vol. 44, no. 8

Volume XLIV

November-December 1979

Inside Special Report - 1979 Legal Docket

"No. 8

- Inmate Abused, Sheriffs Sued _

to the ground."

Bill of Rights

Greystone barracks at Santa Rita. wage said it "should be razed

Photo: Valley Times

Royalties

- Finance Crucial Legal Work -

"The Bill of Rights Day Celebration

always faces last minute crises, but this

year, with Jules Feiffer as our keynote

speaker and Joan Baez as our award

winner, we've got a bigger problem than

usual - are we going to be able to fit

everybody in the hall?," said Fran

Strauss, ACLU Board Coordinator for

the Bill of Rights Day Celebration.

Feiffer's keynote promises to be a

stimulating analysis of the problems

facing civil libertarians today. As he

wrote in Civil Liberties Review, ``I don't

like civil liberties any better than the

average American. I would say that

more than half the people whose First

`and Fourth Amendment rights I've

G

- vigorously defended, I wouldn't care to

have to my house for dinner."'

The theme of this year's celebration

in ``Many a Mile to Freedom," the title

of a song by this year's Earl Warren

Civil Liberties Award winner, Joan

Baez. Baez was selected for the award

by the ACLU Foundation Board last

March because of her lifelong com-

mitment to civil liberties and her special

association with the ACLU of Northern

California.

-During the Vietnam War, Baez made

hundreds of speeches. encouraging

young men to resist the draft and was

herself imprisoned for

continued on page 4

Bill of A

Rights Day

C-1 Celebration

1979

civil -

"Santa Rita Rehabilitation Center

has been exposed as one of the hell-

holes of the Western world, and we're

going to sue the County until conditions

there are substantially improved," said

James J. Brosnahan, ACLU cooperating -

attorney, at a press conference an-

nouncing an ACLU lawsuit on behalf of

a former Santa Rita inmate.

The 28-year old former inmate who

was beaten and sexually assaulted by

`other prisoners while riding on a

Sheriff's Department bus from Santa

Rita, the Alameda County Jail, to the

Oakland Courthouse is _ being

represented by the ACLU-NC in a suit

to recover damages against the former

Sheriff, two Deputies, and Alameda

~ County.

The complaint charges a systematic

indifference to prisoners' rights by

officials at Santa Rita and the sub-

sequent endangerment of prisoners

there. The suit alleges that the two

- Alameda County Sheriff's Deputies on

the prison bus, W.J. Hillman and A. H.

Schalk, who were responsible by law for

the safety of all inmates in custody,

failed to protect the young man from

violent physical attack and rape.

The former inmate was sent to Santa

Rita in August, 1978, and was at first

segregated from violent inmates. But on

October 26, 1978, as he was being

transported on a prison vehicle to

Oakland for a court hearing, he was not

segregated or protected in any way by

the Deputies, the suit charges.

' The young man was seated only a few

feet behind the Deputies when he was

accosted by a known violent prisoner

nicknamed `Sick Man."

The prisoner was dragged to the back

of the bus where he was beaten and his

life threatened until he submitted to

sexual assaults by Sick Man and other

inmates. Though the prisoner screamed

for help, the two Deputies remained

seated, staring straight ahead, ignoring

his cries.

He was subjected to sexual abuse for

20 to 30 minutes and arrived at the

Courthouse in such a severe state of

shock that he could not function. The ~

Court modified his sentence and he was

released from Santa Rita that day.

The former inmate's mother took

him to the hospital where he was

treated for cuts, contusions, and other

injuries. He has also had to receive

psychiatric treatment for emotional

disturbances related to the attack. His

attackers were convicted of criminal

assault in a subsequent criminal trial _

and are still in jail at Santa Rita.

The suit for damages against

Alameda County and its employees was

filed on October 25 in Alameda County -

Superior Court by ACLU cooperating

attorneys James J. Brosnahan and

Harold McElhinny of the San Francisco

law firm of Morrison and Foerster and

. ACLU staff attorney Amitai Schwartz.

Schwartz explained, ``One purpose of

this suit is to remind prison officials

that constitutional rights, including the

prohibition of cruel and unusual

punishment, are not barred by jailhouse

walls."'

Charges of poor conditions at Santa

Rita are not new. In 1972, a federal

judge called the jail `deplorable' and

found the conditions there `shocking

and debasing." The judge recom-

mended that the Greystone section of

the jail "`should be razed `to the

"ground."

Mr. Michael Schuchardt, supervising

nurse of the Criminal Justice Medical

Facility at Santa Rita, has attested to

the constant victimization of prisoners

at the jail. Appearing before the Police

Community Relations Committee of the

Alameda Human Relations Com-

mission last year, Schuchardt estimated

continued on page 4

oan Baez

Recipient 1979 Earl Warren Civil Liberties Award

ules Feiffer

Keynote Speaker

"Music by a trio from the San Francisco Conservatory, of Music

Sheraton Palace Hotel, San Francisco, Sunday, Dec.16, No-host bar 3-4 p.m, Program 4-6 p.m.

Nov.-Dec. 1979

aclu news

- Death Penalty: `Legal' Contradiction -

By Dorothy Ehrlich

_ Executive Director, ACLU-NC

The 12-year moratorium on the use

of capital punishment in the United

States solemnly ended this year with the

execution of John - Spenkelink by the

state of Florida in May and the

execution of Jesse Bishop by the state of |

Nevada in October.

Five hundred and sixt) four other

inmates currently wait on death rows

throughout the nation, while individual.

appeals and challenges in the states

where capital punishment statutes have

been enacted slowly move up through |

the state and federal court appeal

process.

That ignoble process has been notably

quiet in California, where 22 people are

currently condemned to death and a

recent unexpected opinion issued by the

California Supreme Court on August 31

indicated that capital punishment may

be considered constitutional under

California law.

That recent California Supreme

Court opinion was an unusual at-

tachment to a decision unanimously

overturning the murder conviction of

Lavelle Frierson. Frierson had been

convicted under a former death penalty

statute, SB 155, which was passed by

the legislature in 1977 after the ACLU

lost a long battle, and was repealed

when the voters of California passed an

even broader death penalty statute,

_ Proposition 7, last November. _

Of the 22 inmates currently awaiting

appeals on San Quentin's death row, 21

_ of them were sentenced under the now

defunct SB 155. :

As the sentence was overturned on

the grounds that Frierson had lacked

adequate counsel during the original

~ trial, technically, the court was only

offering its observations as to whether it

might declare the death penalty con- |

stitutional in a future case, where a-

_ conviction was not overturned and the

decision on the death penalty would be

necessary to the actual outcome of the "

case. '

Nonetheless, those observations

ominously signalled an end to the

assumption that the death penalty

would be considered unconstitutional

by the state's highest court.

Court Opinion

In 1972, the California Supreme

Court majority ruled that any death

penalty was unconstitutional because it

violated the state constitution's

prohibition on cruel or unusual punish-

_ ment. =

In response to that court decision,

Proposition 17 was approved by the

voters in November of that year,

altering the state constitution by

declaring, "the death penalty shall-not

be construed as cruel or unusual

punishment."

The August court opinion was the

first time the court addressed itself to

the significance of the voter initiative of

1972.

In the Frierson opinions, which

totaled 90 pages, five of the Justices

indicated that it would be permissible

under California law to allow for the

death penalty; but four of the Justices

claimed that applying the specific

statute, SB 155, may not be con-

stitutional under federal law.

While it is reasuring for death

penalty opponents to recognize that the

legal battle against the death penalty in

California is by no means over, the

recent decision represents a stunning

retreat from the previously held opinion

of the court.

That retreat is vividly illustrated by |

the comments offered by Justice Mosk,

a member of the court's 1972 majority

who found the death- penalty un-

constitutional 7 years ago:

"With the utmost reluctance, I have

come full circle in my consideration of

the death penalty in California.

~..im 1972... 1joineda majority

of ne court in the well-reasoned and

movingly expressed opinion of Chief

Justice Wright, holding that capital

punishment was cruel or unusual

punishment under the California

Constitution.

