana cases which were filed

_ by the District Attorney or the Court

simply as misdemeanors. Of the felony

drug cases filed, 18.2 percent concerned

marijuana.

Among the" consequences of

prosecution of the victimless crime

2 ate:

-the entire machinery for the

administration of criminal justice is so

heavily involved in the enforcement of

sumptuary laws as to materially

subtract from the time and effort

required to enforce laws against real

crimes.

-the inability of the machinery of

criminal justice to devote adequate

attention to the enforcement of laws

against real crime leads to public

pressure and ``law and _ order''

measures, which undercut civil

liberties.

-police abuses such as _ illegal

searches, infiltration by undercover

agents, and entrapment. These flow

naturally from the attempt to enforce

laws against victimless crime.

-the scarring of the lives of

hundreds of thousands of persons

because they have been arrested,

prosecuted and jailed on such charges.

_ -the creation of a nexus between

victimless crimes and real crimes,

with the effect that more people are

led into serious, actual crime.

Perhaps the most serious consequence,

and one which bears directly on the real

crime crisis, is the handling of the

"`hard'' drug problem. The criminalizing

of hard drugs has led directly to the in-

crease of crimes against both property and

persons. It does not take much

imagination to realize what happens. when

a heroin addict has to maintain a $50 or

$100 a day habit. How many addicts are

likely to be able to earn that amount of

money? How many addicts must engage

in desperate crimes to maintain their

habit?

Correlation

Recent crime statistics point this out -

even more dramatically - by the

correlation of slight decreases in the real

crime rates in communities maintaining

methadone treatment programs for heroin

addicts.

As columnist Charles McCabe recently

put it, in the San Francisco Chronicle, ``If

there is one thing our leading crime

authorities, including cops, agree on, it is

that the prime cause of urban hard-crime

today is the heroin addict.'' Obviously,

we must find another way to deal with the

serious problem of drug addiction, outside

of the criminal process.

Social Policy

Of course, most of the victimless crimes

do present difficult questions of social

policy - for instance, should we adopt the

English plan of government dispensing

clinics for heroin addicts? Doesn't this

make government a party to self

destructive drug taking? Would gam-

bling be taken over by the state? Doesn't

that raise the question of inflicting yet

another regressive tax on the poor (the

well-to-do generally don't play such

unfavorable odds)? Should the state be

involved in the licensing and health in-

spection of prostitutes? If so, does that not

_ put the state in the position of complicity - 7

in demeaning exploitation of women?

_ While these are all difficult questions, it

is unlikely that we will find any solutions

to them as long as we believe that the

problem can be taken care of by criminal

laws. Obviously what is first needed is a

recognition of it as a major societal

problem, and a tremendous amount of

- public discussion and creative thought.

Political

Unfortunately, no major national or

even statewide political leader is willing to

tell the American people that there is a

choice - that the decriminalization of the :

victimless crime would lead to a sub-

stantial reduction in the rate of real crime.

Even the few who understand a con-

nection are afraid of favoring ``sin''.

In spite of the saeilagie `of the

leaders to raise these matters, the public is

slowly becoming conscious of the con-

nection. A small number of articles are

appearing in mass circulation magazines

and newspapers. The LIFE article referred

to earlier reported that, among respon-

dents to its questionnaire, some suggested

that hard drugs be decriminalized as a way

to cut crime. That expression of opinion

would have been virtually impossible,

even a yeaf ago.

San Francisco

Here in San Francisco a committee of

prominent persons appointed by Mayor

Alioto and chaired by an attorney picked

for his impeccable, conservative

credentials, has made the connection

between victimless crimes and the

reduction of real crime. In their report to

the City in July, 1971, the Committee

recommended the repeal of many of the

Time to Decriminalize "Victimless" Crimes

By Jay A. Miller

"*victimless'' crime laws, and the local

non-enforcement of others. Since that

time, the Mayor of San Francisco has

ordered police not to arrest for mere

possession and use of marijuana.

Responding to a new state law, the San

Francisco Health Department has a plan

for an extensive detoxification center, and

for the use of people other than police

personnel for the handling of public

drunks.

