vol. 47, no. 5

Volume XLVI

Karen Luke went to the Contra Costa

Detention Center (Martinez Jail) for a

regularly scheduled visit with her hus-

band last September. She was seven

months pregnant. She was told by jail

officials that she would have to be strip

searched before she could see her hus-

band. Fearing the effect of such a

search on her unborn child, Luke said

she would forego the visit with her hus-

band rather than submit to the strip

search. Jail officials then placed Luke

under arrest and strip searched her.

Shirley Banks went to the Martinez

Jail to visit her fiance on New Years.

Eve. Without her permission and

without any grounds to believe that she

- was carrying contraband, Banks was

forced to remove all her clothing and

submit to a body cavity search.

On June 3, the ACLU filed a lawsuit

on behalf of Luke and Banks against

Contra Costa County, the Contra Costa

County Sheriff's Department and

Sheriff's Department personnel to halt

the practice of randomly forcing jail

visitors to submit to unwarranted strip

searches.

The suit, filed in Contra Costa

Superior Court, contends that the strip-

searching by Sheriff's personnel violates

_June-July 1982

Shirley Banks told an ACLU press con-

ference how~she was strip searched

while visiting her fiance at Martinez

attorney Gary Greenfield,

Jail.

rights of freedom from unreasonable

search and seizure, rights of peveey

and rights of due process.

Slander Suit Stopped

"The dismissal of a $125,000 slander

suit filed against an environmental

group by members of the Pacific Plann-

ing Commission represents another vic-

tory for the ACLU in our fight against

the use of defamation as a tool to chill

political dissent," said ACLU-NC staff

counsel Amitai Schwartz.

Friends of Pacifica, a local organiza-

tion fighting the increasing develop-

ment in Pacifica, was hit with the

slander suit last September after

statements by its chairperson Donald

Warden were published in the Pacifica

Tribune. In an article about the land

use and zoning controversy in the city,

Warden was quoted as saying, "I think

someone is being bought on the Plann-

ing Commission," and questioning the

motives and `good faith'' of members

of the Planning Commission.

Six of the seven members of the Com-

mission sued Warden for slander. The

suit also named the Friends of Pacifica,

alleging that Warden made the state-

ment on behalf of the Friends and that |

the group had ``authorized, ratified and

approved" his statement.

Friends of Pacifica, concerned with

the attack on its free speech rights and

fearing that the suit would have a

detrimental affect on its political activi-

ty, contacted the ACLU for support.

ACLU cooperating attorney Katherine

Crocker of the San Francisco law firm

of Heller, Ehrman, White and McAuliffe

asked the San Mateo Superior Court to

dismiss the case. Crocker argued that

the alleged statement was an expression

of opinion, and as a matter of law not

defamatory; moreover, in the context of

widespread debate on this matter of

public interest, the statement was

privileged.

In May, Superior Court judge Gene

McDonald dismissed the case, agreeing

with the ACLU that statements made

by Warden, and allegedly endorsed by

the Friends, were expressions of opi-

-nion and thus protected under law.

Crocker said that she was pleased

with the judge's decision, but noted the

toll that the lawsuit had already taken

on the Friends of Pacifica. "Perhaps

_the most damaging aspect of this suit is

the real chilling effect it has had on

community members. People in the

community were very much aware of

the suit, and some may have feared that

if they joined Friends of Pacifica they

might have been named in the suit as

well."'

Friends chairperson Warden agreed.

"After. we were sued, new memberships |

cones on p. 6

~ New Years Eve.

According to ACLU-NC cooperating

"Luke and

Banks were forced to submit to strip

searches by officers and employees of

the Contra Costa Sheriff's Department

although there was no probable cause

or reasonable grounds to believe that

either of them was carrying weapons or

contraband. This is in blatant violation

of their constitutional rights. Moreover,

it is a practice which is unnecessary to

maintain the security of the Martinez

Jail."'

Greenfield explained that the suit is

also being filed on behalf of a Contra

Costa County taxpayer who contends

that the strip searches are illegal and

constitute an unjustified expenditure of

government funds.

The suit is being handled by ACLU-

NC cooperating attorneys Greenfield

and Charles Rice of the San Francisco

law firm of Shartsis, Friese and Ginsburg

and ACLU-NC staff attorney Alan

Schlosser.

According to the written Bbtey

manual of the Contra Costa Detention

Center, "Visitors must submit to a

clothed or unclothed body search if re-

quested by a Deputy based on a

reasonable suspicion that the visitor is

concealing contraband or a weapon."

(Emphasis added.)

However, the ACLU contends that

there is an unwritten but established

policy of subjecting visitors to the jail to

random strip searches without such

reasonable suspicion.

Both Luke and Banks were victims of

this practice of strip searching without

reasonable. cause, Greenfield explain-

ed.

Luke said, "I had been strip searched

at the jail once before, when I was six

months pregnant and I didn't want `to

go through that humiliating experience

again.

"But when I told Sergeant Poole

that, fearing the potential danger to my

unborn child, I wished to leave rather

than submit to a strip search, he told

me | was under arrest and had me strip

searched.

"`T was never told the basis for the ar-

rest or the search,'"' Luke said. _

Shirley Banks explained that she was

on a scheduled visit to her fiance on

"They told me they

wanted to make everything right for the

New Year and forced me to undergo a

strip search. I was ordered to bend to

the ground and squat over a mirror

though I told them that a lower back

ailment made such activity extremely

painful.

"My vaginal and anal areas were in-

spected with a flashlight by an officer of

Election Issue: Meet the Candidates _ pp. -

{ACLU

the Sheriff's Department. TI

search resulted in increased pa,

lower back which has required 1 increas-

ed medication and treatment.

"TI was really furious - and that's

when I called the ACLU, " Banks add-.

ed.

Greenfield commented, "In both

cases, the officers' actions were taken

with reckless disregard for the plain-

tiffs' constitutional rights. Strip sear-

ches are only allowable when there are

reasonable grounds to believe that a

visitor is concealing a weapon or contra-

band."

cooperating attorney Gary

, Greenfield

The ACLU is asking the Contra

Costa County Superior Court to award

each plaintiff $100,000 in punitive and

exemplary damages. In addition, the

ACLU is asking for a declaration that

the policy and practice of strip searches

at the Martinez Jail is unconstitutional

and for an injunction against the defen-

dants to prevent them from strip sear-

ching visitors without probable cause.

ACLU-NC. staff attorney Alan

Schlosser added, `This particularly

humiliating and degrading practice of

strip searching has become a routine

part of law enforcement both in Califor-

nia and nationwide. The ACLU believes

that it is imperative to establish the il-

legality of this increasingly Se

practice. |

"Last year we filed two suits in

Alameda County on behalf of women

who were strip-searched by police after

being arrested for minor infractions.

We are also advocating legislation in

Sacramento which will prohibit strip

searches in jail for such persons without

`individualized cause.

"Today's lawsuit is part of our con-

certed effort to prevent other people in

this state - visitors to jails, persons ar-

rested for minor crimes, etc. - from

being subject to the humiliating and

unconstitutional practice of strip sear-

ches,"' Schlosser concluded.

IYOISTH DINNOSTIY,

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_1969 ACLUN_1969.MODS ACLUN_1970 ACLUN_1970.MODS ACLUN_1971 ACLUN_1971.MODS ACLUN_1972 ACLUN_1972.MODS 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_1981.batch ACLUN_1982 ACLUN_1982.MODS ACLUN_1982.batch ACLUN_1983 ACLUN_1983.MODS 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

wb

aos 1

aclu news

june-july 1982

Opposition to Bilingual Ballet Probe

"We believe, first and foremost, that

the U.S. Attorney's investigation is

racially and ethnically discriminatory

and therefore violates both the Voting

Rights Act and the U.S. Constitution.

That the investigation focused solely on

Hispanic and Chinese voters, without

evidence to justify such a racially selec-

tive probe, is a blatant act of

discrimination.

"We will continue to work to expose

and oppose this discriminatory in-

vestigation through legal and political

action on a local, state and federal

level."'