The people of California responded

quickly and emphatically, both directly

and through their elected represen-

tatives, to callously declare that what-

ever the trends elsewhere in the nation

and the world, society in our state does

not deem the retributive extinction of a

human life to be either cruel or un-

usual.

`6

. This court, in Gecenaitine the

Peer abre limits of punishment, must

look in the first instance of those values

to which the people of our state sub-

scribe. That as one individual I prefer

values more lofty than those implicit in

the macabre process of deliberately

exterminating a human being does not

permit me to interpret in my image the

common values of the people of our

State.

"IT am therefore compelled to con-

clude that the 1977 death penalty

legislation does not violate the Cali-

fornia Constitution. Whether it

complies with the federal Constitution

is a different question that is much

more difficult to answer. The difficulty

of course, is that the U.S. Supreme

Court has both created the problem of

such compliance and failed to give the

states consistent and workable

guidance on how to solveit."" ~

While Justice Mosk eloquently

presents the argument for death penalty

8i issues a year, monthly ee bi- -monthly i in January-February, June-July,

August-September and November-December

Second Class Mail privileges authorized at San Francisco, California

Published by the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California -

Drucilla Ramey, Chairperson Dorothy Ehrlich, Executive Director

Elaine Elinson, Editor Michael Miller, Chapter Page

ACLU NEWS (USPS 018-040)

2

814 Mission St. -Ste. 301, San Francisco, California 94103-777-4545

Membership $20 and up, of which 50 cents is for a subscription to the aclu news :

| and 50 cents is for the national ACLU-bi-monthly publication, Civil Liberties.

issue

opponents to surrender the principles

which underlie the theory for abolishing

capital punishment, the bulk of the

recent court opinion wrestles with the

difficulty of applying the theory of a

constitutional death penalty to an

actual statute. Most simply put, if the

state is going to legally execute people,

how can it conceivably do that fairly?

As lnstice Mosk decries, throughout :

the history of death penalty litigation

during the last ten years, the federal

courts have not issued any guidelines

which would establish the fair rules of

play for the taking of life by the state.

In 1972, the U.S. Supreme Court

held that the death penalty itself was

not unconstitutional, but at the same

time threw out all the death penalty

legislation existing in the states

throughout the nation when they found

that it was being applied unfairly.

The court found in 1972 that the

death penalty was applied

discriminatorily against racial

minorities and the poor, and that it was

applied arbitrarily when the punish-

ment did not necessarily fit the crime.

At that time, the court suggested that a

mandatory death sentence would not be

subject to arbitrary and capricious

judicial whims and ruled therefore that

if a defendant was convicted of a

specific crime, regardless of the

mitigating or aggravating

cumstances,

punishment of death.

In July, 1976,:the Supreme Court

reviewed vafious state schemes which

attempted to put that standard into

practice - and completely reversed

their 1972 decision. They found instead,

that a mandatory death sentence, which

did not guide the jury in using

discretion to weigh the mitigating and

`aggravating circumstances was, un-

constitutional.

Following the 1976 decision,

the California legislature moved quickly

to enact emergency legislation on the

death penalty. That statute was SB 155.

Defects in the 1977 Law

Although clear guidelines have still

not been issued by the U.S. Supreme

Court, various requirements for a

constitutional death - penalty law have

been established. SB 115 simply defies `

those requirements in at least two ways.

Those flaws in SB 155 are now at

in two appeals before the

California Supreme Court, the cases of

Maurice Thompson and Charles Alan

Green who are both represented by the

State Public Defenders Office. -

Ezra Hendon, Frierson's Public

Defender, explained that SB 155 does

not meet the two basic requirements

a established in 1972 and 1976 U.S.

penalty

_ defendant facing a.death' sentence. Jess

procedural: protection . than: that: af-

forded to a person accused . of drunk

cir--

he would recieve the .

"lofty values"'

Supreme Court decisions for the im-

position of the ultimate punishment:

"informed rationality and con-

sistency."

"Only by meeting these -

requirements, Hendon said, `"`can we

have any confidence that the death

penalty is not imposed in a freakish

manner and that there is a meaningful

basis for distinguishing the few cases in

which the death penalty is imposed

form the many cases in which it is not."

Hendon outlined four principal

procedural devices for accomplishing

these dual requirements.

1) Objective, clear.

guide the jury; _

2) A requirement | that a jury. in-

dicate in writing its basis for imposing

the death penalty;

3) Instructions to the jury on the

specific burden of proof to be applied in

resolving whether the sentence should

be life.or death; and (c)

4) A mechanism to review

"aberrant'' death sentences so as to

ensure that..the -death "penalty is

standards to |

proportionately applied: .:.

"It. is clear: that. the `death iy

which the: California Legislature

enacted in 1977 is seriously deficient in

providing these constitutional

protections."' Hendon said.

"The simple fact is that the death

penalty in California can still be im-

posed for reasons every bit as freakish

as before. In fact, California's. death

law affords .a_. criminal

driving."

Oral arguments in the two death

sentence appeals were heard by the

California Supreme Court in October

and the court is still deliberating. The

outcome of those deliberations could

have a tremendous impact on the fate of

the 19 other death row inmates.

Compromise of Values?

How, in the. short span. of. a dozen

years, did we move from a nation which

abandoned capital punishment to the

present era of state executions. and

judicial wrangling about how to apply

the death penalty?

Over the years, for somewhat suspect

reasons, politicians have created the

illusion that were it not for the tem-

porary abolition of the death penalty

there would have been `no crime on the

streets, no murders and rapes in the

back alleys, no `snipers on the rooftops

- perhaps all the ills of society could

have been cured were it not for the state

gas chamber being inoperable.

That message has reached the vast

majority of the citizens in this state and

in the nation. It has creeped its way

insidiously into the legislature, onto the

ballot, and has caught up with the

judiciary - the neutral interpreters of

the constitution.

Can we be satisfied to eee the

which Justice Mosk

describes, and to which all civil

libertarians must aspire? Or will that.

compromise only be offered as long as

the death penalty remains only an

abstract principle, and outlive its

usefulness as the nation watches more

and more inmates move from death row

-to the gas | chamber.

Landlord Needled

In Rent Suit.

Two Berkeley tenants, being sued by

their landlord for libel and slander as a

result of their efforts to inform and |

organize their fellow tenants concerning

illegal rent increases, evictions, and

poor maintenance of their buildings,

are being supported in their defense by

the ACLU-NC. . -

_ The tenants, Patrick Lee McKloskey,

a legal assistant, and John Riasonovsky,

-a U.C. student, are alleged to have

circulated two letters accusing the

landlord, Arnold Laub, of violating

Berkeley's rent control ordinance.

The landlord is suing McKloskey and

Riasonovsky for $120,000 in damages,

claiming that their organizing actions

have defamed him and interfered with _

his business. The landlord's suit also

seeks a preliminary injunction against

the tenants which would prohibit them

66

from interfering with his business "in -

any way."

ACLU `staff counsel Alan Schlosser

filed a friend of the court brief -in |

Alameda `County Superior Court: in-

opposition to the issuance of the

preliminary injunction, claiming that

an injunction would pose a serious

threat to the constitutional rights of

freedom of speech and association of

the tenants.

"This case is reminiscent of the ways

in which employers attempted to use

the courts to squelch organizing and

publicity about labor disputes before

there were " labor. laws. protecting em- |

ployees' tights. But for over 40 years,

the courts have clearly established that

First Amendment guarantees are in-

tended to promote open and _far-

reaching discussion and dissemination

of information about the issues involved

in disputes between employers and

employees," Schlosser said.

"Similar constitutional protection. is

afforded to informational activities in.

non- -labor |

organizations protesting a_ business'

unfair practices, or - as in this case -

a dispute. between tenants and a land-

lord."

The request for a preliminary in-

junction was originally scheduled to be

heard on November 5. However, after

the ACLU filed its amicus brief, the

case was postponed at the landlord's

request until December.

