vol. 50, no. 8

aclu news

Volume L

December 1985

No. 8

- Bill of Rights Day Celebration Speaker

_ Paterson To Give Keynote

Bill of Rights Day keynote Eva J. Paterson

Michael P. Miller

Bill of Rights Day keynote speaker Eva

Jefferson Paterson is no stranger to the

public podium-although it sometimes

takes a court injunction to get her there.

In 1984 when the Hastings College of

Law graduates unanimously selected civil

rights leader Paterson as their commence-

ment speaker, she was honored and quite

well prepared. After all, she had given the

commencement address at her own alma

mater Northwestern University in 1971,

and had delivered the keynote address at

the 1982 National Women and the Law

Conference. Little did she realize, that-

for the first time in the law school's

history-the school administration would

veto the students' choice.

But Paterson, a free speech advocate

and champion litigator, did not go away

quietly. With the help of San Francisco

attorneys Mary Dunlap and Maureen

Mason, Paterson and the students won a

court injunction which allowed her to

address the graduates despite the admin-

istration veto.

Debated Agnew

Paterson is no stranger to confrontation.

She may be the only graduate of

Northwestern-or anywhere for that

matter-to have both debated Vice-

President Spiro Agnew and also been

crowned the May Queen.

"As student body president, I had been

very active in anti-war protests, including -

shutting down the campus over the

Cambodia invasion," she recalled. "When

the Chancellor had to crown me as the

May Queen, he crushed the floral lei on

my Afro and whispered sotto voce `I'm

sure youre happier about this than I am!"

Paterson first came to the ACLU-NC

as the Director of the Students Rights

Project in 1972 and has served on the

affiliate Board, as affiliate Vice-Chair and

as the ACLU-NC representative to the

National ACLU Board. "Though we like

to claim her as our own," said Executive

Directory Dorothy Ehrlich, "Eva is really

an attorney and civil liberties leader of

national stature."

Paterson was elected to the national

ACLU Board in 1983 (with a vote count

second only to national Chair Norman

Dorsen) and is currently a member of the

Executive Committee and national ACLU

Vice-President.

Tough Litigator

Assistant Director of the San Francisco

Lawyers Committee for Urban Affairs,

_ Paterson has litigated key cases in all

aspects of civil rights-from police

brutality to affirmative action to school

desegregation.

Paterson authored amicus briefs in the

major U.S. Supreme Court affirmative

action cases, Boston Firefighters v.

NAACP and Memphis Fire Department

v. Stotts, and is currently representing

minority and women businesses in defense

of affirmative action in San Francisco

contracting. "I'm really proud of this one,"

she said, "because we've fighting against

the Pacific Legal Foundation."

She is also proud of a successful civil

rights/ wrongful death suit against the San

Francisco Police Department for the

killing of an elderly black man. In a suit

that "everyone thought was a _ loser,"

Paterson won a $100,000 settlement for

"Papa Charlie's" family.

A co-founder of A Safe Place, a shelter

for battered women, Paterson also

successfully challenged the arrest avoid-

ance policy of the Oakland Police

Department in domestic violence assaults.

The former Northwestern May Queen

went on to be cited as one of Ten Young

Women of the Year by Mademoiselle

Magazine, and to receive the Fay Stender

Award from the California Women

Lawyers and the Parren J. Mitchell Award

from the S.E Black Chamber of Com-

merce among many other honors.

At the Bill of Rights Day Celebration,

Paterson will speak about the current

attacks on civil rights by the Reagan

Administration Justice Department. "As

we come to celebrate our Bill of Rights,

it is particularly important to be aware

that our fundamental civil liberties are

- under direct attack," Paterson said.

Awards

At the Celebration, which will be held

on Sunday, December 8 at the Sheraton

Palace Hotel, veteran civil liberties activist

Richard Criley will be honored with the

Earl Warren Civil Liberties Award.

ACLU-NC Santa Clara Chapter foun-

ders Dom and Aurora Sallitto will be given

the Lola Hanzel Advocacy Award. That

award was established in 1981 in memory

of ACLU activist Lola Hanzel to honor

individuals who have made an extraor-

dinary contribution to the organization in

a voluntary capacity.

The Celebration is also the culmination

of the two major fundraising efforts, the

Major Gifts and Bill of Rights Day

Campaigns. This year, the Major Gifts

Campaign, headed up by Development

Committee chair Barbara Brenner, has a

$270,000 goal. The Bill of Rights

Campaign, chaired by Richard Grosboll,

involves over 100 volunteers organized

through the ACLU-NC Field Program

and chapters; it has a goal of $105,000.

The Bill of Rights Day Celebration will

be held at the Sheraton Palace Hotel in

San Francisco on Sunday, December 8;

program at 5 pm (no-host bar reception

at 4 pm). Tickets for the event are $10.00

and available at the door.

Santa Clarans

To Be Honored

Dom and Aurora Sallitto, tireless

activists from Santa Clara Chapter of

the ACLU-NC, will be presented at the

Bill of Rights Day Celebration with the

Lola Hanzel Advocacy Award for their

outstanding contribution to the ACLU

in a volunteer capacity.

"Our chapters are the backbone of

grassroots ACLU activity, and the

Sallittos are the backbone of the Santa

Clara Chapter," said Field Represent- |

ative Marcia Gallo.

Dom was a founding member of the

Santa Clara Chapter 23 years ago, but

has been a dues paying member since

1940. When he was arrested and jailed

during the 1934 San Francisco General

Strike the ACLU came to his defense-

and he has been defending the ACLU

ever since.

Aurora serves as the Chapter's

Treasurer and has helped to organize

and host numerous educational events

and meetings. Every month, Dom and

Aurora mail out the chapter newsletter

to hundreds of ACLU members,

insuring that supporters are kept well

abreast of civil liberties issues and

activities.

aclu news

Dec 1985

.

Letters A Good Time Was Had

ACLU History? hoy of the ACLU for Oxford University

Editor: Press. Write the ACLU News for Walker'

Why doesnt the ACLU recognize

individual autonomy as a civil liberties

issue On a par with its interest in equality,

due process, privacy, free speech and the

rights of the group? Why doesn't the ACLU

advocate natural rights legal theory-the

view that human rights are inalienable

natural attributes intrinsic to our autonomy

as individuals rather than being socio-

_ political constructs at the whim of judges,

politicians and shifting majority opinion?

Why doesn't the ACLU recognize private

property as a civil liberties issue when it

is obvious that without self ownership,

,personal property and personal freedom

of exchange civil liberties cannot be

actualised in the real world?

The answer to these questions can be

found in The Politics of the ACLU, by

social scientist William A. Donahue. As

the most comprehensively researched

systematic critical historical analysis of the

ACLU ever published, this book is

fascinating and controversial reading for

all ACLU members.

Randall Grindle

Editors Reply:

Samuel Walker, a professor of Criminal

Justice at the University of Nebraska,

comments "William Donohue is not a

professional historian and his research

does not, meet even the most minimal

standards of professional competen-

ce...he has not written a properly

researched history but a sophmoric

polemic that would barely receive a

passing grade in History 101."

Walker, a member of the national

ACLU board, is currently working on a

analysis of Donahues book and _ Ira

Glasser' response to a Fortune magazine.

article based on the book.

For additional sources of ACLU history

we suggest Donald Johnsons The Chal-

lenge to American Freedoms; World War

I and the Rise of the American Civil

Liberties Union, University of Kentucky

Press, 1963; and The Pulse of Freedom, 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_1984.batch ACLUN_1985 ACLUN_1985.MODS ACLUN_1985.batch 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 add-tei.sh create-bags.sh create-manuscript-bags.sh create-manuscript-batch.sh fits.log

Alan Reitman ed., W. W. Norton, 1975.

Misleading Headline?

Editor:

As a newcomer to the Bay Area, I want

to record my admiration for your lively

paper, and at the same time offer a

comment on "non-endorsement" and the

Rose Bird--Supreme Court controversy.

My view is that the statement adopted by

ACLU favoring the "independent judi-

ciary" and strongly condemning the

political attack on the Court is, in practical

effect, eloquent support of Bird and the

other justices; and I am happy for that.