This statement of response to U.S.

Attorney Joseph Russoniello's an-

nouncement about the preliminary

results of his probe of bilingual ballots

was issued jointly by the ACLU-NC,

MALDEF, Chinese for Affirmative Ac-

tion, the Hispanic Coalition of Contra

Costa and seven other civil liberties and

minorities' rights groups on May 28.

Russoniello's Timing

The groups also criticized the timing

both of the probe and the announce-

ment of the preliminary findings as

"highly suspect."' Their joint statement

asked, "Why did he undertake his ef-

fort now, on the eve of the June

primary, just as many organizations are

making a special effort to encourage

minority voters to decide on issues of

vital importance? Why did he choose to

focus on bilingual voters, just as the

Voting Rights Act, which insures the

(Check one) {[-3;-Ifj

( prefer election moteriols

in - KEM...

D haemetin

[LD English

' D Esposo!

s

right of voters to receive language

assistance at the polls, is facing a battle

for extension in Congress?" -

With great fanfare, the U.S. At-

torney announced to the press that the

preliminary results of his investigation

_indicated that at least a quarter of the

of names submitted were of persons

who were permanent residents, aliens,

or otherwise ineligible to vote.

However, according to Morris Baller,

_ an attorney with MALDEF, these

results are "inadequate and_ highly

questionable."

"In San Francisco, for example,"

Baller explained, "`the District Attorney

submitted 35 names of foreign-born

voters to Russoniello, without selecting

out those who requested bilingual

ballots. Of the 35, only three had re-

quested bilingual ballots and those were

the only three investigated by

Russoniello. He found them all to be of

"questionable" status and asked the

San Francisco D.A. to investigate

them.

"The local investigation showed that

two of the three were naturalized

citizens. The other had moved out of

the state.

"Similarly," Baller noted, ``in Contra

Costa, a private check shows that at

least five of the twelve `questionable'

names that Russoniello sent back to be

investigated by the D.A. are those of

naturalized citizens.

"That the accuracy of the INS

records is questionable has already

been established by California

Secretary of State March Fong Eu and

others. These follow-up investigations

serve to underscore that fact, and in-

dicate that the U.S. Attorney's figures

are highly unreliable,'' Baller added.

A number of the signatory groups,

such as the San Francisco Latino Voter

Registration Project, are directly involv-

ed in recruiting voters in the Hispanic

and Chinese community. They vowed

that ``this chilling action by the U.S.

Attorney" would not deter them in their

efforts to "broaden participation in the

democratic process in minority com-

munities for the June primary or any

subsequent elections."

The statement, which received wide

press coverage, concluded that "our

common opposition to this racist in-

vestigation has brought us _ closer

together and strengthened our resolve

to work for the extension of the Voting

Rights Act, and the fight against

discrimination against minorities by

public officials and others."

Special Hearing

Many of the same sentiments were

voiced at a special San Francisco hear- |

ing on the bilingual ballot probe held by

the Assembly Elections and Reappor-

tionment Committee on May 21.

Committee chair Richard Alatorre

called the investigation "`part of a larger

effort to use the minorities of this coun-

try as scapegoats in these troubled

times,'' and said he planned to in-

troduce legislation that will prevent fur-

ther harassment of persons who request

bilingual ballot materials.

ACLU-NC Executive Director

Dorothy Ehrlich testified at the hear-

ings along with Congressman Philip

Burton, Assemblyman Art Agnos,

Harold Yee of the Chinese-American

-Democratic Club and a dozen other

political and community leaders.

Maria Gloria Rodriguez, a registrar

in Walnut Creek and a naturalized

U.S. citizen since 1959, told the

Assembly Committee that she was

shocked to learn from a caller that her

name was on the list submitted to

Russoniello from Contra Costa.

"I was hurt and felt betrayed,'' said

Rodriguez who has been active in elec-

toral politics for many years. "`I felt I

was being treated worse than a

criminal. At least officials tell a

criminal why he is being investigated.

"This is something behind my back.

They seem to want us to turn inward,"

Rodriguez added.

U.S. Attorney Russoniello did not at-

tend the hearings.

Injunction Denied

The lawsuit filed by ACLU-NC and

- MALDFF to halt the probe faced a set-

back on May 24 when U.S. District

Court Judge Spencer Williams ruled

that he "`has no jurisdiction to enjoin or

otherwise control a preliminary in-

vestigation of the U.S. Attorney's of-

fice,"'and denied the ACLU request for

injunction.

Williams did not, however, agree to

the U.S. Attorney's request to dismiss

the claim for damages against

Russoniello for violations of the con-

stitutional rights of bilingual voters. -

ACLU-NC staff attorney Alan

Schlosser who is handling the case with

Ron Vera of MALDEF said that he was

disappointed with the ruling but will

continue to pursue litigation.

"We're not going to let this issue

drop. We feel the court has recognized

we are alleging a valid complaint in

terms of constitutional rights that we

claim have been damaged by this

discriminatory investigation,''

Schlosser said.

(Check one) {[-- If

1 prefer election materials

in - EM...

CPX MTF

CL) English

0) Espofol

Executive Director Ehrlich added,

"Our opposition to this probe is not

limited to the courts. We are continuing

to work on a local level in the nine coun-

ties to prevent the investigation from

going any further.

"In addition, we are working with

ACLU lobbyists in Washington, D.C.

to pursue a Congressional hearing on

this discriminatory probe. We not only

want to see this investigation ended, we

want to insure that government officials

are held accountable for enforcing the

Voting Rights Act - not taking

measures which undermine it,"' Ehrlich

concluded.

A Lasting Gift

The passage of state Propositions 5

and 6 in this month's elections repeal-

ing California's gift and inheritance

taxes "should not affect bequests to the

ACLU Foundation of Northern Califor-

nia' according to ACLU-NC associate

director Michael P. Miller.

"ACLU supporters most want to

know that their dollars are going to sup-

port critical civil liberties work. Tax ad-

vantages are sometimes a reason people

choose to support the ACLU or choose

to name the ACLU in their will, but

they are not a primary reason," said

Miller who coordinates ACLU-NC fund

raising.

"A bequest is a very special gift to the

ACLU. If you are a current ACLU sup-

porter helping our work today, it makes

a great deal of sense that you would

want to help the ACLU continue to be

effective in the decades after your

death. Unfortunately, repression will

most likely outliye us all as individuals

and the need for a strong ACLU will not

go away,"' added Miller.

ACLU Supports

Legal Challenge

to Prop. 8

A legal challenge to Proposition 8,

the so-called Victims Bill of Rights,

which was filed in the state Court of Ap-

peal the day after the measure was pass-

ed by the voters, is being supported by

`the ACLU-NC.

The petition, filed on behalf of

Robert D. Raven, former president of

the State Bar of California, James

Brosnahan, former president of the San

Francisco Bar and Edward Foglia,

president of the California Teachers

Association, claims that the measure

violates the state constitutional provi-

sion that an initiative be confined to a

single subject.

"Exactly what is the subject of the in-

itiative?"" the petition poses, adding

that "if a `subject' can be ascertained,

how do the multifarious components of

the measure functionally relate to that

subject," for example, then "any

moderately skillful attorney could con-

struct a rationale that such diverse

- topics as strip mining, neuropathic ex-

aminers, pensions, and oleomargarine

were germane to `public safety.' "'

The petition, filed by San Francisco

attorneys Ephraim Margolin. and

Stanely Friedman, contends that the

measure has at least twelve subjects, -

the right to bail, safe schools, plea

bargaining, criminal evidence, etc. -

each of which is separate.

Thus, the suit argues, the voters

would not reasonably have understood

that they were overhauling the entire

continued on page 7

to the ACLU

The ACLU Foundation of Northern

California has established an endow-

ment fund "to guarantee the ACLU an

annual income through the best and

_ worst of political and economic periods.

Bequests are the primary source of sup-

port for that endowment," explained

Miller.