In the meantime, the two tenants, the

Measure I Compliance Committee and

the Berkeley Tenants Union to which

they belong, are continuing their

organizing actions.

isputes, such as consumer _

Nov.-Dec. 1979

~ aclu news:

Anti-busing Measure Will Be Fought

The ACLU-NC Board of Directors,

meeting two days after the passage of

Proposition 1 in the state-wide election,

committed the organization to

challenging the constitutionality of the

anti-school desegregation amendment

and to `"`vigorously pursue litigation

which seeks to remove the Robbins

Amendment from the state con-

stitution."

Utilizing scare tactics and

exaggerated claims against `forced

busing". the Robbins campaign secured

the passage of Proposition 1 on

November 6 by a 2-1 margin.

ACLU _ Vice-chairperson Eva

Jefferson Paterson who co-chaired the

Californians Against Prop. 1 campaign

said, "We are deeply disappointed that

the voters of California did not realise

that Proposition 1 was a referendum on

racism, a misunderstanding which led

to the massive victory for such a

reactionary measure. -

"The implications are somber: the

intention of the Prop. 1 supporters was

to turn the clock back on - in-

_ tegration 25 years."'

Prior to the passage of Proposition 1,

the California Constitution and state

courts held that segregation must be

_ eliminated whether it is intentional (de

jure) or unintentional (de facto).

Proposition 1 now replaces the state

constitution's equal protection clause

with the federal standard which

requires broad scale integration plans

only when segregation is found to have

- been. caused by intentional govern-'-

mental or school board action.

Dorothy Ehrlich, executive director,

said at the Board meeting, "The very

passage of Prop. 1 constitutes an act of

intentional discrimination against

racial minorities in the public school

system.'

Speaking of the projected litigation ;

_ staff counsel Alan Schlosser explained,

"We will have a great deal of evidence

to draw upon to prove that the ob-

jectives and the effect of the new

constitutional amendment are to

maintain segregated schools by denying

. the courts the necessary tools to cerrect

the fundamental evil in our system."'

A very recent case in the State of

Washington also supports the view that

Proposition 1 would be found un-

constitutional by federal standards. The

Washington voters passed an initiative

which `established the right of students

to attend their neighborhood schools.

The federal court found the initiative

unconstitutional in that the overriding

objective of the. electorate was to

"terminate the efforts which had been

taken by school boards to balance

schools racially through mandatory

busing of students. The termination of

these efforts could only result in racially

imbalanced schools in those districts

and a disporportionate impact on

minority students."'

According to Schlosser, the manner

of the ACLU challenge to Proposition 1

may take a variety of forms. `""We are

already working closely with attorneys

in the most significant de-segregation

case in northern California, Tinsley v.

Palo Alto Unified School District (ed.

note: see ACLU News, May, 1979)..-The

state Court of Appeal agreed with the -

ACLU view (stated in our amicus brief)

of the constitutional necessity of using

an inter-district desegregation plan in

this case and sent the case back to trial

court.

"We are prepared to participate in

this case again, to challenge the con-

stitutionality of Proposition 1,"

Schlosser added.

There is already a precedent for

challenging a _ state constitutional

amendment as a violation of the U.S.

Constitution. In 1964, California voters

adopted Proposition 14, which

amended the state constitution to

prohibit local anti-discrimination fair

housing laws. Both the California and

U.S. Supreme Courts ruled (in Reitman

v. Mulkey) that Proposition 14 was

constitutionally invalid under the

Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S.

Constitution because its "immediate

objective' and "ultimate effect" were to

encourage and promote discrimination,

thereby constituting an illegal and

intentionally discriminatory act by the

state.

The ACLU position is that a similar

context surrounds the passage of,

Proposition 1, and that it too is

therefore invalid under the Fourteenth

Amendment.

The ACLU-SC will probably be

challenging Proposition 1 in the current

L.A. school desegregation case, and (c)

there may soon. be other suits

throughout the state in which the

constitutionality of the new amendment

will be examined.

Letters

I have been a member of ACLU so

long that I've stopped counting. I lived

through the McCarthy Era, the Skokie

Incident, and blips in between with

continuing respect for the organization.

But ":. .

But lately, various ACLU members

have tended to use the ACLU for non-

related purposes - namely, to promote

their own trendy causes by accusing

those who disagree with them of

somehow subverting civil liberties by

having a contrary opinion.

At the moment, it's Valentino,

Thomas-Glass, and Shattuck at the

Chapter Conference, as reported in the

October issue of the ACLU News. Their |

attempt was to smear nuclear power

proponents with accusations of being

plotters for: 1) police spying, 2) a

Pentagon takeover (always a good

`phrase to stir liberal emotions), and

3) Watergate Two. Their "`evidence''

was never revealed. I can just see old Joe

McCarthy now, waving his list of.

names.

If we want to play that game, I can

say that there is evidence that anti-

nuclear groups are the greatest danger

of all to civil liberties. They are violating

the civil liberties of the Blacks, the

poor, and the underdeveloped world by

engaging in activities that can keep

those unfortunates from ever rising to

Marin County style living. They are

`violating all of our liberties by

promoting an energy shortage that very

likely can lead the U.S. into a stupid

war to conquer the petroleum supply of

the Middle East.

The very specific point, however, is

that the ACLU is not a forum for this

issue - and certainly it should not be

used by limousine liberals to maintain

their comfortable lifestyle.

Sincerely,

Charles J. Maisel, Jr.

San Rafael.

Exercise your freedom of speech.

The ACLU News encourages mem-

bers to help create a civil liberties

forum through the letters column.

All letters must be signed and may

be edited for length. - Ed.

John S$ hattuck replies:

There is nothing "trendy" about the

secrecy, official deception, and political

spying that have emerged as major by-

products of nuclear development.

Several examples cited at the Chapter

Conference supply the evidence that

Mr. Maisel seeks about the impact of

nuclear development on civil liberties.

- The Nuclear Regulatory Com-

mission is

requiring all nuclear industry em-

ployees to submit to intrusive in-

vestigations of their personal lives and

political associations as a condition of

employment;

- The Eisenhower Administration

and its successors systematically

deceived the public for a quarter of a

century about the effects of nuclear

testing in Nevada and Utah on the

health of soldiers, and residents of the

- area:

- The Nuclear Regulatory Com-

mission is currently pressing for the

`enactment of legislation exempting

from the Freedom of Information Act

"any information about transportation

routes for nuclear waste and other

nuclear materials.

These and other recent developments

indicate that civil liberties are coming

under increasing pressure from nuclear

power. This does not mean that civil

libertarians must take a position in the

. debate over energy sources.

On the other hand, as the national

ACLU Board: of Directors declared in

April, 1976, the ACLU must "`oppose

. any facility designed to convert and

deliver energy to consumers where

governmental suppression of in-

formation or the infringement of any

constitutional guarantee accompanies

the licensing and/or operation of the

facility."

This is what the defence oe civil :

From the (c)

liberties is all about.

McCarthy era to the Skokie incident to

nuclear power the ACLU must stand up

for the Bill of Rights whenever it comes

under attack, no matter how com-

pelling the reasons may appear to be for

setting it aside.

John Shattuck.

John Shattuck is the Director of

ACLU's Washington office

promulgating a rule.

Nov.-Dec. 1979

aclu news

Bill of Rights-Day chair Fran Strauss

shares fundraising progress with

Tribute Committee co-chair Ephraim

Margolin Photo: Michael Miller

_ the program itself this year,'

~ said.

Inmate Abused

continued from page I

that as many as 14 reported and

unreported sexual assaults were oc-

curing within the barracks of Santa

Rita each night.

ACLU cooperating attorney Bros-

nahan, who Aas litigated matters

concerning Santa Rita before, stated

that the client was willing to bring the

lawsuit because he hopes to show that

inmates and former inmates will no

longer silently tolerate the brutality and

violence that is part of everyday life at

Santa Rita.