It was your headline that bothered me:

"Board Reaffirms No Endorsement

Policy." How much more realistic and

helpful it would have been to headline:

"ACLU Strongly Opposes Political Attack

on Rose Bird and the Supreme Court."

I hope no ACLUer was misled into.

believing that ACLU is lukewarm about

an issue that is important to the

maintenance of liberty and justice in

California: the reelection of Rose Bird and

other qualified, experienced, and impartial

justices who are under partisan attack for

their opinions.

Louis B. Schwartz

a

=

Michael P. Miller

National ACLU President Norman Dorsen is shown here speaking at a reception

and welcome for the new ACLU-NC staff counsel Ed Chen held on November 6,

in San Francisco. 100 guests attended the reception.

Boys Club Must Admit Girls

The Santa Cruz Boys Club's policy of

excluding girls from membership violates

the Unruh Civil Rights Act and must be

changed, the California Supreme Court

ruled in a 5-2 opinion on October 21.

The ruling determined for the first time

that the Unruh Act applies to non-profit,

as well as commercial, facilities in the state.

The ruling came in Isbister v. Santa

Cruz Boys Club, an ACLU-NC lawsuit

- filed in 1979 on behalf of three girls who

were denied admittance to the Club and

two boys who belonged to the Club but

claimed that the boys-only membership

policy deprived them of their right to a

non-discriminatory environment.

According to the Supreme Court

opinion, authored by Justice Joseph R..,

Grodin, "This state's law has long

prohibited arbitrary discrimination in

places of public accommodation or

amusement. Viewing the Unruh Act in its

historical context, we conclude that the

term `business establishment' was meant

to embrace, rather than reject, that well

established principle.

"There can be no doubt that the facility

operated by the Boy's Club comes within

the scope of that principle: its recreational

facilities are open to the community

generally but closed to members of a

particular group," the Court opinion

states.

The Boys Club policy was challenged

by ACLU-NC cooperating attorneys

Susan Popik and Diane Thompson of the

San Francisco law firm of Rogers, Joseph,

O'Donnell and Quinn, and ACLU-NC staff

attorney Alan Schlosser.

Attorney Popik lauded the opinion but

noted that the Court carefully limited the

application of its ruling in regard to other

single sex establishments. "Each institution

would have to be studied individually to

see whether it fell into the boundaries set

by the court," she said.

"What is certain is that the three girls

who wanted to swim in the Boys Club

pool and the two boys who wanted them

to be able to swim there can take a victory

lap if they want!" :

The young plaintiffs in the case are

Victoria Isbister, Naomi Goldfrank, Paula

Smith, Michael Frick and Zachary

Wormhoudt.

No Club for Girls

The Santa Cruz Boys Club includes the

only community indoor heated swimming

pool in the area, a gymnasium, game and

craft rooms, a library and a kitchen. There

is no comparable facility available to girls.

The ACLU-NC suit was supported by.

an amicus brief from the Civil Rights

Enforcement Section of the state Attorney

General's Office as well as a letter signed

by the Association of Black Women

Lawyers, Chinese for Affirmative Action,

La Raza Lawyers of California and

numerous other civil rights organizations.

In 1973 the national board of Directors

of the Boys Club adopted a policy of letting

local clubs decide whether to admit girls.

Eightly percent of the 133 clubs in

California have gone coeducational, but

the Santa Cruz Boys Club was one that

resisted the change.

he Santa Cruz Superior Court ruled

in favor of the ACLU in 1979, ruling that

the Boys Club must admit girls to

membership. That was reversed by. the

state Court of Appeal in June 1983. The

Supreme Court decision agrees with the

Santa Cruz Superior Court that found the

Boys Club a "business establishment" for

the purposes of the Unruh Act.

Michael P. Miller, Kditor

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

Nancy Pemberton, Chairperson Dorothy Ehrlich, Executive Director

Marcia Gallo, Chapter Page

Elaine Elinson, Scribe

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

and S0 cents is for the national ACLU-bi-monthly publication, Civil Liberties.

aclu news

Dec 1985 3

Legal Briefs

Court Blocks Immigration Service Raids

In a stunning setback to the abuses of

the Immigration and Naturalization

Service (INS), the U.S. District Court

issued an injunction on October 11

prohibiting INS agents from entering

businesses without a warrant or randomly

rounding up persons whom they suspect

to be undocumented workers at worksites.

The injunction also prohibits unlawful

questioning and detention of workers.

"This means that the INS will have to

abide by the Constitution like everyone

else," said ACLU-NC Alan Schlosser

praising the decision.

The injunction came in a class action

lawsuit filed in 1983 by the ACLU-NC,

~Mexican American Legal Defense Fund

(MALDEF), California Rural Legal

Assistance (CRLA), the Asian Law

Caucus, and the National Laywers Guild

challening INS procedures which violate

the civil liberties of workers who look

Hispanic or are of Hispanic background.

"Operation Jobs" Raids

The lawsuit stems from a _ highly

publicized nationwide series of raids on

worksites in 1982 by the INS euphemis-

tically called "Operation Jobs." Such raids

are still being conducted.

"During these raids, the INS seized,

chased, handcuffed and at times even beat

workers without cause," said Schlosser.

"INS agents indiscriminately questioned

anyone who looked Hispanic."

"This was a blatant violation of the

individuals' civil rights and a violation of

the limitations on search and seizure set

forth in the Fourth Amendment,"

Schlosser added.

Under Judge Robert Aguilar's injunc-

tion, INS agents must obtain a warrant,

valid consent or prove "exigent circum-

stances" which the agents themselves have

Escort Licenses

To Be Reheard

In October the California Supreme

Court sent back to the Court of Appeal

a case challening the constitutionality of

a San Francisco city ordinance which

establishes a comprehensive regulatory

scheme for "escort services."

The Court of Appeal had overturned

the ordinance in April, stating that the

city was preempted from such regulation

by state laws. The Supreme Court

disagreed, and ruled that the city was

authorized to require licensing of escort

services.

The ACLU-NC had filed an amicus

brief in the Court of Appeal challenging

the ordinance on the grounds that the

constitutional guarantee of privacy was

violated by its requirement that escort

services maintain a daily log, open to the

police and and health departments,

showing the names and addresses of

patrons, their escorts, times and places

where escort services took place and the

fee charged.

The Court of Appeal did not address

the constitutional question in its April

ruling. The Supreme Court has directed

the appellate court to consider the issue.

not provoked before entering workplaces

other than open fields.

Specific Warrants Needed

In addition, the warrants must either

name or particularly describe the worker

suspected of being an undocumented alien

and, when possible, describe the particular

area of the workplace where suspects are

likely to be found. Warrants must be

presented to an authorized representative

of the company who may then produce

the suspect described in the warrant. If

the company representative is unable or

Sobriety Checks

Case Argued

Charging that police roadblock sobriety

checkpoints are "unlawful and unconsti-

tutional," the ACLU-NC argued in the

state Court of Appeal on November 19

that the roadblocks should be prohibited

throughout the state of California. The

ACLU is representing four California

taxpayers.

Former ACLU-NC staff attorney

Amitai Schwartz argued the case in the

appeal court. "The use of random

roadblocks where motorists are detained

without reasonable suspicion is a violation

of both the California Constitution and

the Fourth Amendment of the U.S.

Constitution.

Despite the fact that there is no law

in California authorizing random road-

block checkpoints, on November 8, 1984

state Attorney General John Van de Kamp

issued an opinion authorizing the

roadblocks.

The first checkpoint was set up in

Burlingame on November 16. Although

the police stopped 223 cars (every fifth

car passing the checkpoint), they made no

arrests. |

The ACLU-NC and the ACLU of

Southern California filed the case,

Ingersoll v. Palmer, in November, 1984 in

response to the Burlingame roadblock and

announcements that the California

Highway Patrol and several local police

departments would be setting up road-

blocks beginning with the 1984 Thanks-

giving holiday.

The court refused to issue an immediate

injunction which would have stopped the

_1984 holiday season roadblocks but

accepted review of the case.