ACLU-NC Chairperson Davis (c)

Reimer noted that the number of be-

quests received by the ACLU in nor-

thern California is growing. In the last

year, the ACLU-NC was notified of

eleven bequests. Where the amount is

known, the gifts range from $252 to

$109,000, the latter coming from the

sale of a house left to the ACLU.

Naming the ACLU Foundation of

Northern California in a will is fairly

simple. Often a `codicil' (an amend-

ment or addition) can be added to an

existing will, ACLU supporters who

_ wish more information on making be-

quests to the ACLU should contact

their attorney or Michael Miller at 621-

2493.

aclu news _ |

8 issues a year, monthly except bi-monthly 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

Davis Riemer, Chairperson Dorothy Ehrlich, Executive Director {

Marcia Gallo, Chapter Page iz

es ACLU NEWS (USPS 018-040) :

1663 Mission St., 4th floor, San Francisco, California 94103. (415) 621-2488

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

Elaine Elinson, Editor

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

aclu news

june-july 1982

Sacramento

Battleground of Choice

by Beth Meador

Choice continues to hold its own in

California. Despite a redoubled

legislative onslaught by anti-choice

representatives - including over a

dozen new anti-choice measures - we

manage to hold back the tide of

repressive legislation.

Leading the attack, of course, was

John Schmitz who introduced three

bills: SB 1745 - which he calls a "`fetal

death certificate' bill; SB 1746 -

which states that life begins at concep-

tion and restricts lower state courts

from jurisdiction in matters involving

abortion, and SCA 49 - which would

prohibit judicial mandate of funds not

appropriated by the Legislature. The

first measure failed passage, the second

was sent to interim study which is tanta-

mount to failure, and SCA 49 has not

been set for hearing yet.

Legislative Goulash

But Schmitz is not the only one.

Legislators have introduced a panoply

of measures which would prohibit or

severely restrict reproductive rights:

SB 1807 (Speraw) limits the ability of

school districts to grant release time to

those students who need abortions or

abortion-related services. This bill pass-

ed committee.

SB 1877 (Doolittle) would have pro-

hibited mandatory use of university and

college student fees for abortion ser-

vices. Senator Sieroty refused to hear

the bill in the Education Committee

because it violated the rule against

presentation of the same bill during one

legislative session.

Does Your

Representative

Represent

You?

Where do your elected of-

ficials stand on _ reproductive

rights and ``national security''

issues?

Voting records compiled by

ACLU-NC's Pro-Choice Task

Force and Right to Dissent Sub-

committee provide a com-

prehensive run-down on_ nor-

thern California legislators' ayes

and nays on pro-choice and dis-

sent issues.

You can get your copy of of

this useful factsheet by calling

or writing Field Representative

Marcia Gallo at the ACLU-NC,

1663 Mission Street, S.F. CA

94103; 415/621-2493.

SB 3407 (Leonard), the same as SB

1877, failed passage.

SB 1876 (Doolittle). would make

medical insurance for abortions an op-

tional rider. It was re-referred from the

State Insurance Committee to Health

and Welfare and has yet been set for

hearing. .

AB 3221 (Ivers) to set up a Medi-Cal

abortion reporting system - failed

passage.

AB 3690 (Cortese), the so-called in-

formed consent bill, is set for hearing in

May in the Assembly Judiciary Com-

mittee.

AB 3346 (Wray), which would have re-

quired anesthesizing the fetus during

the abortion, failed passage. (ACLU

took no position on this bill.)

AB 3394 (Sebastiani) makes abortion a

felony. The bill was set for hearing, but

the hearing was cancelled at Sebas-

tiani's request.

SB 2065 (Alex Garcia) renames the

Therapeutic Abortion Act the ``Feticide

Act" and prohibits post 20-week abor-

tions unless performed in a facility by a

physician who will render medical treat-

ment to a surviving fetus. The bill pass-

ed the Health and Welfare Committee

on May 27.

AB 3766 (Sebastiani), the same as SB

1807, was heard in the Assembly

Education. Committee on May 4 and

amended to remove the prohibition as it

applied to contraceptive services. The

bill passed committee as amended.

Medi-Cal Funding for Abortion: In

June, the Senate adopted a 1983 Budget

Act which again includes restructions

on Medi-Cal funding for abortion. The

Schmitz Amendment, almost idential

to last year's, would prevent state of-

ficials from complying with a court

order to provide Medi-Cal funds for any

"purpose not appropriated by the

Legislature.

The 1983 Budget Act is now being

considered by a joint Assembly/Senate

Conference Committee, and must be

enacted before the Legislature recesses

in July.

As you can see, these vicious attacks

on reproductive freedom just keep com-

ing. We must not retreat, nor even rest

for a minute. Write your legislators.

And be sure to thank those who support

choice. They face a very hostile climate

too.

Jailed Woman Juror Appeals

by Kathy Cramer

The ACLU has filed an appeal this.

month on behalf of Carolyn Bobb, the

Monterey juror who was jailed for con-

tempt for refusing to answer sex-_

discriminatory questions during jury

selection procedures in Monterey

Municipal Court in January.

ACLU -NC cooperating attorney

Katherine Stoner is taking the case to

the Court of Appeal following a March

ruling in the Monterey Superior Court

upholding Bobb's contempt charges.

Bobb was initially cited for contempt

when she refused to answer a question

about her spouse's occupation unless

the same question was asked of male

jurors. "I realized that the Municipal

Court judge was only asking the women

jurors about their marital status and

husband's occupation,' Bobb explain-

ed, adding, "it was degrading to me

and all the women in the courtroom."

When she refused to answer, the judge

cited her for contempt, ordered that she

be taken into custody, and later

sentenced her to one day in jail (see

ACLU News, March 1982).

When cooperating attorney Stoner

appealed Bobb's case in superior court,

Judge E.J. Leach, Jr. upheld the con-

tempt charges. Though Leach agreed

that the questions about spousal oc-

cupation should probably have been

asked of both men and women, he

stated that he did not feel constitutional

issues had been raised.

""However,"' Stoner responded, "`we

believe that Bobb's constitutional rights

were clearly violated by the questioning.

What it comes down to is the court of-

ficially promoting sex role stereotyping

- Bobb was entitled to object. Women

get rights on paper, but then continue

to be denigrated in ways like this. The

effect is the same as if they had no

rights at all."'

Carolyn Bobb added, "I think the

court has a blind spot when it comes to

sex discrimination."' Explaining that

Judge Leach's position had been that

she should be objective privately to

the Municipal Court judge since she

had access to him as an attorney, Bobb

said, "I was not there as a attorney - I

was doing my jury duty as a citizen. In-

stead I was insulted as a woman. I

would do the same thing again."

Stoner said that the appeal will draw

parallels to similar cases involving race

discrimination, adding that up till now

the court has been reluctant to accept

these parallels. `Sex discrimination

hasn't come to the courts in this context

before. It challenges deeply ingrained

practices of sex role stereotyping. It

takes years to eliminate this kind of

_ thinking," Stoner said.

Carolyn Bobb has heard from a

number of sources that publicity

around the case has stopped Monterey

judges from asking similar questions.

-"T think this case has made some judges

aware of their unconcious sexism," she

said. :

However, both Bobb and_ Stoner

agreed that they were happy about the

informal charges, "The state has an

obligation to see that this practice is of-

ficially stopped."'

Kathy Cramer, a former student intern

at the ACLU, is a volunteer with the

ACLU News.

Save the Date

October2 3

ACLU-NC ANNUAL

CONFERENCE

For more information, contact Marcia Gallo at 415/621-2494

S.F. Cops on Trial for Street Sweep

The ACLU lawsuit against the San

Francisco Police Department, Ramey v.

Murphy, is scheduled to go to trial in

August in San Francisco Superior

Court. The taxpayers' suit claims that

the San Francisco police have a consis-

tent practice of using an obstruction of

the sidewalks law as a means of jailing

people who could not otherwise be

_ punished by legal means.

According to ACLU-NC staff at-

torney, Amitai Schwartz, `"The statute

in question, Section 647c of the Califor-

nia Penal Code, prohibits malicious

obstruction of the free movement of any

person on any street, sidewalk or other

public place. However, we will argue |

that the San Francisco police frequently

use this law in situations where they

have no facts showing probable cause to

arrest in order to `sweep the streets' of

persons deemed by them to be

undesirable.