- Schwartz added, "This damage suit

is being filed not only for the plaintiff to

enforce his own rights, but also to put

the county on notice that the serious

conditions at Santa Rita will result in

money judgments against the county

itself in order to deter such neglect in

the future."

ACLU Leaflet Win

Mid-Peninsula Chapter members

have overturned a Stanford Shopping

Center ordinance restricting First

Amendment activities by testing the

ban themselves.

Armed with the recent Caftcraic

Supreme Court decision overturning a .

Santa Clara shopping center's

leafletting restrictions,

members went to the Stanford center to

hand out "No on Prop. 1" information.

`Shopping center officials, seeing

themselves outgunned, not only did not

try to have the ACLU members

arrested, but agreed to meet with

chapter attorneys to rewrite the

regulations.

the Chapter -

continued `from page |

responded

and. have given _ their

disobedience during the draft resistance tremendous practical support to our

" campaign. She volunteered a concert to

support the ACLU-NC campaign to

defeat the death penalty initiative in

1972 and participated in ACLU-NC

demonstrations against the death

penalty.

The award will be-presented to Joan

Baez by ACLUBoard member and 1977

Earl Warren Civil Liberties Award

winner, Francis Heisler, a longtime

friend of the veteran activist and singer.

"We are planning some changes in

" Strauss

"The Celebration will be held

from 4 to 6 in the afternoon, allowing

those who could not make an evening

event to come.

The two months prior to the

Celebration have traditionally been

devoted to the one major fundraising

"all-out effort" to underwrite and

support the ACLU-NC Foundation's

legal program." Strauss explained.

"As an example of the kind of

financial pressure we face, just take one

hard look at the massive list of ACLU

Foundation legal cases (ed. note; See

special insert ACLU 1979 Legal

Docket). There are cases affecting

school desegregation, the rights of

mental patients to refuse mind-altering

drugs, prisoners' right to privacy,

women's right to choose abortions -

cases which will affect the lives of

hundreds of thousands of people.

"It is incumbent upon us now to raise

the funds to ensure that we can carry

through with our commitment in these

cases, to see the litigation through every

lengthy and complicated stage."

Strauss, who has coordinated the Bill

of Rights Day since its inception in

1973, explained how the fundraising |

`program has been expanded this year.

The most important addition is the

establishment of the Tribute Com-

`mittee. Chaired by ACLU-NC General

Counsel Howard H. Jewel and Ephraim

Margolin and former Board member

Dorothy Patterson, the Tribute

Commiteee is made up of civic and

community leaders who have offered to

help solicit funds for the Foundation.

"We are marvellously heartened by

the number of people who have joined

the Tribute Committee, over 100 people

to date.

`"Many have been active supporters

of the ACLU for many years, others

have never before been involved with

our work. However, all, in their deep

concern for civil liberties, have

=

Please send me

Bill of Rights Celebration

______-itickets at $5 each. I am enclosing an

ae reral: tax- deductible contribution to the ACLU Foundation

of $ . Enclosed is my check for $

Name

Address

City : Zip Tel.

1

SERGE EAE CR) GEE ee DE

r

: (R)

: ea

TG DE MR Oe EN ee Ee ee

Please make chenks payable to ACLU- Foundation, NC, and mail

to 814 Mission Street, Suite 301, San Francisco, CA 94103. Elease I

enclose a self-addressed, stamped envelope. |

`Booklet.

*honoring Joan Baez, celebrating the

fund-raising efforts," Strauss said.

The major fundraising vehicle is the

Bill of Rights Day Commemorative

Supporters can join. in

188th anniversary of the Bill of Rights

and supporting ACLU litigation by

making a tax-deductible donation to

the ACLU Foundation. All gifts of $100

or more will be listed in the Booklet.

The backbone of the Bill of Rights

After many month- _. persistent

effort, the ACLU Marin Chapter has

finally persuaded the trustees of the

Marin Community College District to

rewrite a number of unconstitutional

campus regulations.

The offending policies, which have

existed for at least 15 years, included

prior restraint of campus newspapers,

strictures against offensive charac-

terization of racial and religious groups,

and a loyalty oath that was required of

groups using college facilities.

Members of the Marin Chapter

initially discovered some of these ar-

chaic regulations in late 1978, when

they were asked for help by a young

man who had been denied the right to

distribute Zionist material outside the

theater at the College of Marin

(C.O.M.) on the occasion of a

production of The Diary 2 Anne

Frank.

Chapter

officers persuaded

Day is the Program Committee. This

Committee has been working since

February. to prepare for the

Celebration.

Members of the 1979 Program

Committee are: Irving Cohen, Marlene

DeLancie, Virginia Fabian, Lola

Hanzel, Meta Kauffman, Doris Holmes

Lowe, Nancy McDermid, Paul Newton,

Emily Skolnick and Carolyn Symonds.

For tickets to the celebration fill out

coupon below or call Marlene DeLancie

Behind The Scenes With Rights Day Celebration

at 777-4880.

Chapter Persuades College.

To Rewrite Rights Regs.

the |

president of C.O.M. to issue a safe-

conduct pass to the young leafletter, but

in the course of the negotiations they

procured a copy of the college

regulations and discovered pages full of

doubtful prohibitions. C.O.M. ad-

`ministrators insisted that their

regulations were supported by the

California Educational Code (which

indeed they were, in some instances, but

that is another story).

Chapter chair Lawrence Grauman

and Legal Committee chair Gerald

Ellersdorfer appeared before a meeting

of the Trustees of the Marin Com-

munity College District and urged them

to delete or rewrite all regulations which

were in violation of constitutional

rights. Then Grauman and Ellersdorfer

requested the Marin County Counsel

`(attorney for the trustees) to deliver an

advisory. opinion on the con-

stitutionality of the various offending

regulations. Finally, they produced an

advisory opinion from former

California. Attorney General Evelle

Younger, to the effect that college

students (and others using campus |

facilities) have certain rights of free

expression.

In the summer of 1979, following the

advice of the County Counsel, the

trustees of the Marin Community

College District voted to revise their

regulations in accordance with recent ~

(and not-so-recent) eee of |

the constitution.

Calendar

i B-A-K ao

WINE and CHEESE PARTY. Sunday,

Dec. 2, 4-6 p.m., 879 Indian Rock |

(off The Arlington), Berkeley; $3.

donation. :

Gay Rights

| PUBLIC FORUM. Thursday, Dec.

6, 7:30 p.m., Metropolitan Com-

munity Church, 150 Eureka (btwn.

18th and 19th), San Francisco;

Parking is limited, take Muni buses

8, 24, 35, 37 to Castro and 18th, 3

blocks east. Don Knutson, Gay

Rights Advocates, speaks on the

Immigration and Naturalization Ser-

| a Coffee hour to follow.

)

Give a friend 12 mouths of conocesy |

| Give a friend 12 months of controversy |

and contention... Yule never be sorry. :

I Enroll a friend in the ACLU as a Gift card should read: j

| special gift for those who care about |

i the Bill of Rights. An attractive gift From. |

card will be sent from the ACLU of |

I Northern California announcing the Address I

Ll. recipient's new membership in the. Cit i

| ACLU. Members will of course ~"? (c) i

throughout 660 ACLU publications state. Zip :

: Phone: 7

; Gift of ACLU Membership to: :

J Name(s) : Basic Membership $20. |

i Joint Membership $30. j

Address

Enclosed is my check for $

ity

i = Please clip and return to: ACLU, I

i State Zip : 814 Mission St., Suite 301, S.F. 94103. |

ror Cer of Pen Se

arate cota

1979 marks a most distinguished year of litigation in

the ACLU Foundation's 45-year history. It is

distinguished not only by the extraordinary number of

cases being litigated by the Foundation, but also by the

remarkable number of victories secured from the

courts which extended constitutional rights.

In the majority of the cases on the docket, 63%, the

ACLU is directly representing clients throughout the

legal process. In the rest of the cases the ACLU has

entered significant lawsuits as amicus curiae (friend of

the court).