One of the drivers stopped at a

checkpoint during the 1984 Christmas

holiday in Anaheim challenged his arrest

and was supported by an ACLU of

Southern California amicus brief. Early

this year the Appellate Division of Orange

County Superior Court agreed with

ACLU arguments that the arrest was

unconstitutional. The state appealed but

the Court of Appeal refused to hear the

case.

Defendents in Ingersoll are the Califor-

nia Highway Patrol and the Police

Departments of Burligame, Riverside and

Los Angeles.

unwilling to produce the suspect, INS

agents may then enter the workplace for

the sole purpose of looking for that

particular suspect.

INS agents may not enter workplaces

for general questioning of the entire

workforce without consent, nor may they

conduct themselves in a manner that

coerces consent or that provokes flights

in order to justify entry.

Family Planning

Limits Reversed

On November 1, the state Court of

Appeal ruled that provisions in the Budget

Act which prevent family planning

grantees from providing abortions and

certain abortion related counseling are

unconstitutional and cannot be put into

effect.

The ACLU filed a friend of the court

brief in support of Planned Parenthood's

challenge to the provision which remained

in the Budget Act even though it first

appeared there by clerical error. The

elimination of funds for organizations that

"perform, advertise or promote abortions"

would have devastated abortion clinics and.

counseling agencies throughout the state.

The Court of Appeal based its opinion

on the section of the state Constitution

which requires that "a statute shall

embrace but one subject, which shall be

expressed in its title." Noting that the

annual Budget Act is "particularly

susceptible to abuse of that rule," the

Court determined that the provision in

question actually amended existing

provisions of the Family Planning Act and

therefore violates the single subject rule.

Benefits Denied

Inmates

Charging that the administration of the

Inmate Welfare Fund is "unequal, unfair

and oppressive" for Death Row inmates,

the ACLU-NC filed a class action suit on

November 18 in Marin County Superior

Court calling for an overhaul of the Fund.

ACLU-NC staff attorney Edward Chen

and co-counsel Donald Specter of the

Prison Law Office are representing San

Quentin Death Row inmate John G.

Davenport and the more than 180 other

California Death Row prisoners, and a

taxpayer, in their challenge to the Inmate

Welfare Fund.

Chen explained, "While Death Row

inmates are required to make contributions

into the fund like all other inmates,

because of restrictions placed on these

inmates' activities because of their Death

Row status, they do not receive anything

near their commensurate share of

benefits."

This is in violation of the U.S. and

California Constitutions, state law and the

Department of Corrections own regula-

tions, the ACLU charges.

School Restricts

Rabbi's Speech

When San Francisco State University

restricted attendance at an October speech

by Rabbi Meir Kahane, ACLU-NC

attorney Edward Chen protested. to

University President Chia-Wei Woo that

"the University has an obligation under

the First Amendment to employ all

available resources to assure Rabbi

Kahane's rights to speak and to permit

the largest interested audience possible."

Kahane, founder of the Jewish Defense

League who was elected to the Israeli

Knesset (parliament) on a platform

seeking establishment of a strict religious

state and the expulsion of all Arabs, was

invited to speak on campus. by Interna-

tional Relations professor Dwight

Simpson.

University officials restricted admission

to the speech to 40 students enrolled in

the professor's two classes-allowing no

other student, staff or faculty member to

attend, apparently because of the speaker's

notoriety. Chen argued in an October 25th

letter to President Woo, "Such content-

based discrimination by the University

contravenes well established First Amend-

ment principles."

Prior to Rabi Kahane' arrival in the

United States, the national ACLU filed

a lawsuit on October I1 to help him retain

his U.S. citizenship. The U.S. State

Department stripped Kahane of his

American citizenship because he is a

member of the Israeli parliament.

Examiner Libel

Verdict Upheld

In an unpublished opinion released on

October 23, the California Court of

Appeal upheld a libel judgment of $4.6

million against two reporters, Raul

Ramirez and Lowell Bergman, and the

San Francisco Examiner. The ACLU is

appealing the case to the California

Supreme Court.

"This decision sets a very dangerous

precedent," said Arthur. Brunwasser,

ACLU cooperating attorney representing

Bergman and Ramirez. "The trial judge

denied the reporters a fair trial by seriously

limiting their ability to tell the jury facts

they had discovered, which contributed to

their belief in the truth of their articles.

The Court of Appeal approved this denial

as within the judge's discretion. Moreover,

the trial court admitted evidence about

Berman's political beliefs, and this was

swept under the rug as `harmless error."

In April, 1979, a jury awarded a seven

figure libel judgment as the result of a

suit brought by two city police officers and

a former Assistant District Attorney

against the reporters and the Examiner.

The suit was brought in response to a

series of articles published in 1976 about

a controversial Chinatown murder trial.

The Examiner articles reported that the

three city officials had persuaded witnesses

to give false testimony in a case in which

a 19-year old Chinatown youth was

convicted.

Brunwasser argued the case in the Court

of Appeal in February. ACLU staff

counsel, Margaret Crosby, joined Brun-

wasser in representing the two reporters.

Sok

-

aclu news

4 Dec 1985

Worker Privacy:

Natl. First For Employees -

On November 12, the San Francisco

Board of Supervisors approved an

ordinance prohibiting employers from

demanding that employees submit to

blood, urine or brain wave tests for drugs,

becoming the first city in the nation to

do so.

ACLU-NC Executive Director Dorothy

Ehrlich lauded the ordinance, calling the

vote a "pioneering action on the funda-

mental issue of workers rights."

The legislation, an amendment to the -

Police Code, was introduced by Supervisor

Bill Maher. Ehrlich had testified before

the Supervisors' Human Services Commit-

tee in support of the measure on October

D3,

"Drug testing of employees by private

employers has caused great concern all

across the country by those who care about

our fundamental right to privacy," wrote

Ehrlich in a letter to the Supervisors. "In

editorial pages and wide ranging public

forums these tests have been denounced

as intrusive and degrading-and in

violation of basic privacy rights.

Tests Unreliable

"Aside from the fact that leading

pharmacology and medical experts have

stated that the current tests are unreliable

(indeed, that the most commonly used

urinalysis tests are of little or no value

and should never be used as presumptive

or definitive evidence that a person has

or has not taken a particular drug), we

must be absolutely clear that we cannot

condition a person's livelihood on his or

her willingness to forfeit constitutional

rights," Ehrlich's letter stated.

The ACLU Foundation of Northern California presents

13th Annual

Bill of Rights Day

Celebration

Presentation of

Earl Warren Civil Liberties Award to

Richard Criley

Keynote Speaker

Eva J. Paterson

Civil Rights Leader

National ACLU Vice-President

Sunday, December 8, 1985

4p.m.-Reception 5p.m.-Program

Sheraton Palace Hotel, San Francisco

Tickets $10 each (at the door)

Saturday :

January 11, 1986

9 AM - 5PM

543-9444,

Civil Rights Conference

Hotel Meridien

50 Third Street

San Francisco

Dr. Kenneth Clark, renowned for his role in the landmark Brown v. Board

of Education and author of Dark Ghetto, will be the featured speaker at a

conference "Civil Rights on the Rebound" on January 11 in San Francisco.

The conference is being organized by a coalition of Bay Area public interest

lawyers and legal organizations, including the ACLU-NC.

The all-day conference includes a morning session with speakers on

affirmative action, voting rights and the decline of educational activities for

minorities. The afternoon session includes workshops on immigration, affirmative

action, racial and ethnic violence, reproductive rights and infant care, anaeKS

on legal services, comparable worth and more.

Registration fees (including lunch) are $35 in advance (or $40 at the door);

$20 for students and low income ($25 at the door).

For further information and registration, contact Victoria Edwards at 415-

Ehrlich noted that the ACLU Complaint

Desk receives more complaints about drug

testing and workplace privacy than any

other problem except for police abuse.

"The volume of calls to our organization

alone indicates that this is a very real

problem, affecting many workers who are

angry and desiring action on this key

question."

The measure passed by a 9-1 vote with

only Supervisor Quentin Kopp dissenting.

The proposed ordinance still must be

approved by Mayor Dianne Feinstein, who

has already expressed "concern" about the

measure.

San Francisco voters are urged to call

or write the Mayor asking her to sign the

ordinance, 558-3456.