"Moreover, this practice of the police

is condoned and encouraged by higher

city officials and amounts to routine

harassment," he added.

The suit was filed in November,

1980. Between August 1 and November

1, 1980 over three hundred people were

arrested under the statute by the San

Francisco police. Though 90% of those

arrested were held in custody, less than

5% were eventually charged with any

crime. This pattern of arrests still con-

tinues, Schwartz noted.

The ACLU is seeking a declaratory

judgment from the court that this prac-

tice is unconstitutional and illegal. The

suit also asks the court to issue an in-

junction restraining the police from en-

forcing Penal Code Section 647c in the

absence of probable cause to believe

that a violation of the code has been

committed.

In May 1979, the ACLU brought a

continued on p. 6

aclu news

june-july 1982

Votins Information

Who is eligible to vote?

The by-laws for the ACLU of Nor-

thern California call for the at-large

Directors of the Board to be elected by

the general membership. The general

membership are those members in good

standing who have renewed their

membership within the last twelve

months.

The label affixed to this issue of the

ACLU News indicates whether you are

eligible or not eligible to vote on the

basis of when your last membership

renewal contribution was recorded.

If you are not eligible to vote, you

may choose to renew your membership

at the same time you submit your ballot

and resume your membership in good

standing.

If you share a joint membership,

each individual is entitled to vote

separately - two spaces are provided

on the ballot.

How are the candidates nominated to

run for the Board of Directors?

The ACLU-NC by-laws permit two

methods of nomination. Candidates

may be nominated by the present Board

of Directors after consideration of the

Nominating Committee's recommenda-

tions. Candidates may also be

nominated by petition bearing the

signatures of at least fifteen ACLU-NC

members in good standing.

Note: Members will note that there

are only eleven candidates running to

fill the eleven vacancies on the Board.

All of these candidates were recom-

mended by the Nominating Committee

and approved by the Board after con-

sideration of their qualifications. There

were no petitions filed by members to

nominate other candidates. Notice was

given in the January-February issue of

the ACLU News that nominating peti-

tions were being accepted by the Board.

Voting Instructions

Candidates are listed below in

alphabetical order. After marking your

ballot, clip it and enclose the ballot and

your address label from this issue of the

ACLU News in an envelope. Your ad-

dress label must be included in order to

insure voter eligibility.

Address the envelope to:

Elections Committee

ACLU of Northern California

1663 Mission Street, Suite 460

San Francisco, 94103 CA

If you have a joint membership, you

may use both of the columns provided,

and each of the members may vote

separately. ~

If you wish to insure the confiden-

tiality of your vote, insert your ballot in

a double envelope with the special mail-

ing label in the outer one. The envelope

will be separated before the counting of

the ballots.

Ballots must be returned to the

ACLU office by noon on July 8, 1982,

You may vote for up to eleven can-

didates.

For your consideration, the following

statements were submitted by the can-

didates for election to the Board of

Directors.

Field Committee continued from p. 8

publicity efforts - like the two full-

page "Stop the Human Life Amend-

ment' ads in Marin papers arranged by

Leslie Paul - keep the momentum

against Hatch's anti-choice amendment

going.

Plans for an emergency rally in U.N.

Plaza in San Francisco on the first day

of Senate debate on the measure have

been made by a coalition of Bay Area

reproductive rights groups; Kathy

Kahn, Winner, Garey and Zeck are

alerting supporters through the Pro-

Choice communications network

telephone tree.

The Right to Dissent Subcommittee

has focused on informing ACLU

members and supporters about the

dangers to civil liberties in proposals

from the Reagan administration in the

name of "national security.'

The Subcommittee monitored the

votes on the "Names of Agents'' bill

passed by Congress early this year, and

urged action through the Dissent

telephone tree against S 1630, the

Criminal Code Revision. That measure

was killed in April; Subcommittee

members worked with the National

Committee Against Repressive Legisla-

tion (NCARL) in urging Senator

Cranston to work against S 1630.

Cranston became a visible opponent of

the measure, sending a `Dear Col-

league"'

_ passage.

letter advising against its (c)

In March, the Subcommittee launch-

ed a media blitz about the threats to the

Freedom of Information Act. Coor-

dinated by Committee chair Rubin, and

featuring Dick Criley, Julius Young,

Hagberg, the Committee spoke on 18

radio stations and 8 television programs

about current moves to gut the FOIA.

In May, the Subcommittee joined

with Media Alliance and other groups

in issuing a statement opposing S 1730,

the Freedom of Information `Act

Reform Bill sponsored by Senator Orrin ~

Hatch.

Encouraged by the success of their

media efforts around the FOIA, the

Subcommittee is setting up a speakers'

panel on dissent issues. A speakers'

training session was held on June 12.

Planning is now underway for the

| 1982 ACLU Conference set for Oc-

tober. Program planning and logistical

work are being coordinated by the Field

Executive Committee composed of

Hagberg, Jennings, Rubin, Criley and

Biggs.

"Last year's conference started us off

on some very successful organizing

work around issues which really came

the fore this year,'' said Criley, ""At this

year's conference, we want to assess our

work and build on the major gains in

, understanding and organizing that we

have made over the year.

"I'd say the Field Committee has got-

ten off to a very good start,'' he added.

Alice M. Beasley

I have been staff attorney for (and

now sit on the board of directors of) the

Legal Aid Society of Alameda County

and the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. I

also serve on the San Francisco Lawyers

Committee and the legal committees of

the ACLU-NC and Equal Rights Ad-

vocates. I have enormous admiration

for the staff and cooperating attorneys

of the ACLU-NC and their record of

achieving significant results in protec-

tion of minority rights in the face of ma-

jority self-interest. Particularly in these

times when civil libertarians are like

reeds hunched in a hostile wind, I

would be honored to be counted among

those who make a difference.

Steve Block.

Now, more than any time in recent

memory, an organized defense of our

civil liberties is urgently needed. I

would very much like to participate in

this effort by serving on the affiliate

Board.

I have worked as a volunteer attorney

with the ACLU-NC and served as Presi-

dent of the Gay Rights Chapter. I have

been general counsel for Gay Rights

Advocates and am currently co-chair of

Bay Area Lawyers for Individual

Freedom (BALIF), the gay and Lesbian

bar association of the Bay Area.

Charles R. Breyer

As a high school student I entered an

American Legion speech contest with a

presentation on the threat to the Bill of

Rights caused by the indifference of the

American public to individual liberties.

I trust that my finish "`out of the

money'' was due to my delivery rather

than the content. Nevertheless, I am as

`concerned today as I was then that

`public sentiment should never dictate

the exercise of an individuals' rights. As

a Watergate prosecutor I witnessed

governmental abuses and feel very

strongly that the Government's exercise

of its power, no matter how "`just'' its

cause, Should never be used to deny to

an individual his or her constitutional

right to espouse unpopular causes.

My qualification for this Board is my

commitment to this ideal.

1982 ACLU-NC Board

Richard Criley

As a member of the ACLU-NC Board

since 1979, I have served as a vice-

chairperson, a member of the Field

Committee, the Field Executive Com-

mittee, the Right to Dissent and

Reproductive Rights Task Forces, and

the Development Committee. I have

_ sought to develop the activism of the

membership at the chapter level on

legislative and community issues to en-

courage ACLU initiatives in creating

local coalition movements on reproduc-

tive rights, the nuclear weapons freeze

and other issues. I have spoken on civil

liberties issues to ACLU chapters,

church, community and political

groups, rallies, conferences, radio and

television programs throughout nor-

thern California. I have been a civil

liberties activist since the 1930s, an

ACLU member since 1959, and a leader

of the Monterey County Chapter of the

ACLU since 1977,

Donna Hitchens

I have served on the Board since

1978, and have been active on the Ex-

ecutive Committee, Personnel Commit-

tee and Equality Committee. As a

member of the Board I have sought to

assist the ACLU in aggressively and

creatively opposing the ever increasing

intrusions on our constitutional rights.