The popular daily columnist, Charles

McCabe, has written two series of

columns in the San Francisco Chronicle

recently on victimless crimes. His latest

series compares laws criminalizing

"`hard'' drug use to the Volstead Act

which established prohibition, with all of

its attendant ills.

Addicts

_ Nationally syndicated columnist Joseph

Kraft writes, ``for example, a good way to

cut crime rates is to make drugs available

legitimately, thus reducing the price and

easing the drive of addicts for money to get

their fix. But that runs up against the

institutional feeling that the way to stop

crime is to catch criminals. So political

leaders, competing for support are

reluctant to come clean with the public."'

The point here is that at this moment in

time what has been previously un-

thinkable and unspeakable, namely, the

decriminalization of the victimless crime,

is now beginning to flow into the public

consciousness as a viable alternative.

Proposal

The ACLU-NC_ Foundation is

proposing a project which would conduct a

campaign of public education to take

advantage of the growing public con-

sciousness. The objective would be to

make decriminalization of victimless

crime an acceptable approach to the

growing problem of the control of real

crime.

In addition, working through our legal

staff and cooperating attorneys, lawsuits

_ would be filed challenging the con-

Stitutionality in selected victimless crime

areas.

Foundation funding i is Now ake oe

for this project.

New Literature

Available

ACLU-NC has stocked up in recent

weeks with quantities of new literature

available from our national office. If you

wish to order any of the following, write

Bill Kane ACLU-NC, 593 0x00B0 Market

Street, San Francisco, 94105:

Free

Surveillance: Is This the Law? Cites cases

ACLU is handling to stop gov onen

surve llance.

Prison: Where Is the Law? Cites cases

ACLU is handling to bring reform to

prisons.

Sexual Equality: This Is the Law. Cites

SACU is Fadiine to fights sex bias.

Marijuana. Explains civil liberties

violations that result from present laws on

marijuana.

Reasonable

The First Freedoms: Speech, Press,

Assembly. By Franklyn S. Haiman. Status

of the First Amendment today. 30 pp., 20

cents. a

The Engineering of Restraint: The Nixon

Administration nd The Press. By Fred

Powledge. A report on the mainpulation

of news media by the federal government.

53 pp., $1.00.

Your Rights Before The Grand Jury. A

review of legal rights of one subpoenaed by

a grand jury. 21 pp., 30 cents.

The Grand Jury Network: How The

Nixon Administration Has Secretly

Perverted A Traditional Safeguard of

Individual Rights. January 3 issue of The

Nation. 32 pp., 50 cents.

MAY

aclu NEWS Page 3

Oakland

Loyalty Oath

Knocked Out

The Alameda County Superior Court in (c)

Oakland has struck down as un-

constitutional a section of the state

Election Code which calls for a loyalty

oath for candidates, in a case handled by

the Oakland Chapter of the ACLU.

Presiding Judge Robert L. Bostick

agreed with ACLU volunteer attorney

Joseph Morozume that the oath required

of candidates for state county central

committee is an unlawful abridgement of

free speech and association when it asks

that they state:

`I solemnly swear (or affirm) that I am

not engaged in one way or another in any

attempt to overthrow the government by

force or violence and that I am not

knowingly a member of any organization

engaged in such an attempt.''

Morozume describes the loyalty oath as

a `relic of the past, borne of the political

hysteria of the 1952 McCarthy era, which

should be forever placed in its final resting

place. Surely one's loyalty and fitness for

office should be amply verified where he

vows allegiance to the Constitution of the

United States, as all of my clients have

gladly done.''

The suit was filed on behalf of seven

Peace and Freedom Party candidates for

county central committee: Lee Coe, Hilda

Cowan, Anne Draper, Patricia Duncan,

Sarah Scahill, Leo Seidlitz, and William

Walker, Jr.

Paul Halvonik explains, ``This is one of

several cases that the ACLU is handling

this election year to knock down some of

the artificial and unconstitutional barriers

to the ballot that rob a citizen of his

News from the Chapters

fundamental liberty to run for office."'

Halvonik points out, ``If we are serious

`in counseling the disaffected to seek

change through the political process, we

have to remove the archaic barriers that

stand in the way of full political par-

ticipation.''