BERKELEY BOARD MEETING: (Usu-

ally fourth Thurs.) Volunteers are needed

to staff hotline. Please contact Florence

Piliavin, 415-655-7786.

EARL WARREN BOARD MEETING:

(Third Wed.) Contact Larry Polansky

415-530-4553.

FRESNO BOARD MEETING: (Usually

third Wed.) Next meeting Wed. Nov. 20,

5:30 p.m. Santuary and Civil Liberties on

Sat. Dec. 14, 1985, 9-12 a.m., Wesley

Methodist Church. Contact Sam Gitchel

for details: 209-486-2411 (days),

209-442-0941 (eves).

GAY RIGHTS BOARD MEETING:

(Usually first Tues.) Next meeting Tues. Dec.

3, 1985, 7:00 p.m., ACLU, 1663 Mission

Street, #460, SE Chapter Bulletin Mailing

Party-volunteers welcome. Reminder: Bill

of Rights Celebration, Sun. Dec. 8, 1985,

4:00 p.m., Sheraton Palace. Be there or be

square! Next board meeting Tues. Jan. 7,

1986, 7:00 p.m. at ACLU. Contact Douglas

Warner, 415-621-2493.

MARIN COUNTY BOARD MEETING:

(Third Mon.) Contact Milton Estes

415-383-6622 (days), 415-383-8405 (eves).

MID-PENINSULA BOARD MEETING:

(Usually last Wed.) Contact Harry Anisgard,

415-856-9186.

MONTEREY BOARD MEETING: (Usu-

ally fourth Tues.) Board Meeting, Tues. Nov.

26, 7:30 p.m., Monterey Library. Annual

Meeting, Sat. Jan. 25, 1986, Crossroads

Community Room, near Rio Road, mouth

of Carmel Valley. Business Meeting: 2-3

p.m.; presentation of Francis Heisler Award

to Dr. Samsom Knoll 3:30-4:30 p.m.

Contact Richard Criley, 408-624-7562.

Chapter is chartering a bus for those

interested in attending the Bill of Rights

Day on Dec. 8, 4-6 p.m., Sheraton Palace

in San Francisco. Contact Michael Manlin,

899-1000.

MT. DIABLO BOARD MEETING:

(Fourth Wed.) Contact Hotline

415-939-ACLU.

NORTH PENINSULA BOARD MEET-

ING: (Second Mon.) No meeting in

December. For January meeting, contact

Sid Schieber 415-345-8603.

SACRAMENTO VALLEY BOARD

MEETING: (Usually first Wed.) Next

meeting on Wed. Nov. `21, 7:30 p.m.,

Sacramento County Administration Build-

Calendar

ose rn st SD SS ST er rece

US. Ports Service

STATEMENT OF OWNERSHIP, MANAGEMENT AND CIRCULATION

egured by SY USC 2085

ing, Board of Supervisors Meeting Room,

8th and I Streets. At December meeting

a presentation by San Francisco affiliate

on the proposed abortion initiative. Bill of

Rights Campaign phone night volunteers

needed. Contact Jerry Scribner

916-444-2130.

SAN FRANCISCO BOARD MEETING:

(Usually fourth Tues.) Tues. Nov. 26, 6:00

p.-m., ACLU, 1663 Mission Street, #460,

SE "Who's Judging Whom?" Forum at

Golden Gate University on Wed. Dec. 4,

7:00 p.m. Contact Chandler Visher,

415-391-0222.

SANTA CLARA BOARD MEETING:

(First Tues.) Tues. Nov. 26, 7:00 p.m.,

Executive Conference Room, Second Floor,

Community Bank Building, 111 West St.

John, San Jose. Contact Michael Chatsky

408-379-4611.

SANTA CRUZ BOARD MEETING:

(Second Wed.) Contact Bob Taren,

408-429-9880.

SONOMA BOARD MEETING: Contact

Andrea Learned, 707-544-6911.

STOCKTON BOARD MEETING: (Third

Wed.) Contact Eric Ratner, 209-948-4040

(eves).

YOLO COUNTY BOARD MEETING:

Contact Dan Abramson, 916-758-2762.

FIELD COMMITTEE MEETINGS

PRO-CHOICE TASK FORCE: Wed. Dec.

11, 7:30 p.m., ACLU, 1663 Mission Street,

#460, SE Contact Marcia Gallo or Deborah

Shibley, 415-621-2494.

RIGHT TO DISSENT COMMITTEE:

Wed. Dec. 11, 6:00 p.m., ACLU, 1663

Mission Street, #460, SE Contact Marcia

Gallo, 415-621-2494. Special guest speaker:

Regina Minudri, American Library

Association, on censorship.

DRAFT OPPOSITION NETWORK:

Contact Judy Newman, 415-567-1527.

IMMIGRATION WORKING GROUP:

Contact Marcia Gallo or Cindy Foerster,

415-621-2494.

FIELD COMMITTEE: Thurs. Dec. 12,

6:00 p.m., ACLU, 1663 Mission Street,

#460, SE Contact Marcia Gallo or Cindy

Foerster, 415-621-2494.

AMERICAN CIVI

L.16.E RA! ES. U

N-O RR 1 o.E- RN

CA LAE OA NJ

= eo

-As you review this year's docket, we are sure that you will share our concern

about the current assault on our basic rights-from reproductive freedom to the right

_to dissent to privacy. This assault becomes even more serious because it takes place

against the backdrop of an orchestrated attack on our state's highest judiciary.

In the face of this attack, the ACLU Foundation has responded with innovative,

hard-hitting and timely litigation. To protect reproductive rights, we not only had to

file our eighth annual lawsuit against Medi-Cal abortion fund cuts but also go to court

_to prevent anti-choice forces and state officials from eroding a woman's right to choose.

Shocked by police violence toward political demonstrators in San Francisco, we filed

three lawsuits on behalf of Democratic National Convention protesters. We also initiated

legal challenges to state efforts to put private medical files of minors into centralized

computer banks.

The ACLU-NC staff counsel share responsibility for directing our remarkable legal

program. Attorneys Margaret Crosby and Alan Schlosser have entered their ninth year

in the Legal Department. This year witnessed the departure of staff attorney Amitai

"Schwartz who, after more than a decade with the ACLU, entered private practice. He

is Succeeded by Edward Chen who joined the Legal Department in September, after

serving as an ACLU cooperating attorney. The attorneys are ably assisted by Pat Jameson

and Cati Okori. The three staff counsel currently handle over 60 active cases with

the help of 80 dedicated private lawyers who donate their services as ACLU cooperating

attorneys.

Moreover, for every case which appears on this docket, ACLU's Complaint Desk,

Staffed by a dozen volunteers, receives more than 200 calls each week. Assisted by

the Legal Department and ten law students who clerk for the ACLU during the course

of the year, these lay counselors often provide the advocacy needed to resolve a

particular grievance.

In addition, the ACLU's public education department alerts the public to the action

taken and issues championed by ACLU litigation through the media and our own

publications.

Through this docket, you will witness the vital civil liberties issues which we have

fought for throughout the year-and that will continue to challenge us through the

years ahead. We hope you will take this opportunity to join a growing number of

ACLU supporters who recognize the fragility of our basic civil liberties and give us

the strength we need to continue our work in defense of the Bill of Rights.

Nancy Pemberton

Chairperson

Dorothy Ehrlich

Executive Director

The 1985 Legal Docket was written by Elaine Elinson.

Locat 2800x00B0

| O =e

Committee to Defend Reproductive

Rights (CDRR) v. Kizer

(California Court of Appeals)

In July, following the Legislature's passage of

a Budget Act severly restricting Medi-Cal funds

for abortion, the ACLU filed its 8th annual lawsuit

challenging the cutbacks. The Court issued an

immediate stay continuing the funding and barring

notifications of proposed cutbacks; in October the

Court issued an order prohibiting the state from

implementing Budget Act restrictions. In addition,

the Court ordered all state health officials to comply

with the duties of their offices and certify all claims

and perform all tasks necessary to ensure

continued Medi-Cal funds.

This decision ensures the continuation of -

Medi-Cal funding for abortion for the 95,000

women and teenagers who seek such aid each

year in this state.