Iam currently the Directing Attorney |

of the Lesbian Rights Project and a

Staff Attorney with Equal Rights Ad-

vocates, Inc. Over the last 15 years I

have been active in a number of civil

rights and civil liberties struggles, and

_ have tried to contribute to efforts to

combat oppression based on race, sex,

economics, age and political expres-

sion.

Lisa Honig

I have served on the ACLU-NC

Board since 1980, am currently a

member of the Budget-Management

Committee and serve as the acting

Treasurer/Secretary of the organiza-

tion. As a professional fundraiser, I am

well aware of the need for the ACLU to

expand its fundraising capabilities and

am committed to participating in that

effort. I was first made aware of the

value of the ACLU 15 years ago, when I

sought the organization's assistance in

challenging dress codes that

discriminated against female high

school students. Since that time, my

understanding of the principles for

which the ACLU stands has grown, as

has my committment to upholding

those principles in the face of increas-

ingly serious threats.

Steve Mayer

I have served on the Board of the

~ ACLU-NC for the past three years and

am an active member of the Legal Com-

mittee. I have worked closely with the

staff as a cooperating attorney on

Preston v. Brown, a successful lawsuit

challenging the Army's denial of a high

level security clearance to a gay civilian

employee of an Army contractor. In ad-

dition, I participated in the defense of

the Daily Californian, U.C. Berkeley's

student paper, when it was enjoined by

_a federal court from printing an article

about the H-bomb.

I am a director of the San Francisco

law firm of Howard, Rice, Nemerovski,

Canady and Pollack, where I have handl-

ed a number of civil liberties cases in-

cluding Zurcher v. Stanford Daily

(challenging the search of a student

newspaper for evidence of crime com-

mitted by others) and Minnick vy.

California Dept. of Corrections (defen- "

ding the department's affirmative ac-

tion hiring program).

1 of Directors Elections

Drucilla Ramey

I first became active in the ACLU-NC

in connection with sex discrimination

issues ten years ago, and subsequently

served on and chaired numerous com-

mittees, culminating in my three-year

term as Chair of the Board. Having

found that a newborn daughter can

change your perspective, I stepped

down from that post last year, but I am

eager to reinvolve myself in the substan-

tive issues that first brought me to the

ACLU. I hope to be active on the |

Equality Committee, and am _ par-

ticularly concerned with issues affecting

equal employment opportunity for

women, an area in which I have

litigated and taught extensively.

ae

Davis Riemer

In the past 12 years I have served as

Earl Warren Chapter Board Member,

President and Affiliate Representative;

Affiliate Board Member at large, and

Treasurer; I am currently Chairperson

of the Affiliate Board.

There are many threats to our

freedoms that are obvious, and many

that are emerging in ways not so clear to

the general public. Additionally, a

number of issues will come before us in

the next several years that will be dif-

- ficult in the extreme.

My. committment is to financial

development and organizational

`strength, so that the able, dedicated

people we have on our staff, our Board

and in our chapters do not lack

resources to meet the challenges, and

have an organization that enables them

to do their best work.

Frances C. Strauss

My participation in the life of the

ACLU has spanned three decades. I

have served on the Illinois Division

Board; helped organize the San Fran-

cisco Chapter; was its representative to

the Affiliate Board, succeeded by two

terms as a member-at-large; organized

the `Complaint Desk" (1972); ran the

Bill of Rights Program and Fund-

Raising Campaigns (1973-1979); served

on the Affiliate's Executive Committee;

have been and am a member of the

Budget/Management and Develop-

ment Committees.

The current subtle encroachments on

civil liberties - against the courts, pro-

choice issues, preventive detention,

etc., demand "`eternal vigilance,'"' and

confirm my conviction that the ACLU is

absolutely necessary for protecting the

Bill of Rights. -

It would be a privilege to again serve

on the ACLU-NC Board.

BALLOT

Alice Beasley

Steve Block

Charles Breyer

Richard Criley

Lisa Honig :

Steve Mayer

Drucilla Ramey

Davis Riemer

Linda Weiner

Donna Hitchens

Frances Strauss -

aclu news

_ june-july 1982

Linda Weiner

I have been a member of ACLU for

10 years, having served on the ACLU-

NC Board for 3 years and the S.F.

Board for 5 years. I have chaired the

Officer Nominating Committee;. co-

chaired the Equality Committee and

served as affiliate representative to the

National Biennial Conference. I am

dresently a member of the Executive

Committee.

ACLU faces enormous challenges in

the next few years, fostered by an at-

mosphere concerned with simplistic

repressive solutions to very complicated

problems. To combat this, ACLU-NC

must work not only in the courtroom,

but in the legislature as well. If elected,

I will continue my past and present

work in civil liberties and social justice

with the Board of ACLU.

ean ae ee ee eee es os en

foo Of BW ooo Boe oo

i DO (c) oo a Boe 8

i

i

a

f S

a

a

i

i

a

a

a

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

a

J

aclu news

6 -june-july 1982

Tobriner:

by Jerome B. Falk, Jr.

The values we of the ACLU cherish

lost a great friend in April with the

death of Justice Mathew O. Tobriner,

who only a few months earlier had

retired from the Supreme Court of

California. He was that unbeatable

combination: a great judge and a warm

charming and altogether wonderful

human being. I cherished his friend-

ship.

I had originally thought to sum-

marize here some of Justice Tobriner's

many lasting contributions to the cause

of civil liberties. But no mere recitation

could possibly do. justice to a judicial

career that includes pathbreaking opi-

nions in virtually every field of law, in-

cluding affirmative action, freedom of

speech, the right to counsel, school in-

tegration, the right of privacy, rights of

_ gays to employment, the right of in-

digent women to Medi-Cal abortions,

freedom of religion - you see, the list

goes on and on.

Suffice it to say that on a court of

many great judges, past and Present,

Mat Tobriner stood second to none in

his contribution to our law. He has

enriched our law with a body of work

which is notable for its craft, scholar-

ship, elegance of language and - most

of all - for its progressive vision of a

just society observant of and bettered by

the rule of law.

But I want to focus on another facet

of this remarkable man: his capacity to

enrich the lives of everyone with whom

he comes into contact, and to inspire

them to greater levels of achievement

and community service.

Justice Tobriner inspired by his in-

tense devotion to his work. At an age in

life when others looked to expand their

leisure activities, he assumed the role of

a Senior Justice at the Court, shoulder-

ing his share of its massive workload

and then some. Except for his notorious

addiction to chocolate in all forms, his

life could fairly be described as ascetic:

long days at the Court, Monday

through Saturday, followed by evenings

of more work and study at home. A lit-

tle hike on Mt. Tamalpais on Sunday,

perhaps a little more work on a draft

opinion, and then return for another

week of work. It was a grueling pace,

from which he never shrank.

Justice Tobriner also inspired by his

interest in and concern for others. A'

young lawyer who had the good fortune

to meet Justice Tobriner soon learned

that, no matter how occupied he was

with Court work, he always had time to:

inquire about what that young lawyer

was doing, to express interest in any ac-

tivity of a pro bono or public service

nature, and in that warm and positive

manner that is so uniquely his, offer

just the right combination of praise and

encouragement. No one who can

remember what it was like to begin a

demanding career in any field will fail

to appreciate the impact such an ex-

pression of interest and encouragement

has on young men and women who,

while perhaps nowhere near as worthy

as Justice Tobriner made them feel,

now had what seemed like an obligation

to match his words of praise with their

own deeds.

And, finally, Justice Tobriner has in-

spired us by his vision of a just society,

tolerant of the rights and individuality

of each citizen. That vision finds ex-

pression in Justice Tobriner's opinions.

: J mene. Mathew. Tobriner

1904-1982

That sensitivity is illustrated by Gay

Law Students v. Pacific Telephone and

Telegraph Co., an opinion of which he

is rightly proud, which held that a

public utility may not engage in

discriminatory employment practices

on the basis of sexual preference.