A major goal of the Foundation has been realized this

year by the notable expansion of the Cooperating

Attorney Program utilizing the services of volunteer

attorneys. No less than 60% of this year's legal cases

have been handled through this volunteer attorney

program, and more than 75 attorneys have volun-

teered to participate in the future.

The fact that the ACLU has received favorable

decisions in 80% of the cases that were decided by the

courts this year is particularly meaningful for several

reasons. This proud:legal score-card indicates that the

- Foundation is entering cases where its special ex-

pertise is particularly valuable, either in directly

representing a client or as a friend of the court. It also

reflects the fact that the ACLU can provide a unique

background of experience and knowledge in cases

concerning constitutional issues.

At no time in the ACLU's history has the docket in-

cluded so many cases, particularly class-action

lawsuits, where the results of ACLU Foundation

litigation has directly affected the lives of so many

people. A glance through the docket will reveal many

such cases:

e The legal effort to provide for the right to in-

formed consent for voluntary and involuntary mental

patients in every peel' and public institution in the

state.

The results of the massive litigation undertaken

by the Foundation which has maintained Medi-Cal

funding for abortions, and which in 1978 and 1979

has allowed more than 120,000 women to exercise

their right ot reproductive freedom, despite legislative

cutbacks.

e The class action suit to stop unconstitutional

police practices in San Francisco, where ACLU legal

action stopped law enforcement officials from arresting

and jailing more than 250 people each month, people

who would never be formally charged with a crime.

FIRST AMENDMENT

This year marked a significant extension of First

Amendment rights in two areas: freedom of speech in

_ the private sector and the right of anonymous ex-

pression.

Freedom of Speech

@ On March 30, in the case of Robbins v. Pruncvard

Shopping Center, the California Supreme Court

_ agreed with the ACLU that the constitutional right of

free speech cannot be limited by bans on leafletting on

private property generally open to the public.

Private guards stopped two high school students and a

teacher from distributing a petition at a suburban

shopping center. The leafletters left without a fight but

later took their case to the Santa Clara Superior Court

which ruled against them.

In reversing the lower court decision, the Supreme

Court recognized the special and increasingly im-

One month after the lawsuit was filed, the number of

arrests decreased dramatically. Negotiations brought a

repeal of the former ordinance and new legislation was

finally approved by the Board of Supervisors.

The ACLU docket which follows is necessarily in-

complete. It is incomplete in that space does not

permit a description of the more than 100 cases which

are currently on the docket. Nor does it reflect the

hundreds of administrative battles which the ACLU

confronts every day. The ACLU "complaint desk,"

' staffed by volunteer lay counselors, handles more than

200 phone calls each week. The lay counselors,

assisted by a staff counsel, make appropriate referrals,

provide information on civil liberties issues, and can

' often directly provide the advocacy necessary to

resolve a particular grievance. Twelve ACLU

Chapters, from Stockton to Monterey, provide similar

services to their communities.

Often these administrative battles require additional

research and expertise. ACLU law interns, who

provide about 80 hours per week of research and

assistance to staff counsel, provide that back-up. They

draft letters to government officials questioning their

authority: to use lie detector tests, or to prohibit the

dissemination of literature at a nuclear weapons

research laboratory, or to suspend a child from school

for wearing a controversial T-shirt. Often their efforts

stop government officials from violating people's

rights without going to court.

This remarkable legal progarm is directed by three staff

counsel, Margaret C. Crosby, Alan L. Schlosser and

Amitai Schwartz, who have been assisted by Donna

Van Diepen (who this year marked her tenth year with

the legal department), Bonnie Cherrin and Evelyn

Baron.

A Legal Committee, chaired by Sanford Jay Rosen,

brought 45 lawyers to meetings held nearly every

month, to recommended cases and strategies to the

ACLU staff and cooperating attorneys.

The docket reflects a pronounced trend of litigating

cases in the state courts, and it also indicates that the

geographical purview of the legal problem has ex-

panded significantly to address the organization's civil

_ liberties interests throughout Northern California, and

not just in the immediate Bay Area.

Drucilla S. Ramey

Chairperson

Board of Governors

portant role that shopping centers play in the public

lives of Californians - the "town square" in today's

world is really a privately owned mall in a very public

suburban shopping center.

The justices relied in part on the free gecedii and

- petition provisions of the California Constitution which

are broader than the U.S. Constitution. The owners of

the private shopping center are taking the case to the

U.S. Supreme Court claiming that they have a-federai

constitutional right to control this private property. If

accepted, this challenge may be a landmark case, as

the decision on the previously unchallenged authority |

of the California courts could establish more protective

constitutional standards within the jurisdiction of the

state constitution.

e In another case challenging the abridgement of First

Amendment rights in private businesses (Weintraub v.

The Legal Clinic) , the ACLU has filed a lawsuit on

behalf of an attorney who was fired from a private law

firm on the basis of his being a member of

the National Lawyers Guild. The ACLU is

challenging his dismissal on the grounds that em-

ployees should not be forced to leave fundamental

rights at home each day when they report for work.

o

aclu

Anonymous Expression

e Another extension of the right of free speech, that

of anonymous expression, is particularly critical for

dissident and controversial individuals and

organizations, because they have the most fear of

expressing their views.

e When two Iranian students were convicted for

~ demonstrating at the Iranian Consulate in San

Francisco with their faces masked by leaflets, the

ACLU appealed their conviction. In December, 1978,

the California Court of Appeals ruled that demon-

strators do have a First Amendment right to wear

masks to conceal their identity while engaging in lawful

activity.

e The ACLU's recognition of the importance of

anonymous expression is reflected also in a successful

challenge to a California Election Code provision that _,

forbids anonymous campaign literature. In People v.

Drake, an Appellate Division of the Superior Court

agreed with the ACLU argument that prohibited

distribution of unsigned election leaflets was an

overbroad restriction of the right of free speech. q

and

aclu

Political Expression

e lhe ACLU has challenged several attempts to

restrict freedom of political expression, even where the

participants were not desiring anonymity. In another

local election case (Sussli v. City of San Mateo), the

ACLU is appealing a court decision upholding a city

ordinance which prohibits the posting of campaign

signs on public property. The argument points out that

the ability of people to post signs on public property is

particularly significant in that it is one of the few ways

to communicate information to the public without

having to spend a great deal of money. As the

challenge addresses the availability of all public

property for communicating information, it is quite

likely that this litigation will create a significant

precedent on the scope of free speech activities.

e Additionally, a favorable ruling will invalidate

similar bans which currently exist throughout the state.

San Francisco, for example, has a municipal or-

dinance prohibiting sign posting on public property.

When a resident taped campaign signs supporting a

gay activist for Mayor to street lamps, police hand-

cuffed and arrested him. The ACLU went to court on

his behalf, and the charges were subsequently

dismissed (People v. Constenza).

e Also in the realm of political expression, the

Foundation has been defending the rights of lobbyists.

In August, the California Supreme Court in the case of

the Fair Political Practices Commission v. Superior

Court, agreed with an ACLU amicus brief that an

2 1979 legal docket

absolute ban on political contributions by legislative _

advocates was unconstitutional.

_@ A similar issue is at stake in a case which involves

the ACLU directly. In the course of a routine Fran-

chise Tax Board audit of ACLU of Northern California |

lobbyists, under the Political Reform Act of 1974, the

Tax Board obtained a subpoena authorizing access to

a whole host of records in the ACLU offices. The

Foundation is challenging the authority of the sub-

-. poena in part, on the grounds that it violates the rights

to petition, political association, privacy, and to be free

from unreasonable searches.

e Threats to the most basic tenet of the right of

political expression, the right to vote, have also been

blocked by ACLU litigation this year. In the case of

Barrett v. Neal, a County Clerk's refusal to allow (c)

evicted persons to vote on the ground that those

_ persons are no longer residents of the precinct for

voting purposes was struck down by the Santa Clara

County Superior Court.

e Acase in Sonoma County (Eliassen v. City of

Sonoma), in which the ACLU presented a friend of:

the court brief on behalf of the citizens whowere ,

denied their right to place an initiative concerning

funds for the new city jail on the ballot, resulted in the

Superior Court compelling the city to put the initiative

measure on the ballot.