Fluty v. Swoap

(Placer County Superior Court)

A taxpayer's suit filed by the American Life

Legal Foundation to halt Medi-Cal funding of

abortion services until the state establishes

procedures for special scrutiny of post-13 week

abortions and post 20-week abortions was

thwarted when the ACLU intervened.

ACLU arguments stopped the issuance of a

Temporary Restraining Order in January and an

injunction in May.

Though this case has little foundation in law,

it is being used by national anti-choice forces as

a major fundraising appeal and may signal a wider

use of such lawsuits to undermine Medi-Cal

funding for abortion.

Margolis v. Deukmejian

(Sacramento Superior Court)

In July, the ACLU won a summary judgment

in its challenge to the state's 1967 Therapeutic

Abortion Act which established an absolute 20-

week time limit for the performance of any abortion.

The suit, filed on behalf of doctors who perform

abortions and taxpayers, challenged a revision of

the act by former state Attorney General George

Deukmejian allowing enforcement of the 20-week

time limit unless there is proof that the fetus was

not viable or the life or health of the pregnant

woman was in danger.

In addition to declaring the statute unconsti-

tutional, the court enjoined all state officials from

prosecuting anyone performing an abortion on the

basis of the length of gestation of pregnancy.

O C.K =F

Planned Parenthood Affiliates of Califor-

nia v. Swoap

(California Court of Appeal)

Provisions in the 1985-86 Budget Act,

originally inserted by clerical error, which prevent

family planning grantees from providing abortions

and certain abortion referrals and abortion-related

counseling were struck down as unconstitutional

by the state Court of Appeal in November. The

Court ruled that the Budget Act provisions would

actually be used to amend the Family Planning

Act and therefore violate the "single subject rule"

of the state Constitution. The Court had issued

a temporary stay in August so that the cuts never

went into effect.

The ACLU filed an amicus brief arguing that

the elimination of funds for organizations that

"perform, advertise or promote abortions' is

unconstitutional.

Isbister v. Santa Cruz Boys Club

(California Supreme Court)

In a case brought by the ACLU in Santa Cruz

Superior Court in 1977 the state Supreme Court

ruled in October that the policy of the Santa Cruz

Boys Club of excluding girls from membership

was arbitrary sex discrimination in violation of the

Unruh Civil Rights Act, the state's anti-discrimination

statute. The ruling determined for the first time that

the Unruh Act applies to non-profit, as well as

commercial, facilities.

Bohemian Club v. Fair Employment and

Housing Commission

(California Court of Appeal)

The Bohemian Club is an all male private club

with several northern California facilities. The state

Fair Employment and Housing Commission

(FEHC), after a hearing, ruled illegal the Club's

employment practice of hiring only males at its

Sonoma County Bohemian Grove facility and for

most of the jobs at its San Francisco facility. The

FEHC's decision was reversed by the Sonoma

Superior Court.

The FEHC appealed the court's decision and

the ACLU and California Women Lawyers filed an

amicus brief in the Court of Appeal arguing that

the rights of privacy and association can be

regulated to further a compelling government

interest such as equal employment opportunity

and that certain minimal adjustments by the Club

could afford women equal employment opportunity

while protecting members privacy rights. In

addition, the ACLU argues that even if women may

be excluded from specific jobs at the Club, they

should not be barred from employment in all other

jobs where they would not interact with members

in their private associational activities.

Miller v. California Commission on the

Status of Women

(California Court of Appeal)

The Court of Appeal lifted an injunction

prohibiting the California Commission on the Status

of Women from taking positions on or promoting

legislation on women's issues.

In 1976, the Commission was sued by an anti-

ERA group which charged that the Commission

had unlawfully used public monies to gather

support for the ERA. In the 1982 trial, the trial court

judge ordered the Commission to limit its activities

to "technical and consultative advice,' free of any

advocacy.

The ACLU filed an amicus brief in the Court

of Appeal on behalf of the Commission, arguing

that the Constitution does not prohibit the

Commission from adopting positions on women's

issues, advising the public of those positions and

lobbying before the Legislature in support of

women's rights.

The California Supreme Court and the U.S.

Supreme Court refused to hear the case.

Sokolow v. Mounted Patrol

(San Mateo County Superior Court)

After attempting for almost a decade to

become a member of the men-only Mounted

Patrol, an experienced and accomplished

horsewomen is suing the Mounted Patrol and the

San Mateo County Sheriff's Department, the county

agency which oversees and screens applicants

for the Patrol.

The ACLU is representing the equestrienne

and charging the Sheriffs Department and the

Patrol with sex discrimination.

International Molders v. Nelson

(U.S. District Court)

In a stunning setback to the abuses of the

Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), the

U.S. District Court issued an injunction in October

prohibiting INS agents from entering businesses

without a warrant, consent or exigent circumstan-

ces they did not create and from unlawfully

questioning and detaining workers without

reasonable suspicion that the person is not lawfully

in the country.

The rulling came in a class action lawsuit filed

in 1983 by the ACLU, MALDEF, CRLA and the

NLG challenging INS procedures which violate the

civil liberties of workers who are of Hispanic

background. The lawsuit stems from a_ highly

publicized nationwide series of raids on worksites

in 1982 by the INS euphemistically called

"Operation Jobs."

The court stated that warrants obtained by

the INS must particularly describe the worker(s)

being sought, and must be presented to an

authorized representative of the company. In

addition, the INS may not enter a workplace for

general questioning of the workforce and may not

deliberately provoke flights in order to justify entry

into the workplace.

Olagues v. Russionello

(U.S. Court of Appeals)

A 1982 probe of voters seeking bilingual

election materials initiated by the U.S. Attorney in

nine northern California counties was upheld as

constitutional by the federal appeals court in

September.

The probe was challenged by the ACLU,

MALDEF and CRLA in a class action suit on behalf

of Chinese and Spanish speaking voters and

. groups that register minority voters. The ACLU

charges that the investigation was in violation of

the Constitution and federal Voting Rights Act. They

have asked the court to reconsider its decision.

Brinkin v. Southern Pacific Transportation

Company

(San Francisco Superior Court)

The ACLU is representing a gay employee

of Southern Pacific who was denied the contractual

three-day funeral leave when his lover of 11 years

died. The suit, filed against the SP company and

_ the railway clerks union, claims that the denial of

benefits is discriminatory under California statutory

and constitutional law, both for using the standard

of marriage as a requirement for benefits and for

discriminating against homosexuals who are

prohibited from achieving the legal status of

marriage.

After a two-day trial in July, the court upheld

SP's denial but noted that the state laws barring

same-sex marriages discriminates against

homosexuals. The ACLU is appealing the ruling.

Adolph Coors Co. v. Wallace et al.

(U.S. Court of Appeals)

A US. District Court ruling that the Adolph

Coors Brewing Company's antitrust suit against

gay rights and labor groups that have a boycott

against the company's beer products was an

attempt to use the legal process to chill free speech

rights was appealed by the beer corporation in

1984.

The ACLU is representing Solidarity, a gay

rights group in San Francisco that produced a

leaflet supporting the boycott of Coors beer,

outlining Coors objectionable labor policies and

political activities.

During the course of the suit, the ACLU was

successful in convincing the federal district court

that Solidarity did not have to turn over its

membership lists, financial records, and minutes

to Coors, as had been requested by the company.

In April, the Court of Appeals granted Coors'

application to dismiss the appeal.

Johnson v. Orr

(U.S. Court of Appeals)

The ACLU and the Lesbian Rights Project filed

a lawsuit in federal court on behalf of an officer

in the California Air National Guard (ANG) who

was involuntarily discharged simply because she

wrote a letter to her commanding officer stating

that she was a Lesbian. The discharged officer,

who received excellent performance ratings since

1981 as a lieutenant in the ANG was discharged.

solely because she asserted she was a Lesbian

and not because of any finding that she had

engaged in homosexual activity or illegal conduct

of any kind.

The lawsuit charges that the Air Force violated

the former lieutenant's constitutional rights of

freedom of speech and association. In addition,

since members of the ANG are employees of the

state of California, the Air Force overstepped its

bounds by ordering the discharge: California law

prohibits the termination of government employees

solely on the basis of sexual orientation.

The court rejected the request for a

preliminary injunction and the ACLU is appealing

the decision in the Court of Appeals.