A few years ago, I took my two young

children over to the Tobriners' home

during the Christmas holiday season for

the purpose of indulging the Justice's

addiction with a pound of chocolate-

covered orange peel - a delicacy mat-

ched only by sins of a far more serious

character. The Tobriners greeted us

warmly; and, as we sat for a chat, Mrs.

Tobriner hurried around the house

scooping various small objects into two

sizeable containers which had

mysteriously appeared. As we left, they

presented the children with these con-

tainers, which were filled with various

candies - mostly chocolate - from

their vast collection. As we walked back

to the car, Suzie, then age eight,

whispered: ""This is a very good deal.

We came here to give them a small box

of chocolate; and leave with three times

Inspired by Vision of a Just Society

asmuch.". _

That incident now strikes me as ap-

propriately symbolic of any dealings

one might be fortunate to have had with

both Justice and Mrs. Tobriner. One

inevitably came away with more than

one brought. That observation applies

_ hot only to personal contacts, but to the

presentation of cases before the

Supreme Court. As I learned on more

than one occasion, counsel submits

written and oral arguments to the Court

and, on the filing of a Tobriner opinion,

receives far more than the sum of

counsel's arguments and analysis.

The center of Justice Tobriner's pro-

fessional life for nearly 21 years was the

Supreme Court of California. It was,

when he joined it, a Court of great

distinction; and it is, today, a Court of

preeminent distinction. Though many

share credit for that achievement,

Justice Tobriner's work plays _pro-

minently in the Court's national reputa-

tion as courageous, progressive and

scholarly.

All of us know that the Court - and

all of the Judiciary - are under attack

from those whose vision of justice dif-

fers radically, and (I regret to say) from

those who see the potential to advance

their own political careers at the ex-

pense of an independent and impartial

judiciary. That threat poses a challenge

for all of us to meet.

The past 21 years of the Supreme

Court's achievement and its present

stature are, in part, Justice Tobriner's

legacy. Preservation of the Court

against this assault can be our most

meaningful tribute to him.

Jerome B. Falk, Jr., Vice President

_and Director of the San Francisco law -

firm of Howard, Rice, Nemerovski,

Canady and Pollack, is the Vice

Chairperson of the ACLU of Northern

California.

8 ee

i i

i WHOM DOYOUTRUST? - |

a( ) Presidential Counselor Edwin Meese: The ACLU is a 4

a `"`criminal's lobby.'' a

: (_) California Lt. Gov. Mike Curb: ``The ACLU has almost !

3 become a lobbying force for the criminals.' 5

a() Former Chief Justice Earl Warren: ``The ACLU has 5

i stood four-square against the recurring tides of !

4 hysteria that from time to time threaten freedoms }

; everywhere. :

i i

s s 8 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_1969 ACLUN_1969.MODS ACLUN_1970 ACLUN_1970.MODS ACLUN_1971 ACLUN_1971.MODS ACLUN_1972 ACLUN_1972.MODS 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_1981.batch ACLUN_1982 ACLUN_1982.MODS ACLUN_1982.batch ACLUN_1983 ACLUN_1983.MODS 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 g

: Join the Fight for Your Rights :

i i

i

; Enclosed is my new membership contribution for: yA

i i

'( ) Individual $20 ( ) Joint $30 :

: and an additional contribution of $ 1

3 ( ) This is a gift membership. a

i a

a

: Name(s) '

i i

# a

i i

' Address t

a a

i... ` i

g City ZIP i

a : 8

0x00A7 Return to: ACLU-NG, 1663 Mission St., San Francisco 94103 ;

heck eee eee

_ pretext to

Pacifica

continued from p. 1

stopped coming in. I think this is exact-

ly what the Planning Commission

wanted. Hopefully, our victory in the

court will turn this around," he added.

The victory in Pacifica comes on the -

heels of the announcement by San

Francisco police officers that they are

dropping libel suits against reporters

and the editor of the Bay Area Reporter

(see ACLU News, May 1982).

Two San Francisco police officers

who claimed they were libeled ina BAR

story about alleged police brutality

against the gay community, dropped

their $20,000,000 suit in April after a

successful defense was mounted by

ACLU-NC_ cooperating attorneys

Robert Lewis and Lynn Pasahow of the

San Francisco law firm of McCutcheon,

Doyle, Brown and Enerson and ACLU

staff counsel Schwartz.

A second libel lawsuit against BAR

guest columnist Randy Schell bya S.F.

Police Inspector was also dropped after

an ACLU defense.

"The victories for Friends of Pacifica

and the Bay Area Reporter are very

significant - but in the current climate

we cannot afford to be complacent,"

said Schwartz. `We are still defending

two former San Francisco Examiner

reporters, Raul Ramirez and Lowell

Bergman, against a million dollar libel

suit by police officers. We are also

representing a small family-run

newspaper in San Leandro threatened

with closure by libel suit from a police

officer who was the subject of a critical

editorial.

"Fortunately, the courts have

responded to our First Amendment

arguments - but we must continue to

check police and other public officials

who are trying to silence critics or chill .

political dissent by slapping defamation

suits on their opponents,'' Schwartz ad-

ded.

Street Sweep

continued from p. 3

similar lawsuit against the S.F. Police

Department Ramey v. Gain) charging

that the police were using a city or-

dinance, Police Code 20a and 20b, as a

sweep. the streets of

"undesirables."'

As a result of that lawsuit, the San

Francisco Board of Supervisors repeal-

ed the offending ordinance and replac-

ed it with one that gave the police less

discretion in picking up persons who

were allegedly obstructing the sidewalk.

Arrests for obstruction dropped

dramatically at first. However, in the

summer of 1980, the ACLU began

receiving complaints that the police

were picking up large numbers of peo-

ple for ``obstruction'' under the aegis of

the state penal code. These findings led

to the filing of Ramey v. Murphy.

The trial was originally scheduled to

begin in May, however, because of the

crowded court schedule, the Presiding

Judge put the trial over until August.

@

aclu news

_ june-july 1982

Prop. 8

criminal justice system. Moreover, the

voters were not afforded an opportunity

to accept some features of Proposition 8

and reject others.

The petitioners are asking the court

to prevent the measure from going into

effect pending a full review of its con-

stitutionality.

According to Margaret Crosby,

ACLU-NC staff attorney who authored

the letter to the Court of Appeal sup-

porting the request for a stay of the

measure, "The ACLU, along with

many other groups, worked very hard to

oppose Proposition 8 because it strips

away many constitutional and statutory

rights from all people in the state while

offering no solution to crime.

"As the petition points out, this

measure represents such a drastic and

far-reaching change in the nature and

operation of the criminal justice system

that it must be considered a revision of

the state constitution rather than a

mere amendment to it,'"' she continued.

"The ACLU is supporting this

challenge to Proposition 8 and will con-

tinue to work to insure that our fun-

damental rights are not eroded by this

dangerous, hodge-podge measure

which only offers the false hope of sim-

ple solutions to a very complex pro-

blem,"' Crosby added.

continued from p. 2

Help Wanted! -

Four volunteers, all men, showed up on the

afternoon of December $1 to help with the

mailing of more than 2200 copies of the

Union's January "News." If you can lend the

Union a hand stuffing envelopes on the after-

noon of the last day of ANY month, please

telephone EXbrook 2-8255, or just drop

around to the office.

_ Right NOW the Union needs volunteers to

help address and stuff envelopes for a large

"Crisis I" mailing. It is an important job and

the Union is badly in need of help. If you live

in San Francisco, this is YOUR chance act-

ually to DO something for the Union besides

sending in your dues.

from the ACLU News,

February 19951

The times have changed, but

the need for the ACLU has not.

We're still putting out member-

ship mailings, in fact more than -

ever. If you have four daytime

hours a week, you can help the

ACLU grow by opening the new

ACLU membership applications

we receive. You can help our

membership and fund raising in

other ways too. Call Michael

Miller. Oh, yes, we no longer

have the EXbrook exchange, so

call (415) 621-2493.