Qo

aclu

`Freedom of the Press -

. @ Freedom of the press suffered a threatening blow

when in April a jury awarded over $4.5 million to

three city officials in a libel suit (McCoy et.al. v. The

Hearst Corporation et.al) against The San Francisco

Examiner and two reporters, Lowell Bergman and

Raul Ramirez. The suit, based on a series of articles

written by Bergman.and Ramirez about a controversial |

murder trial involving a 19-year old Chinese youth, =|

claimed that two San Francisco police officers and a

former assistant district attorney had been libeled

when it was reported that they had coerced a witness

to give false testimony.

The ACLU will represent Bergman and Ramirez, each

`of whom have been ordered to pay $780,000 in the

judgement, because the case strikingly documents the

potential of libel suits for chilling inquiry into public

affairs. All speech pertaining to public affairs is

protected by the First Amendment, and that freedom

of expression is inhibited if a reporter, before writing

critically on public issues, is forced to consider the

-possibility of being sued for libel. If unchallenged, the

court decison could result in dangerous self-censorship

by the press for fear of enormous financial liabilities.

e In another instance of press censorship, quick

action by the ACLU of Northern California led to a

series of favorable court decisions of national im-

_ portance. During the course of The Progressive

magazine's appeal of an injunction prohibitirig them -

from printing an article about the workings of the H-

Bomb, Charles Hansen, a California computer

programmer with an interest in nuclear weaponry and

- government secrecy, wrote a letter about the H-Bomb

to Senatory Percy (R-Ill.) with copies to several _

newspapers around the country.

When the government learned that the Berkeley

student newspaper, the Daily Californian, had

received a copy of the letter they sought and obtained

a restraining order on a Saturday night prohibiting the (c)

paper from publishing it. Upon learning of the Daily

Cal injunction on Sunday, ACLU lawyers announced

that they would take legal action on behalf of the -

paper to fight this prohibition of press freedom.

Simultaneously, the Madison Press Connection, an

independent Wisconsin paper, printed the Hansen

letter in a special Sunday edition. The following day,

as a result of the ACLU's proposed action and the ~

Wisconsin publication, the government withdrew its

injunction against the Daily Cal, and afew hours later.

announced that they would also drop the case against

_ The Progressive.

This is a landmark case in the area of press freedom: it |

was the first time the government succeeded in getting

an injunction for prior restraint of a publication, and

that alone is grave cause for concern.

aclu

Censorship -

- @ Censorship has reared its ugly head in other areas

as well. A local school district has banned the books of

nationally acclaimed author Richard Brautigan from

_ its high schools (Wexner v. Anderson Union High

School District). On behalf of students and teachers at

the high school, the ACLU is challenging the ban in -

- the Shasta County Superior Court, and had already

won the first round when the court rejected a request

by the school district to dismiss the case on the _

grounds that even if they had done what they were

- being cited for, their action was not illegal.

e Broad censorship of reading materials at Folsom

Prison was declared unconstitutional, when the U.S.

District Court issued a consent decree affirming the

prisoners' right to read Thoughts of Chairman Mao,

Soledad Brother, and other books, political or

otherwise, so long as they do not specifically violate .

_the penal code which prohibits to prisoners

publications which describe the making of a lethal

weapon.

e The right to read is also being challenged by the

ACLU in an amicus curiae brief in the case of U.S. v.

Giese, in which the introduction of a book of

revolutionary writings owned, but not authored, by a

`university professor on trial for conspiracy is being

_used as evidence to prove illicit intent.

(R)

aclu

~ Enforcement

e The enforcement of basic First Amendment rights

always requires the eternal vigilance of the ACLU.

Recently, a San Francisco temporary employment

agency attempted to stop an organization dedicated to

improving working conditions for women from

holding an informational picket about the poor em-

ployment practices of the company on the street in

front of their offices. An ACLU staff attorney rushed to

court only hours after the demonstrators learned of

the lawsuit and successfully defended against the

restraining order which would have forced the

picketers off the street. (Olsten Corporation v. Women

Organized for Employment.)

e@ A Santa Cruz County rule which banned the

distribution of all unauthorized literature in the county

welfare offices was struck down last winter when the

Superior Court agreed the ACLU argument that

the Welfare Education and Legal Assistance Center

had the right to distribute their literature in public

offices.

@ Achallenge to a sweeping ban on the freedom of

speech of 900 Bay Area Synanon members is sup-

ported by the ACLU in the California Court of Appeal.

The ban, prohibiting Synanon members from

protesting the editorial policy of a local TV station

through phone calls, mail, sign.posting, and even

conversations with the station's employees, is an

- overbroad restriction which clearly violates the

constitutional guarantee of freedom of association.

e The Foundation's ongoing commitment to lengthy

and complicated civil liberties issues is evidenced by

the continuing work this year on two particular cases

which have spanned several years of litigation. In the

case of Franklin v. Stanford, the ACLU is continuing

its fight on behalf of a professor who was fired from

Stanford University for speeches made during the

Vietnam War era, which were characterized by the

University as incitement to disruption of campus

activities. This year, the ACLU is arguing the

California Court of Appeal that Professor Franklin is

entitled to a second administrative hearing at Stan-

ford, to re-evaluate his dismissal, since the trial court -

held last year that the discharge was based in part on

constitutionally protected expression.

The trial judge has ordered Stanford to re- -evaluate the

sanction in light of his ruling, but the university wants

an immediate appeal of the decision that some

speeches were entitled to constitutional protection.

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_1973.batch ACLUN_1974 ACLUN_1974.MODS ACLUN_1974.batch ACLUN_1975 ACLUN_1975.MODS ACLUN_1975.batch ACLUN_1976 ACLUN_1976.MODS ACLUN_1976.batch ACLUN_1977 ACLUN_1977.MODS ACLUN_1977.batch ACLUN_1978 ACLUN_1978.MODS ACLUN_1978.batch ACLUN_1979 ACLUN_1979.MODS ACLUN_1979.batch 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

Court of Appeal (October 16, 1978)

e In the case of Allen v. Monger, the U.S. Supreme | |

Court has been asked to decide whether the First _

Amendment protects servicemen distributing a

petition protesting the movement of two aircraft

carriers during the Vietnam War.

@

aclu

EQUALPROTECTION _

Though the Constitution guarantees that the state

government cannot deny its citizens their rights nor

- equal protection of the laws, much of the ACLU

casework this year has been fighting-exactly that: the

denial of equal protection on the grounds of sex and -

sexual preference, age and race. ;

Women's Rights

e With the California Legislature taking action against

Medi-Cal funded abortions for poor women, the

ACLU has made an enormous commitment to

provide for a woman's right to choose. The breadth of

the litigation handled by the Foundation, which has

already involved five lawsuits in four different courts

_ over.a period of one and one half years, illustrates the

difficult battle the ACLU faces in attempting to protect

the constitutional guarantee of a woman's right to

reproductive freedom. A brief scenario of this year's -

litigation follows:

In the original legal action, eleven ates

representing Medi-Cal patients, health care providers,

taxpayers and several organizations concerned with -

the rights of women, minority groups and the poor,

are claiming that the California Legislature's decision

of July 1979 to cut off funds which have been

available to indigent women for abortions violates the

federal law and is an unconstitutional denial of equal

protection and the right of privacy under the California

_ Constitution.

History of actions and decisions: pre

Court grants ACLU petition for a's writ to Liaw

maintain funding for Medi-Cal abortions until it

reaches a decision on the appeal.

California Supreme Court (March 22, 1 979)

` ACLU thwarts attempts by anti-abortion groups to

dissolve the Court of Appeal order and thus maintains

funding. (c)

San Diego Superior Court (March 12, 1979)

Anti-abortion groups get an order stopping the state

controller from signing checks for abortion funding.