San Francisco

P.O. Employee

Reinstated

The Employment Rights Committee of

the SF Chapter has seen its first case come

to conclusion with a reinstatement to his

job for their client, postal employee

Howard Sandman. ~

Sandman was fired last December on a

, charge of conduct unbecoming a postal

employee because he was found with a

LSD capsule in his possession. However,

the Board of Appeals and Review over-

turned the decision of the Regional

Postmaster General and restored Sandman

to duty retroactively. They stated that the

notice of the intention to fire Sandman was

""procedurally defective,'' since ``it was

not indicated how or why his possession of

the capsule constituted misconduct on his

part as a postal employee''. They point

out that this lack of clarity of the charges

made it impossible for Sandman to prepare

a reasonable defense.

The Employment Rights Committee did

the initial screening of this complaint and

secured the services of Seymour Farber as

a volunteer attorney to handle the case.

Sacramento

Founder Dies

Long-time ACLU member Lee H.

Watkins, retired apiary assistant at the

University of California, Davis, died

suddenly April 6 at Kaiser Foundation

Hospital in Sacramento. He was 64.

A native of Selma, Calif., Mr. Watkins

was a member of a prominent California

beekeeping family and was a commercial

beekeeper until 1941. From 1944 to 1952

he taught a short course in beekeeping in

Oakland and was president of the Alameda

County Beekeepers' Association from

1949 to 1951.

In 1952, Mr. Watkins moved to Davis

as apicultural assistant, a position he held

until his retirement in 1964.

Mr. Watkins helped organize the

Sacramento ACLU chapter. His widow

Millicent Watkins has suggested those

who wish to contribute something in his

honor make a donation to ACLU.

Grand Juror

Sues Jury

The Marin Chapter has filed a legal

action against the Chairman of the Marin

County Grand Jury over the removal of

one of its members - new ACLU-NC

Board Member Rick Beban - from

certain subcommittees, allegedly because

of his public statements critical of the

Jury.

The brief was filed in the California

Court of Appeal by volunteer attorney

Richard A. Horning, Chairman of the

Marin Chapter.

The petition attacks the Grand Jury for

claiming unlimited power to censor or

punish Beban for exercising his rights of

freedom of speech and expression. At issue

is an interview that Beban gave with an

underground newspaper, the Berkeley

Tribe, last October, in which he was

critical of the manner in which the Grand

Jury is chosen and the manner in which it

carries out its functions.

Nothing in Beban's public statements

violates the state law on secrecy about

contents of deliberations, names of

persons indicted but not arrested,

evidence received, or votes of individual

grand jurors. In fact, the brief points out

that the Grand Jury's attorney, Marin

County Counsel Douglas J. Maloney,

advised the Jury that they had no power to

remove Beban from the subcommittees _

and that they could not constitutionally

penalize Beban for speaking out.

This suit does not relate to the current

controversy concerning the alleged press

leak of the Marin Grand Jury's report on

the Sausalito Police Department, and the

efforts of the Grand Jury to question

Beban concerning his alleged involvement

in this episode.

Legal Docket Notes

Following is a brief summary of the

activity that has occurred in the past

month on ACLU-NC cases.

U.S. Supreme Court

1. Strait v. Laird - Availability to in-

service reservist conscientious ob-

jector of habeas corpus in the Federal

Court where he resides. Briefed,

argued, and under submission.

2. Hamilton v. California -

Challenge to Judicial gag rule.

Certiorari denied, Justice Douglas -

dissenting.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth

Circuit

1. Valdez v. Selective Service -

Challenge, pursuant to 20 of the

Military and Selective Service Act, to

the power of Selective Service to draft

between September 28, 1971 and

December 28, 1971. Opening Brief

filed.

2. Choung v. Misterly - The

government's appeal from our suc-

cessful contention that certain

criminal complaints must give details

of the offenses charged. The Ninth

Circuit reversed the District Court,

holding that habeas corpus is not

available to one not actually in

physical

rehearing has been filed.

United States District Court

1. Hernandez v. Veterans Ad-

ministration - A class action on

behalf of conscientious objectors who,

although they performed alternative

service, have been denied educational

benefits under the Veterans Read-

justment Benefits Act. Judge Carter

dismissed the case. A notice of appeal

has been filed.