Dean Hides School Paper,

the ``Stye's'' the Limit

by David Sweet

"Satire," author Philip Roth once

wrote, "is moral rage transformed into

comic art.'' The staffers of Pigstye, the

student satirical magazine at UC-Santa

Cruz, would certainly agree. And, after

their experience with censorship by

university authorities, they could add to

Roth's insight that satire and comic art

can sometimes lead to moral rage.

When the November issue of Pigstye

hit the UC-Santa Cruz campus, Porter

College Provost Phillip Nelson accused

the Pigstye staff of slander and libel. He

was incensed over a caricature of -

himself on the front cover and a lam-

`poon of his administrastive policies in-

side. In response to Nelson's accusa-

tions, Pigstye editor John Amsterdam

-said that the satire piece, which alluded

to racial segregation at UC-SC and.

ridiculed the Chancellor, was simply

that - satire. It could only be con-

sidered libelous if it damaged Nelson's

or the Chancellor's reputations or their

livelihood. The editor also argued that

because Pigstye is known on campus as

a magazine of satire, no one could

possibly regard the piece as a statement

of fact. In the December issue of

Pigstye, Amsterdam admitted that us-

ing Provost Nelson's name was a

_ "regrettable mistake by the editors.'

_ He did not, however, make the formal

retraction or apology which Nelson

demanded.

Then, one Monday last March,

ACLU cooperating attorney Bob Taren

received a phone call from Amsterdam.

He told Taren that Nelson had im-

pounded the March issue of Pigstye

before it was distributed on campus and

then left for the spring break. Taren

tried calling other University officials.

Finding them gone for the spring break

ask for a mandatory injunction order-

ing the University to allow distribution

of Pigstye.

Once the UC-Santa Cruz Chancellor

learned what Nelson had `done, he scur-

ried around to find the hidden issues of

Pigstye. After a thorough search of the

campus and a phone call to Nelson, he

found them in the bathtub of a faculty

restroom. The confiscated Pigstye

issues, 300 in all, were then returned to

editor Amsterdam before the Thursday

court date. _ 2

Amsterdam subsequently dropped

the suit. Said Taren, `""The case was

clear-cut. Nelson didn't have a

chance."'

David Sweet, a Bay Area journalist, is a

volunteer with the ACLU NEWS.

po a a a a ees eee eee

A Lawyers Training Conference

Representing

Draft Non- Registrants

Agenda: :

prosecution

e Analysis of defenses

more.

Force

0x00A7 Saturday, July 31

' 9:30 AM to 5:30 PM

e Outline of new Selective Service law and procedures

e Assisting non-registrants through indictment and other initial stages of

e Presentation of affirmative political and religious defenses~. . . and

' Sponsored by: ACLU-NC, CCCO, NLG Military Law Task

ACLU Tries to Keep

Hotel Rooms Private

by Mason Drukman

Do you have a right to privacy when

you are a guest in a hotel? Is the hotel

desk clerk responsible for what guests

do in the seclusion of their rooms?

In April 1980, police officers arrested

Gail Manning, a desk clerk at the S.P.

Hotel in Oakland, and charged her with

violating an 1872 statute, Section 316 of

the Penal Code.

Section 316 states that "`Every person

who keeps a disorderly house, or any

house of public resort, by which the

peace, comfort or decency of the im-

mediate neighborhood is habitually

disturbed, or keeps an inn in a

@ :

disorderly manner, and every person

who lets an apartment or tenement

knowing that it is to be used for the pur-

pose of an assignation or prostitution is

guilty of a misdemeanor."'

The Oakland police officers,

reputedly believing that the S.P. Hotel

was a _hostelry where prostitutes

regularly took paying clients to engage

in illicit sex, kept the hotel under fre-

quent watch. On the night of April 30,

they followed a couple into the hotel,

believing that the couple intended to

engage in illegal sex in one of the hotel's

rooms. Apparently lacking sufficient

evidence to arrest either of the pair, the

police arrested Manning instead under

Section 316.

Manning challenged the constitu-

tionality of Section 316. in the

Oakland-Piedmont Municipal Court.

Boalt Law School ,

U.C. Berkeley :

Her challenge was denied and her ap-

peal is being supported with an amicus

curiae brief from the ACLU and

California Attorneys for Criminal

Justice.

ACLU-NC staff attorney Margaret

Crosby explained, ""The courts have

long recognized that people bring an

expectation of privacy to their hotel

room, and that what goes on in hotel

rooms is no business of the state. This

1872 statute is hopelessly out of date

and unconstitutional."

The proscription of ``assignations''

- a vague term nowhere defined in the

Penal Code - is particularly objec-

tionable, the ACLU brief argues. That

Gs

t

Vo

prohibited conduct is virtually identical

to "private consensual sexual behavior"'

which has been repeatedly protected by

decisions of the State Supreme Court.

References to prohibited "`lewd acts"'

found elsewhere in the Penal Code are

confined to sexual exposure or contact

in a genuinely public place, where

others might become unwilling spec-

tators to conduct they regard as offen-

sive. A hotel room is not such a public

place, Crosby asserted.

"Not only is Section 316 out of date,

its utilization will in the end do just the

opposite of what the Penal Code is

designed to do. When Victorian prin-

ciples of propriety are enshrined in an

archaic law like Section 316, and when

such a_ statute is enforced only

sporadically against an unlucky few like

Gail Manning, the only lesson is

disrespect for law enforcement,"

Crosby said. :

Beyond the principle of hotel room '

privacy is the question of whether a

desk clerk should be held accountable

for what goes on behind the closed

doors of such rooms. The ACLU brief

argues that as Manning had no connec-

tion with any alleged sexual illegalities,

she cannot therefore be considered a _

pimp, a panderer or even the keeper of

a "`disorderly house.'' By requiring her

to discriminate among guests as to their

marital status and sexual intentions she

is in effect being conscripted into acting

"as a first line of defense' for the

government. "`As it stands, Section 316

requires hotel clerks to become

eavesdroppers, voyeurs or informants

on intimate affairs to escape the poten-

tial for prosecution,'' Crosby said.

"We believe that such a requirement

is unconstitutional. Clearly, we do not

-want to establish the kind of society

g Fee: includes conference and a manual on non-registration defenses g where hotel desk clerks are forced to

f and the draft $45 (standard fee); $40 (if you sign up before July 16); $20 g Speculate concerning our sex lives,"

i ; : g Crosby concluded.

g (law students) For more information: _ 4 Mason Drukman, a freelance political

Call CCCO, 415/566-0500 1251 2nd Ave., S.F. 94122 | and legal writer, is a volunteer with the

too, he called the Board of Regents

lawyer, who agreed with Taren that

Nelson's seizure of Pigstye violated the

First Amendment. A court hearing was

arranged for that Thursday. On behalf 1

of editor Amsterdam, Taren planned to

Pal SOMEONE RACES Gt PRE Ree te EEO CER WO Ra FR eRe

aclu news

june-july 1982

The Field Committee

In June 1981, representatives of

ACLU-NC's 15 chapters met for the

first time as the new Field Committee.

Their goal: to increase the activity and

effectiveness of ACLU chapters and

members on priority issues.

Today, the Field Committee and its

.Rro-Choice Task Force and Right to

Dissent Subcommittee are looking back

. 'ONeea year of activity and ac-

complishments, with hundreds of let-

_ ters written, scores of telephone calls

made, numerous events, forums, and

media appearances - and more ACLU

supporters involved in action cam-

paigns than ever before.

"The current field program concept

- to focus on one or two `top priority'

civil liberties concerns which lend -

themselves to effective membership ac-

tion - has: successfully brought

together veteran civil libertarians and

new ACLU supporters," said Peter

Hagberg who has chaired the Field

Committee since its inception.

Created by an ad hoc chapter/board

planning committee early in 1981, the

Field Committee is charged with setting

affiliate-wide membership organizing

goals and overseeing the work of issue-

specific subcommittees. At its first

meeting in June, 1981, the Committee

chose its issues - reproductive rights

and freedom of expression - after

B.A.K.