San Francisco Court of Appeal (March 20, 1979)

ACLU obtains an order temporarily nullifying the San

Diego Court injunction to halt the signing of checks.

California Court of Appeal (May 29, 1979)

The appeal court substantially upholds the

Legislature's decison to cut off abortion funding for at

least 95% of California's poor women. The ruling

makes the restrictions so stringent that many doctors

will refuse to allow abortions under any circumstances;

however the legislation expires before the decision is

effective.

California Supreme Court (July 9, 1979)

The original plaintiffs file a petition to reverse the

~ Court of Appeal decision.

California Supreme Court (August 6, 1979)

The original plaintiffs file a new suit to challenge

virtually identical 1979.legislation and to request a

temporary stay of these restrictions.

The California Supreme Court (August 9, 1979)

The court issues a temporary stay to maintain abortion

funding only one week before the proposed cut-off

date (August 15). The funding will be maintained until

the Court decides weeibe: or not to accept the

petition. |

California Supreme Court ese ke 19, 1979)

The Supreme Court agrees to hear the two cases on

the legitimacy of halting Medi-Cal funding for abor-

tions. The acceptance of the petitions nullifies all

previous lower court decisons, and means that the

funding will continue until the court makes its final

decision.

e There has also been a wide range of other sex

discrimination cases handled this year. In a major

_ victory for women's rights, the United States Court of

_ Appeals ruled in De la Cruz v. Tormey that a college

1979 legal docket 3

po EFIRUATIVE IT FAVORS

1AM ope Be Ke TON ee SOME GROUPS -

ON) MORAL SROUNIS OP QUOTAS.

OLRICTS

GROUPS.

ALD

OTHE

MY GROUP HAS PROS-

REP TOUT AFFIRM

6 10 L wit

te eae

district's oly against establishing child- -care centers

may violate both statutory and constitutional bans

against sex descrimination i in the school system.

_@ The "boys only" membership rule of the Santa Cruz "

Boys Clubis being challenged in an ACLU case

(Isbister v. Boys Club of Santa Cruz) as a violation of

the Unruh Civil Rights Act prohibiting discrimination on

the basis of sex in all kinds of business establishments.

-@ Inthecase of Wellman v. Wellman, the ACLU is

-. appealing a custody decree which stipulatce that the.

wife i is poeies from having any overnight male

aclu

Gay Rights

e ACLU is again grappling with the military over the

_ discriminatory application of the law towards service

people. An Army lieutenant, after four years of

`| service, was ten days away from being honorably

discharged when charges of sexual misconduct were

brought against him for homosexual sodomy. In the

case of Hatheway v. Secretary of State, the ACLU is

asking the U.S. District Court to strike down the court

martial conviction on the grounds that not only are

sexual acts between consenting adults protected by the

Constitution, but that the section of the Military Code

under which the lieutenant was convicted was never -

enforced against heterosexuals, thereby denying

- homosexuals equa! protection of the law.

@

aclu

School Desegregation

- Discrimination on the basis of race destroys the right of

equality to which all citizens are entitled. The long hard

struggle for civil rights in which the ACLU has played a

leading role is not over yet. Racial minorities, par-

ticularly Blacks and Hispanics, still bear the yoke of

discrimination and in no field is this more evident than

in public education.

e Proposition 1, the Robbins Aaendment is an

attempt to turn the clock of progress back to the days

when minorities were second class citizens. Its

~ declared objective is to "stop busing" and thus deprive

school integration efforts of what the California

Supreme Court has said is "one potential tool" to

reach the goal of equal education for all. In light of the

heated and reactionary arguments surrounding the

Propositon 1 campaign, some of which have been

dragged up from the depths of anti-integration sen-

timents which haven't seen the light since 1954, the

California Court of Appeals favorable decision in

Tinsley v. Palo Alto Unified School District is par-

ticularly significant. -

In April the Court ruled that state and fecal officials in

the mid-Peninsula area, which includes the

predominantly Black school district of Ravenswood,

surrounded by school districts of predominately white

enrollment, must adopt a feasible plan to desegregate

that will include schools in the whole geographic area,

regardless of arbitrary school district boundary lines

which serve as barriers to desearegation.

This decision, approving a multi- district remedy,

reaffirms that racial isolation violates the California -

' Constitution regardless of whether or not the condition

is caused by intentional acts of school officials. The

significance of the decision is highlighted by the fact

that it explicitly rejected the more rigid standards fora -

finding of unconstitutional segregation developed by

the U.S. Supreme Court under: the Federal Con-

stitution, and the decision underscores the state's

obligation to eradicate school desegregation

"regardless of cause.' f

aclu

- Affirmative Action

The wide variety of programs referred to as "af-

firmative action" remedies, principally in education

and employment, can be traced to the course of

school desegregation litigation. Designed to redress

the historical exclusion of minorities and women from

many schools, professions and jobs, these programs

are now facing a backlash of "reverse discrimination"

suits from whites who feel that they are being unjustly

penalized by exclusion. The most well known cases

dealing with affirmative action plans are the U.S.

Supreme Court's Bakke and Weber decisions. Both of

`these cases may have a significant effect on the

`outcome of three affirmative action cases before the

. California Supreme Court in which the ACLU- `NC is

participating.

e Thecase of Price t v. Civil Seneca Gamnnccons of |

Sacramento County pits two state government

agencies against each other: the Sacramento District

Attorney's office is resisting a minority hiring ratio

imposed by the Sacramento County Civil Service __

Commission which has mandated preferential hiring

to rectify past discrimination (The DA's office has only

one Black attorney out of 65).

e The case of Hiatt v. City of Berkeley isa challenge -

by Caucasian firefighters to an affirmative action

program voluntarily adopted by the City of Berkeley to

achieve a goal of "proportional representation" in all.

city jobs, in such a way as to reflect the city's racial

make-up. The trial court ruled that the affirmative

-action program was invalid, and the ACLU is sup-

porting the City's appeal to the State Supreme Court.

e In Hull v. Cason, Black workers claimed

discrimination in hiring by the Oakland Fire Depar-

tment, and the trial court ordered the Fire Department

to institute an affirmative action program. The appeal

court reversed the decision in another instance of

chipping away at affirmative action programs, and the (c)

ACLU is supporting the appeal of the original plaintiff

to the state supreme court.

@

aclu

DUE PROCESS OF LAW

ACLU Foundation litigation resulted in several court

decisions in 1979 which will have long-term effects on

the administration of justice and will help to ensure

due process of the law.

Rights of Mental Patients

e In Jamison v. Farabee, an ACLU lawsuit

challenging the forcible administration of anti-

psychotic medication to mental patients without their

informed consent, the federal district court ordered the

state agencies to negotiate a settlement. As a direct

result of the lawsuit, the State Department of Mental -

Health has proposed new regulations which would

provide informed consent and the right to refuse this

medication to voluntary mental patients in all public

and private licensed health facilities in the state.

Because the defendants will not agree to a similar right

for involuntary patients, the ACLU will bring this issue

to trial to seek a court order declaring that the present

policy of medicating with these potentially dangerous

drugs without informed consent is a violation of the |

patients' constitutional rights.

. 1979 legal docket

Grand Jury System

e The grand jury system is another area whichhas_ __

long been criticized by the ACLU for its failure to meet

basic due process standards. First, those prosecuted |

by a grand jury indictment are denied some of the

protections allowed those tried on charges directly

_ brought by the prosecutor. Second, the grand jury has

become arubber stamp for the prosecution, when in

an overwhelming majority of cases an indictment will

result from a prosecutor's request. A California

Supreme Court decision in November of last year,

resulting from a case supported by the ACLU (People

v. Levins), and two other related cases, has virtually

abolished the unjust state grand jury indictment

system. The high court found the system violates the

state's guarantee of equal protection under the law.