Democratic National Convention cases:

Bermudez v. Murphy; Hawley v. Murphy;

Tideman v. Murphy

(U.S. District Court)

Charging the San Francisco Police Depart-

ment with unwarranted brutality, including the

illegal use of horses and motorcycles to disperse

demonstrations surrounding the July 1984

Democratic National Convention, the ACLU filed

civil rights suits in April on behalf of three

Convention demonstrators who were assaulted

and falsely arrested by police officers.

Two of the demonstrators are teenage girls,

one of whom suffered a concussion when kicked

in the head by a police horse.

The ACLU is arguing that such excessive use

of force is not only illegal but has a chilling effect

on the First Amendment rights of demonstrators.

NAACP v. City of Richmond

(U.S. Court of Appeals)

The Richmond city ordinance that was used

to prevent NAACP and ACLU demonstrators from

marching to protest police abuse in the black

community in the fall of 1982 was struck down

by the federal Court of Appeals in September 1984

after the ACLU challenged its constitutionality.

Although the 1982 march itself was able to

proceed as a result of the ACLU's earlier successful

appeal to the Court of Appeals, the ordinance itself,

which required that groups obtain a march permit

from the police department 20 days prior to an

event unless the City Council waives the notice

requirement, was the subject of a new appeal.

The Court of Appeals held that the ordinance was

in clear violation of the First Amendment, and this

year also upheld an award of attorneys fees to

the ACLU.

People v. Brannon

(Apellate Department, Alameda Superior Court)

An ACLU amicus brief challenged the

convictions of anti-nuclear protestors at the

Livermore Laboratory who, in the fall of 1983,

peacefully blockaded roadways in order to prevent

Lab employees from entering the Lab to work on

nuclear weapons development. The ACLU argued

that the protesters could not properly be convicted

for willfully and maliciously obstructing other

persons when the jury had been precluded from

hearing evidence about the defendants' state of

mind and when the court improperly instructed

the jury that acting "maliciously" meant acting with

intent to obstruct. The convictions were affirmed.

Planned Parenthood Affiliates of Califor-

nia v. Van de Kamp

(California Court of Appeals)

Stating that "sensitive privacy rights' of minors

are at stake in a dispute over the state Child Abuse

Reporting Law, the Court of Appeal issued a

temporary stay of the law in September halting

the establishment of a statewide computer bank

on the sexual activities of adolescents under the

age of 14. :

On behalf of Planned Parenthood, a doctor

and a taxpayer, the ACLU and the Adolescent

Health Care Project of the National Center for Youth

Law challenged the Attorney General's interpre-

tation of the law which requires that health and

social work professionals must file a report, or face

Criminal prosecution, whenever an adolescent

under 14 seeks prenatal care, abortion, treatment

for asexually transmitted disease or contraceptives.

The suit charges that the reporting of

adolescents voluntary sexual activity violates the

privacy guarantees of the California Constitution

and will prevent many teenagers from seeking

necessary and desirable medical and psycholog-

ical Care.

People v. Stockton Pregnancy Control

Medical Clinic

(California Court of Appeals)

The ACLU filed an amicus brief on behalf of

a Stockton clinic which has been charged with

violating new state guidelines which require

doctors, psychiatrists and other professionals to

report to the police any adolescent under 14 who

seeks treatment for a sexually transmitted disease,

abortion, prenatal care or contraceptives.

This is the first test case of the Attorney

General's 1984 interpretation of the law.

Bennett v. Livermore Unified School

District

(California Court of Appeal)

When graduating seniors at Granada High

School in Livermore objected to having a prayer

at their 1983 school graduation ceremony, they

were opposed by several schoo! committees, the

principal, and the school board. The ACLU went

to court on behalf of one of the students and a

Livermore taxpayer charging that inclusion of the

prayer was in violation of the constitutional

principles of church-state separation.

The injunction issued by the superior court

was allowed to stand by the Court of Appeal and

Supreme Court on the eve of the graduation

ceremony and the prayer was not included in the

program.

In 1984, the Alameda County Superior Court

issued a final order holding that the inclusion of

a prayer in the high school's graduation ceremony

is impermissable under the state and federal

Constitution. The school district appealed; the

continuing litigation could affect public school

graduation ceremonies statewide.

ACLU Legal Docket

Wexner v. Anderson Unified High School

District

(California Court of Appeal)

The ACLU's 1978 challenge to a Shasta

County school board ban on the books of the

late prize-winning poet-novelist Richard Brautigan

resulted in a summary judgment from the superior

court in 1980 that the ban was unconstitutional

and the books must be returned to the school

library. The court refused, however, to order the

return of the books to English classes where they

had been previously used.

The ACLU appealed that decision arguing that

the superior court erred in holding that the books

may be banned from classroom use; the school

board also appealed, arguing that the books

should not be returned to the school library.

Arias and Bolton v. California Youth -

Authority

(California Supreme Court)

The ACLU-NC filed an amicus brief to stop

the use of an electronic listening device in the

chapel of a California Youth Authority (CYA) facility.

At stake are the inmates rights of religious freedom

and privacy. (In 1982 the ACLU won a similar case

before the California Supreme Court; that outlawed

electronic surveillance of adult inmates in

DeLancie v. MacDonald.) The case is pending in

the state Supreme Court.

Jamison v. Farabee

(U.S. District Court)

In a major victory for mental patients' rights

a Consent Decree was filed in 1984 establishing

that involuntary mental patients at Napa State

Hospital have the right of informed consent with

respect to anti-psychotic drugs and the right to

due process procedures in the administration of

such drugs. The Decree, which was approved by

the federal court this year, is the first judgment

of its kind to protect the rights of involuntary mental

patients. The court has returned jurisdiction and

the parties are monitoring the implementation of

the Decree.

An earlier settlement in the same case

resulted in new regulations from the state

Department of Mental Health recognizing for the

first time the right of voluntary mental patients in

all public and private licensed mental health

facilities in California to refuse such medication.

White v. Department of Developmental

Services

(Sacramento Superior Court)

The ACLU filed a lawsuit in March on behalf

of two children who will not receive funding for

treatment of developmental disabilities unless

records of their intimate behavior are placed in

a centralized state computer.

The ACLU contends that the collection and

permanent storage of the children's records in the

files of the Department of Developmental Services

violate their constitutional and statutory rights of

privacy.

The state responded with a motion to dismiss

the case which is now being considered by the

court. A trial is scheduled for January 1986.

Christopher T. v. San Francisco Unified

School District

(U.S. District Court)

As a result of a May settlement between the

ACLU and Legal Services for Children and the

San Francisco Unified Schoo! District, parents of

severely disabled children need no longer give

up custody of their children to provide for their

education.

In violation of the provisions of the Education

for all Handicapped Children Act, parents of

handicapped children in San Francisco had been

forced to give up custody of their children in order

to receive financial assistance for the costly

residential education their children require.

Following a district court ruling in favor of the

ACLU Legal Docket

named plaintiffs, a class-wide settlement was

reached compelling the school district to assume

the cost of residential placements for all the

children in the program and committing the

Department of Social Services to return the

children to the legal custody of the parents.

Davenport v. Vasquez

(Marin County Superior Court)

Charging that the administration of the Inmate

Welfare Fund is "unequal, unfair and oppresive"'

for Death Row inmates, the ACLU filed a class

action suit in November calling for an overhaul

of the Fund as it affects Death Row inmates.

The suit charges that although the more than

180 San Quentin inmates on Death Row must pay

into the Fund through canteen profits, surcharges

on purchases of art supplies and sales of their

art and handicrafts, because of their status as

Death Row inmates they are unable to enjoy

benefits provided by the Fund such as use of craft

and hobby shop facilities, jobs, library resources,

and movies which are paid for out of the Fund.

The confiscatory surcharges imposed on their

purchase of art supplies and on their sale of

artwork is particularly oppressive since many of

these inmates depend on artwork for their primary

source of income.

Diaz v. Watts

(California Court of Appeal)

The ACLU filed an appeal on behalf of the

inmate editor of the prison newspaper at the

California Medical Facility in Vacaville against new

regulation of the prisoners paper issued by the

California Department of Corrections.