BOARD MEETING: (Fourth

Thursday each month.) Thursday,

June 24; 8:00 p.m. in Berkeley.

for location and for information on

the chapter's summer meeting

schedule.

EARL WARREN

BOARD MEETING: (Third

Wednesday each month.) Wednes-

day, July 21, 7:30 p.m., Sumitomo

Bank, 20th and Franklin, Oakland.

Contact Barbara Littwin, 415/452-

4726. There will be no _ board

meeting in August.

GAY RIGHTS

ANNUAL MEETING now being

planned for August. Contact Bill In-

gersoll, 415/348-8342.

MARIN

BOARD MEETING: (Third Mon-

day each month.) Monday, June 21,

8:00 p.m., Fidelity Savings,

Throckmorton Street, Mill Valley.

Contact Bill Luft, 415/453-6546.

There will be no board meetings in

July or August.

MID-PEN

BOARD MEETING: (Fourth

Thursday each month.) Thursday,

June 24, 8:00 p.m., All Saints

Episcopal Church, S55 Waverly

Street, Palo Alto. Contact Harry

be no board meetings in July or

August.

ACLU members racing to participat

Contact Joe Dorst, 415/654-4163, -

Anisgard, 415/856-9186. There will -

reports from all ACLU-NC chapters.

Two working subcommittees, the Pro-

Choice Task Force and the Right to

Dissent Subcommittee, chaired by

Anne Jennings and Jake Rubin respec-

tively, began meeting last summer.

Legislative and legal threats from

those who would eliminate reproductive

rights and public dissent provided plen-

ty of opportunity for action during the

past year for both teams.

in the Annual Conference.

MONTEREY

PUBLCI FORUM: Tuesday, June

22, 8:00 p.m. A public showing of

"The Last Epidemic" followed by an

informal discussion of the Bilateral

Nuclear Weapons Freeze. Monterey

Library, Madison and Pacific Streets,

Monterey. Contact Richard Criley,

408/624-7562. Planning is underway

for the August public forum, to be

held Tuesday, August 24; contact

Richard Criley, number above, for

more information.

BOARD MEETING: Tuesday, July

27, 7:30 p.m. Monterey Library.

MT. DIABLO

BOARD MEETING: (Third Thurs-

day each month.) Contact 415/939-

ACLU for information on _ the

chapter's summer meeting schedule.

NORTH PEN

PUBLIC MEETING on the Bilateral

Nuclear Freeze Initiative is now be-

ing planned; contact Richard Keyes,

415/367-8800 for more information.

BOARD MEETING: (Third Tues-

day each month.) Tuesday, July 20,

8:00 p.m. The August board

meeting may be changed to coincide

with the Public Forum now being

planned. Contact Richard Keyes,

number above, for information.

SACRAMENTO

BOARD MEETING: (Third

Wednesday each month.) Wednes-

day, July 21; Wednesday, August 18;

7:30 p.m. New County Administra-

tion Building, 7th and I Streets,

Hearing Room 1, Sacramento.

Contact Cliff Anderson, 916/451-

5025.

NOMINATIONS are needed to fill

Calendar

CHAMPAGNE BRUNCH: The an-

The 1981 ACLU Conference, spon-

sored by the Field Committee in Oc-

tober, served as the launching event for

the new reproductive rights organizing

effort.

Over 100 ACLU members and

friends came for a weekend of inspira-

tion and information, including

regional meetings, ``how to''

workshops and noted speakers Helen

Rodriguez-Trias, Esther Herst,

Suzanne Lynn and Eva Jefferson Pater-

son.

"On to Apple Pie Day" was the rally-

ing cry following the conference. Work

in support of this annual event com-

memorating the U.S. Supreme Court

decision legalizing abortion (and known

as Apple Pie Day because pro-choice

legislators are awarded apple pies) in-

cluded gathering thousands of

signatures on pro-choice petitions,

recruiting lobbyists, and sponsoring

public forums. The Monterey

Reproductive Rights Coalition, led by -

Rosemary Matson, established a mon-

thly newsletter, held educationals, and

designed and produced the first

"Choice is As American as Apple Pie'"'

T-shirts, and a successful forum was

organized by the Stockton chapter. -

Apple Pie Day itself - January 21 -

attracted nearly 500 activists, one-third

of them from the ACLU, to Sacramento

current vacancies on the Sacramento

Valley Chapter Board. Members are

encouraged to submit nominations

as soon as possible to Nominations

Committee, P.O. Box 160423,

Sacramento, CA 95816.

SAN FRANCISCO

BOARD MEETING: (Last Tuesday

each month.) Tuesday, June 29; 6:30

p.m. A July meeting is tentatively set

for Tuesday, July 27. Contact

Richard Weinstein, 415/771-8932,

for more information.

SANTA CLARA

BOARD MEETING: (First Tuesday

each month.) Tuesday, July 6; Tues-

day, August 3; 7:30 p.m. Communi-

ty Bank Building, San Jose. Contact

Vic Ulmer, 408/379-4431.

SANTA CRUZ

BOARD MEETING: (Second

Wednesday each month.) Contact

Bob Taren, 408/429-9880 for more

informatior on the chapter's sum-

mer meeting schedule.

SONOMA

BOARD MEETING: (Third Thurs-

day each month.) Thursday, July 15,

7:30 p.m. Center for Employment

Training, 3753 Santa Rosa Avenue,

Santa Rosa. Contact Andrea Learn-

ed, 707/544-0876.

ANNUAL PICNIC is being planned

for August. Contact Andrea

Learned, number above, for in-

formation date and place.

STOCKTON

- A Year of Action

for the largest-ever pro-choice lobbying

day in California's capital. Coor-

dinators Margot Garey, Liz Zeck, Rose

Bonhag, Sally Smith, Julius Young, Pat

McDonald, Beverly Bortin, Bernice

Biggs and Matson were responsible for

the large ACLU turn-out and the many

weeks of preparation.

Fueled by their January success, the

Pro-Choice Task Force turned their at-

tention to developing a Speakers

Bureau and a communications network

in addition to strengthening local coali-

tions.

The Speakers Bureau, directed by

Mary Hackenbracht, Dick Grosboll

and Karen Winner sponsored a

speakers training session in March and

now members are speaking on pro-

choice issues. at colleges, community

centers, and other groups around the

region.

When the Hatch "Human Life'

Federalism Amendment, S.J. Res. 110,

passed the U.S. Senate Judiciary Com-

mittee in March, hundreds of letters,

telegrams and phone calls to California

Senators Alan Cranston and S.I.

Hayakawa urging their `"`no'"' vote on -

the proposed amendment were

generated by Task Force members.

Public events - such as the one in

Berkeley organized by Bonhag, Zeck,

Beth Nelson and Florence Piliavin and

continued on p. 4

f

nual breakfast of the Stockton

Chapter is scheduled for Sunday, Ju-

ly 4, 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m., $5.00.

`Contact Bart Harloe, 209/946-2431,

for more information. :

BOARD MEETING: (First Tuesday

each month.) Tuesday, July 6,

Contact Bart Harloe, number above, (c)

for more information.

YOLO

ELECTION RESULTS: Con-

gratulations to re-elected chapter

president Julius Young, vice-

ipresident Casey McKeever, treasurer

Marilyn Olmstead, and secretary

Nadine Noelting. ; 2

`VOLUNTEERS NEEDED: Yolo

`County Chapter members concerned

`about civil liberties and interested `in

`volunteering to work with the

`chapter are encouraged to contact

Julius Young 916/758-5666.

Pro-Choice Task

Force

Wednesday, July 14, 6:00 to 7:30

p-m., ACLU-NC, 1663 Mission

Street, San Francisco. All reproduc-

tive rights activists are encouraged to

attend. Contact Marcia Gallo,

415/621-2494, for more informa-

tion.

Right to Dissent

Subcommittee

Wednesday, July 14, 7:30 to 9:00

p-m., ACLU-NC, address above.

Regular meeting of ``national securi-

ty''/freedom of expression organiz-

ing group - all interested in protec-

ting the right to dissent are invited to

attend. Contact Marcia Gallo,

number above, for more informa-

tion.