2. Humphrey v. Brown - Attack on

statute which prohibits anyone from

Page 4 iw

aclu NEWS

custody. A _ petition for -

running for a party's congressional

nomination if he has not been

registered with that party for three

months prior to his declaration of

candidacy. Judge McBride denied

relief. An appeal is being con-

templated.

Supreme Court of California

1. Comings v. Board of Education -

The Court of Appeal held that one

could not have his teaching credential

revoked simply because of a-

marijuana conviction. The Attorney

General's petition for hearing denied;

thus the Court of Appeal's decision is

now final.

2. March v. Municipal Court - Right

of indigent misdemeanant defendant

to a transcript at state expense.

Amicus .brief filed. |

State Court of Appeal

1. Inre Pachtner, et al. - Petition for

writ of habeas corpus on behalf of

_ picketers of British Motor Cars, who

violated a court injunction. Petition

filed, stay of execution of contempt

sentences ordered by court.

2. People v. Gurner and Maginnis -

Challenge to constitutionality of law

prohibiting dissemination of in-

formation on means for facilitating an

abortion. Opening brief filed.

3. Hora v. Scott - Suit to compel

police to enter vacation of conviction

on their records, which show only the

conviction. The Attorney General is

conceding error and the notations are

being entered on Mrs. Hora'`s record.

Superior Court

Peace and Freedom Party v.

Davidson - Challenge to loyalty oath

required of candidates for public -

office. Oath ruled unconstitutional by

the Alameda Superior Court.

Shockley

Defender

Defended

In a letter to the Los Angeles Times

correcting a fact in an article, Jay A.

Miller expresses the ACLU's concern

about the growing repression of speech on

campuses.

Miller's April 26 letter pointed out that

contrary to public reports, no reprimand

was Officially issued by Sacramento State

College against Associate Professor Carole

Barnes for inviting Stanford Professor

Shockley to her campus to present his

views on the genetic racial inferiority of

blacks. The ACLU's Sacramento Chapter

volunteer attorney Lawrence Karlton has

been providing Prof. Barnes with any legal

assistance needed. Miller advised the LA

Times that the ACLU was launching a

campaign to urge public statements of

support for campus free speech by college

and university student councils and

student newspapers.

Beard

expression of his personality." '' Hence

they agreed with the ACLU's contention

that "`the wearing of a beard is symbolic

conduct entitled to constitutional

protection as an exercise of free speech."'

As the Court could find no evidence of

any "`compelling state interest'? which

would justify the ``substantial in-

fringement'' of King's First Amendment ~

right, they declared that the state is

constitutionally inhibited from denying

`unemployment compensation benefits

because of his beard.

The case now goes back to the

_ Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board

for reconsideration of its decision to deny

benefits. a

SpeakersBureau

Announced

The ACLU has a speakers bureau that

would welcome the opportunity to provide

a speaker for any of the organizations you

may belong to - clubs, churches,

whatever. Although it is just getting

started, the following list of engagements

for the past month will give some idea of

the diversity of topics our articulate staff

and members can speak to. If interested in

obtaining a speaker, or in volunteering to

speak, contact Bill Kane at 433-2750.

April 5 A Los Angeles High School -

`*Debate on Student Rights''

- Eva Jefferson

Woodside High School - .

`*Justice for All: Ideal vs.

Reality'' - Jay Miller

California Scholarship

Federation - ``Student Rights

Workshop'' - Eva Jefferson

KSFX-FM Radio -

`*Women's Rights'' - Debbie

Hinkel

April 12 KGO-TV - ``Free Speech:

14 and 16 An Editorial Rebuttal'' -

Chuck Marson

KFBK Radio, Sacramento -

``Death Penalty'' - Debbie.

Hinkel

Jewish Community Center,

San Francisco - ``The

Public's Right to Know'? -

Mike Harris

Golden Gate Democratic Club

- *`*What is ACLU Doing

Today?'' - Jay Miller

April 26 KOVR-TV, Stockton.

Sacramento - ``Death

- Penalty'' - Debbie Hinkel

April 26 Aragon High School, San

April 5

April 8

April 9

April 13

April 20

April 20

Mateo - ``Right of Privacy'? -

Jay Miller