In 1981 a Superior court injunction ordered

prison officials at CMF who had censored,

destroyed and shut down the prisoner-run

newspaper to allow the paper to resume

publication and cease harassment of the inmate

editor. However, the CDC issued new regulations

which were upheld by the superior court. The

ACLU is now challenging the new regulations as

being unconstitutionally vague and overbroad in

the Court of Appeal.

Honig v. San Francisco

(San Francisco Superior Court)

The ACLU-NC filed a taxpayers' suit in 1984

against the City and County of San Francisco

challenging the San Francisco Hall of Justice

practice of arbitrarily precluding confidential in-

person visits between pro per pre-trial detainees

and their court-appointed "legal runners and

paralegal assistants." After extensive negotiations

with the Sheriffs Department, new rules were

issued this year to establish definite standards

determining when a paralegal can be denied

confidential in-person visits.

Rios et al v. McCarthy

(Sacramento Superior Court)

Pregnant women and mothers incarcerated

in California prisons were reunited with their babies

following a June order from the superior court that

the Department of Corrections must implement

a provision allowing for qualified inmate mothers

_of children under six to be placed in a special

Community Prisoner Mother-Infant Care Program.

A suit filed by the ACLU and Legal Services

for Prisoners with Children charged that the

Department of Corrections was wrongfully

separating mothers from their infants.

Underwood v. Compoy

(U.S. District Court)

The ACLU is representing a black prisoner

at Folsom who was given 10 days solitary

confinement for writing an angry letter to the

Director of the Department of Corrections and a

black member of the Board of Prison Terms

indicating that they were a disgrace to their race.

The federal district court dismissed the

prisoner's lawsuit as frivolous, but the federal

appellate court vacated the dismissal and ordered

the lower court to consider the value of the

prisoner's First Amendment claims.

CSEA v. Pittsburgh Unified School

District

(California Court of Appeal)

In April, the Court of Appeal upheld the right

of school employees to leaflet in front of school

board members offices about a labor dispute.

An amicus brief by the ACLU in the Court

of Appeal argued that four school employees

involved in a labor dispute were exercising First

Amendment rights when they engaged in

peaceful, non-obstructive informational leafleting

at the private business offices of two school board

members. The state Supreme Court denied review

of this case.

McCoy et al. v. Hearst Corporation et al.

(California Supreme Court)

A $1.6 million libel judgment against former

San Francisco Examiner reporter Raul Ramirez

and freelance writer Lowell Bergman was upheld

by the Court of Appeal in October.

The seven figure libel judgment, awarded by

a San Francisco jury in 1979, was the result of

a suit brought by two city policemen and a former

Assistant District Attorney against the reporters and

the Examiner because of a series of articles

published in 1976 about a controversial murder

trial in which a 19-year-old Chinatown youth was

convicted.

Arguing that the case strikingly documents

the potential of libel suits to limit journalistic inquiry

into the activities of public officials, and that the

reporters did not receive a fair trial, the ACLU

appealed the case to the Supreme Court in

_ November.

Robbins v. Superior Court

(California Supreme Court)

The California Supreme Court in March

ordered Sacramento County to halt a welfare

program which required recipients to either live

in a regimented poorhouse or give up their

benefits. The ACLU argued as a friend of the court

that the involuntary poorhouse condition violates

the right to privacy, freedom of movement and due

process.

Several related lawsuits, challenging visa denials

to other Latin critics from Nicaragua and Cuba,

were dismissed by a federal district court in

Washington, D.C. and are currently on appeal.

Franklin v. Stanford

(California Supreme Court)

Allende v. Shultz (and other visa cases)

(U.S. District Court and U.S. Court of Appeals)

The ACLU-NC and the national ACLU filed

a federal lawsuit challenging the Reagan

Administration's visa denial to former Chilean First

Lady Hortensia Allende. The ACLU argues that the

denial abridges the freedom of speech and

assembly guaranteed in the First Amendment.

In April, the district court denied the State

Department's motion to dismiss the ACLU lawsuit.

In 1972, during the height of the Vietnam War,

Stanford University tenured professor Bruce

Franklin was fired for soeeches he made during

campus protests. In July, after a decade of hearings

and litigation, the ACLU argued its challenge to

Franklin's dismissal in the state Court of Appeal

charging that the firing violated First Amendment

guarantees of free speech.

In September, the court ruled against Franklin,

holding that Franklin's status as an employee of

the University affords him disminished protection

to comment on public affairs.

The ACLU appealed to the state Supreme

Court in October.

University of California Nuclear Weapons

Lab Conversion Project v. Lawrence

Livermore Laboratory

(California Court of Appeal)

3

Northern California Newspaper Organiz-

ing Committee v. Solano Mall

(Solano County Superior Court)

Union members involved in a labor dispute

are allowed to leaflet at a shopping center as a

result of an injunction issued by the superior court

in August at the request of the ACLU.

Agreeing with ACLU arguments, the court

ruled that information about labor disputes is

entitled to the same degree of free speech

protection as any other issue and noted that the

' access issue had already been resolved in the

1979 landmark case of Robins v. Pruneyard

allowing free speech in shopping centers even

when they are privately owned. The court also

enjoined the mall's burdensome regulations. The

shopping center has appealed the ruling.

Triple F Investment v. Green

(Fresno Superior Court)

The ACLU is challenging restrictive rules

imposed on persons and groups who wish. to

engage in expressive activity at the Fashion Fair

Shopping Center in Fresno.

The huge nuclear weapons research facility

Lawrence Livermore Laboratory must allow anti-

nuclear groups access to the Lab's Visitors Center

for educational materials and film showings about

the dangers of nuclear weapons according to a

decision in the California Court of Appeal.

The ACLU represented an anti-nuclear group

in this landmark free speech lawsuit first filed in

1980 when the Lab denied the group access to

its public informational facilities and excluded the

group from use of the Lab auditorium. The ACLU

was also awarded substantial attorneys fees.

Korn v. Carey

(U.S. District Court)

The ACLU is representing a man who was

arrested for setting up a table in the outer lobby

of a post office in Willets to collect signatures on

a petition to make Willets a nuclear-free city.

Permission to set up the table was revoked by

the postmaster on the grounds that postal

customers complained about the presence of the

table and the use of the post office for such a

controversial issue. The ACLU is seeking an

injunction and damages in federal district court.

Monterey County Democratic Central

Committee v. U.S. Postal Service

(U.S. Court of Appeals)

When the postmaster at the Carmel Valley

Post Office refused to allow the local Democratic

Committee to register voters in front of the post

office, the ACLU filed a lawsuit seeking an

injunction and a declaration that the U.S. Postal

Service regulation forbidding "partisan" groups to

register voters at post offices was unconstitutional.

Although the court ordered the postmaster

to allow the group to register voters in time for

the registration deadline for the November 1984

elections, the court then reversed itself and ruled

that the regulation was valid. The case is being

appealed in the federal Court of Appeals.

EMI Santa Rosa Limited Partnership v.

Sonoma County Nuclear Weapons Freeze

Campaign/Sonoma County Nuclear Weap-

ons Freeze v. Santa Rosa Plaza

(Sonoma County Superior Court)

In 1982 the ACLU won a preliminary injunction

against restrictive rules for political campaigners

at a Santa Rosa shopping center. The mall was

subsequently sold and in January 1984 the new

owners issued new rules-more restrictive than

the earlier ones-including a limitation on

campaigning activity to once every six months,

no access on weekends and holidays and no

solicitation of donations.

In 1984 the mall went to court to prevent an

anti-nuclear group and others from leafleting in

the mall. The ACLU filed a countersuit later on

behalf of the campaigners. This year the court

issued a preliminary injunction against the mall

which allowed the groups to carry out their free

speech activities at the shopping center, and

prevented the mall from requiring any groups from

complying with the mall's burdensome rules.

Womens International League for Peace

and Freedom v. City of Fresno

(California Court of Appeal)

The Women's International League for Peace

and Freedom (WILPF) opposes draft registration

and sought to put up signs in city buses with a

photo of soldiers saying, "Why is this the only job

our government has to offer 19-20 year olds? Think

before you register for the draft.' They were

prevented from doing so by a city ordinance

prohibiting political messages on public property.