These Supreme Court decisions will have a

tremendous effect on California's legal system.

e In another case affecting persons awaiting trail, Van

Atta v. Scott, the ACLU has filed an amicus brief with

several other organizations in a major challenge to San

Francisco's bail and "Own Recognizance" system. The

California Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case,

which alleges that the present system virtually denies

bail to poor pre-trial detainees while allowing the more

affluent to post bail and avoid pre-trial incarceration.

e In the case of People v. Allen and Graham, death

sentences for two Black inmates were overturned

when the California Supreme Court ruled in February

that the original conviction was invalid as it had been

rendered by an all-white jury created by the

prosecution's exclusion of all fourteen potential Black

jurors, thus denying the defendants a trial by their

peers.

e In asecond case involving i denial of a fair trial,

People v. Johnny Larry Spain, the ACLU is acting as

a friend of the court in an attempt to reverse the earlier

conviction of one of the San Quentin Six defendants,

citing the shackling of the defendant to his chair during:

the trial and the improper contact between the judge

~ and a juror as blatant disregard of due process.

e In the case of Ostrager v. Board of Control, the

ACLU is challenging the constitutionality of the

residency restrictions of California's Victims of Crime

Act. A visiting New York taxi driver, shot by a sniper in

San Francisco, was denied victim's compensation

under the act solely because he is not a California

resident. @

aclu

Police Practices

e Many civil liberties cases have arisen this year as a

result of the police overstepping their bounds as law

enforcement officers. Perhaps the most serious

example of this occurred earlier this year when San

Francisco and San Mateo police officers, working on a

case totally unrelated to the Clinic, invaded the

Methadone Clinic at San Francisco General Hospital,

an innocent third party, and seized the confidential

records of 35 patients. This police raid echoes the

events of eight years ago when police officers raided

the offices of the Stanford Daily, also an innocent third

party, looking for unpublished sneer of student

violence. . :

Since the Stanford Daily case, in which the police

search and seizure was adjudged to be legal,

legislation has been passed to protect some "innocent

third parties" from such raids. The ACLU is

aclu) "

This ACLU-NC Foundation 1979 Annual |

Report was prepared by Elaine Elinson,

| ACLU News editor.

. challenging the raid in the San Francisco Superior

Court on the grounds that the California Constitution's

guarantees of personal privacy and unwarranted

search and seizure offer protection to uninvolved third

parties. In the raid of the Methadone Clinic, the police

also disregarded specific federal regulations

safeguarding the privacy of patients in drug treatment

programs. :

e@ The question of illegal search and seizure also

appears in the case of People v. Eleanor Kraft. When

a dozen plainclothes police officers burst through the

doors of a clients' private residence, their lawyer, who

was a guest in the home, demanded to see the search

warrant. For this verbal demand, the lawyer was

charged and convicted of obstructing the police. The

ACLU is appealing her innocence on the grounds that

she had a right to ask for the search warrant, and that

even if she hadn't, her verbal assertions could not be

deemed an obstruction of justice.

e Sometimes the misdeeds of police hee fatal

results. The case of Peterson v. City of Long Beach is

such a tragedy. A Long Beach police officer shot and _

killed a fleeing, non-violent burglary suspct, though

the policeman had no evidence of arms or violence.

The burglary call in fact was erroneous, but an in-

nocent man was shot in the head and killed. In May,

, the California Supreme Court determined that police

officers must abide by internal regulations which forbid

shooting at non-violent fleeing felons. The Foundation

entered the case as a friend of the court.

e One ACLU police practices lawsuit has resulted in

new legislation this year. The filing of the taxpayers'

suit, Ramey v. Gain, which challenged the police

arrests of thousands in a "`clean the streets"

harassment operation under a broad Municipal Code

about loitering, not only lowered the incidence of

arrests dramatically, but also resulted in the repeal of

the old ordinance and the implementation of a new |

ordinance which considerably decreases the scope of

police discretion in making arrests. The ACLU is

hopeful that the new ordinance will prohibit the police

from using the regulation for purposes of harassment.

e The ACLU is acting as a friend of the court in a

challenge to a Dixon City ordinance which prohibits

persons under 18 from "loitering, idling, wandering,

strolling or playing in all public areas after 10 p.m."

The ordinance, which attacks fundamental rights,

currently gives sweeping search and seizure power to

police, who have even used it to stop and searcha

youth who was driving in the town after the curfew

(c)

aclu

PRIVACY

e@ Abuses of the right to privacy by state and private

agencies have been the subject of several ACLU cases

this year, with some success. A Court of Appeal

decision in July determined that law enforcement

agencies may no longer provide public employers with

the arrest records of potential job applicants where no

conviction has resulted from the arrest, as this practice

violates the state's constitutional right to privacy. The

case, Central Valley Chapter of the Seventh Step

Foundation v. Younger, in which the ACLU

_ presented an amicus brief, argued that arrest without

conviction, though implying no guilt on the party,

would result in gecuninatow hiring Bee

e In an amicus brief in acriminal appeal, People v.

~ Blair, the ACLU is continuing its fight against un-

' bridled police access to personal financial records, in

this case credit cards, on privacy grounds. The Bank

Secrecy Act was first challenged by the ACLU in 1972

which resulted in restrictions on law enforcement

officers' access to individuals' bank records. The ACLU

_ has also challenged access to telephone records on the

same grounds, and in the present day "credit card

economy," uncontrolled police examination of credit

card records represents an enuelly, lperten) invasion -

ofprivacy.

e The ACLU lost one case concerning government

wire-tapping in December last year (Hallinan v.

Mitchell) when the U.S. Court of Appeals refused to

_ make the ban on wiretapping retroactive and decided

that wiretapping will go unpunished if it occurred

before the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court

outlawing warrantless federal wiretapping. However,

ACLU lawyers have just won a major vicory in the

case of De Lancie v. McDonald. On October 9 of this

year, the 2-to-1 decision came in response to an

ACLU suit against the San Mateo County Sheriff's

practice of covert electronic monitoring and tape-

recording of conversations between prisoners awaiting

trial and their visitors, as well as conversations be-

tween prisoners in their cells.

"The detained citizen does not automatically forfeit his

basic civil rights as soon as the jailhouse door clangs

shut," said Presiding Justice John T. Racanelli in the

majority opinion. This is the first case in the country to

hold that prison officials could not engage in

systematic surveillance of prisoners' conversations.

~@ Inaprivacy case involving a private company,

Shields v. Household Finance Corporation, the

ACLU has filed a class action complaint on behalf of a:

woman fired from her job for living with a man to

whom she was not married. As a result of the lawsuit,

the company has apparently dropped this

discriminatory hiring/firing policy.

e The ACLU has also been successful in using the

federal Freedom of Information Act and the state

Public Records Act to broaden the scope of the

public's "right to know." In a decision which sheds

some light on the state Department of Justice sur-

veillance practices, a Sacramento County Superior

Court judge has ruled that the withholding of

documents compiled by the Organized Crime and

Criminal Intelligence Branch (OCCIB) of the

Department of Justice, was in violation of the

California Public Records Act.

The disclosure of these documents may reveal the

extent of the OCCIB's involvement with the Law

Enforcement Intelligence Unit which, under the guise

ot investigating organized crime, is accused of spying

on a broad range of social organizations and in-

dividuals.

e In another "right to know" victory, a Public Records

_ Act lawsuit against the California Highway Patrol -

(CHP) for the purpose of gaining access to CHP

manuals, arrest procedures, weapons policies, etc.

resulted in a decision that, though some materials

were legitimately exempt from disclosure as "security

procedures," the trial court had failed to segregate and

produce non-exempt materials as they are obliged to

do. However, a U.S. District Court, in Ramo v.

Secretary of the Navy, ruled that in the case of the

surveillance of a worker in an overseas military law

project, the Navy and the FBI had legitimately denied -

access to their records and were not required to

produce them.

I wish to support the legal work of the ACLU Foundation. I am enclosing a tax- deductible con-

: tribution of $ to the ACLU Foundation.

Name

Address Telephone

- City State. Se Zip

San Francisco, CA 94103.

Please make all checks payable to ACLU-NC Foundation, and mail to 814 Mission St.,

Suite 301,