The superior court held that the city ordinance

was unconstitutional but stated that the city could

ban the WILPF signs because they advocate illegal

activity, |.euro., not registering for the draft. Both sides

are appealing the decision and the ACLU is

representing WILPF on the appeal.

POA v. NAACP

(California Court of Appeal)

The ACLU is arguing as friend of the court

that the San Francisco Police Officers Association's

defamation suit against the local NAACP is

fundamentally a political controversy which does

not belong in a court of law. The purported

defamation was an alleged statement by an

NAACP spokesperson in 1978 that San Francisco

police officers pursue a "systematic, sadistic and

criminal program of assaults on Black citizens."

The ACLU argues that the 1982 superior court

judgment in favor of the NAACP is correct based

on the arguments that critical statements were

issued against the government (police) itself and

therefore may not be the basis of a defamation

action and the allegedly slanderous statements are

constitutionally protected opinion. The case is

pending in the Court of Appeal.

ACLU v. Murphy

(Court of Appeal)

The ACLU filed a suit under the California Public

Records Act seeking records pertaining to an

incident during the July Democratic National

Convention in which members of the Ku Klux Klan

were escorted across the Bay Bridge, arrested and

taken to the Hall of Justice where they were told

by the Chief of Police that they could not

demonstrate in San Francisco. The suit also seeks

copies of guidelines regulating the gathering and

dissemination of intelligence information by the

San Francisco Police Department.

When the documents were refused in

superior court the ACLU took the case to the state

Court of Appeal in November.

In Re Price .

(Immigration and Naturalization Service)

The ACLU is representing a permanent

resident alien who seeks U.S. citizenship but

refuses to answer the question on the standard

naturalization form requiring him to list all

organizations to which he was ever affiliated. The

federal Court of Appeals ruled in a prior ACLU

case (/n re Duncan) that it would not reach the

constitutionality of the membership question

because the party seeking citizenship had not

followed proper procedures. This is a follow-up

to the earlier lawsuit and seeks to have the courts

`rule the membership question unconstitutional

under the First Amendment.

4

Franklet v. U.S.

(U.S. Court of Appeals)

In May, the federal Court of Appeals ruled

against the ACLU challenge, on behalf of over a

dozen war tax resisters, to a 1982 amendment

to the Internal Revenue Code which imposes a

$500 penalty on persons who file a ``frivolous"

income tax return. The ACLU argued that the

frivolous return penalty is directed against persons

who engage in political or religious protest, and

thus violates constitutional rights to freedom of

speech, religion and conscience. In addition, the

ACLU claimed that the term `frivolous' is

unconstitutionally vague and that the IRS violated

due process by requiring payment of the penalty

without prior notice and hearing.

Washburn v. City of Berkeley

(Alameda Superior Court)

The ACLU is representing Berkeley's elected

city auditor who was ordered by a superior court

judge to pay her opponent's legal fees for allegedly

making false statements on a ballot measure in

November 1984.

The ACLU claims that an award of attorneys'

fees under such circumstances will have a severe

chilling effect on the willingness of persons to sign

ballot arguments in the voters handbooks in the

future and raises state and federal constitutional

questions of free speech and the right to petition

for a redress of grievances.

Cohen v. Superior Court

(California Supreme Court)

In April, the Court of Appeal overturned a San

Francisco city ordinance passed in 1981 which

established a comprehensive regulatory scheme

for the very broadly defined category of "escort"

services. The ACLU had filed an amicus brief

challenging the constitutionality of the ordinance

on the grounds that the constitutional guarantee

of privacy was violated by its requirement that

~ escort services maintain a daily register, open to

the police and health departments, showing the

names and addresses of patrons, their escorts,

times and places where escort services took place

and the fee charged.

The California Supreme Court is reviewing the

case.

Fort Help v. Municipal Court

(Alameda County Superior Court)

The ACLU represented a methadone program

in its attempts to protect the confidentiality of clients

records against a search by Berkeley police

officers. The court ruled the September 1983

search was illegal.

In the wake of the decision, the Attorney

General sent a letter to all District Attorneys and

City Prosecutors in the state warning them to

adhere to rules of strict confidentiality pertaining

to the records of patients at drug treatment

programs.

Citizens for a Better Environment v. City

of Vallejo

(Solano County Superior Court)

In Vallejo, a city ordinance requires that all

persons who seek to canvass door-to-door for

political or charitable purposes must submit to

fingerprinting by the police. An ACLU suit filed

on behalf of Citizens for a Better Environment,

Citizens Action League and Greenpeace, argues

that the ordinance is unconstitutional as it violates

the canvassers privacy and their First Amendment

right to communicate with the people of Vallejo.

Kirk v. City of San Francisco

(U.S. Court of Appeals)

The ACLU is representing a man whose

lawsuit was dismissed by a district court judge

for failing to state a claim under the federal

Constitution. The man claims he was unlawfully

arrested and lost his job after San Francisco police

falsely claimed that he had been required to

register as a sex offender. The district court ruled

that the federal courts would not entertain the

lawsuit even if the facts alleged are true because

constitutional rights were not violated. The ACLU

filed the appeal in 1984 and the case will be briefed

in January 1986.

ACLU Legal Docket

People v. Spain

(U.S. District Court)

The ACLU filed an amicus brief on behalf of

a former Black Panther Party member whose trial

was marred by serious due process violations,

including the shackling of the defendant during

trial and improper contact between the trial judge

and a juror who had prejudicial opinions about

the Black Panther Party.

Although the U.S. Supreme Court decided in

1983 that the prisoner's due process rights were

not violated because of the judge-juror discussion,

the case is back in federal district court on the

shackling issue.

Ingersoll v. Palmer

(California Court of Appeal)

Rush v. Obledo

(U.S. Court of Appeals)

Scott v. Oakland

(Alameda Superior Court)

Charging that the police roadblocks set up

to deter drunk drivers are in violation of the Fourth

Amendment, the California Constitution and

California law, the ACLU filed suit in November,

1984 on behalf of four California taxpayers to

prohibit the use of such roadblocks throughout

the state. The lawsuit was filed following the

establishment of a roadblock in Burlingame and

the announcement by several police departments

and the California Highway Patrol that they were

planning to set up roadblocks during the holiday

season.

The court refused to issue an immediate order

halting the holiday season roadblocks but set

argument for the case in November 1985.

California v. Ciraolo

(U.S. Supreme Court)

The ACLU filed an amicus brief in the U.S.

Supreme Court challenging warrantless aerial

surveillance by San Jose police of a residential

backyard as a violation of the Fourth Amendment.

The case stems from an incident where the

police, acting on an anonymous tip, went toa home

to investigate whether marijuana was growing in

a yard. When they could not see into the yard

because of high fences, they rented a plane and

flew over the premises at 1000 feet. They observed

some marijuana plants and photographed them.

The ACLU is arguing that such warrantless

surveillance and photographing violates reason-

able expectations of privacy.

with your special tax-deductible contribution to the ACLU Foundation

of Northern California. Without these special gifts, the docket you are

holding might be only one-half the size.

| want to help support the ACLU's legal work in northern California.

Enclosed is my tax-deductible contribution of

11$1000 $500 $250 0$100 A$

Name

Address

City State

Phone

2 LIP

In April, the federal Court of Appeals ruled

that state inspectors do not require warrants to

conduct surprise inspections of residential child

care centers. The ACLU had joined other public

interest and women's legal organizations in filing

an amicus brief arguing that warrantless searches

of private family day care homes by agents of the

Department of Social Services violates the Fourth

Amendment. The plaintiffs are seeking a rehearing

from the full appeals court.

The ACLU is representing a female bank

employee who was strip searched by the Oakland

police despite the fact that she had no previous

arrest record, was detained for the infraction of

failure to pay a dog license fee, and the authorities

had been informed that her father was en route

to the jail with bail. money.

The case is awaiting trial in superior court.

Crew v. Murphy

(U.S. District Court)

The ACLU filed a lawsuit on behalf of one

of our own attorneys who was arrested while

monitoring police sweeps in downtown San

Francisco in September 1984. His arrest came

only a few hours after the ACLU publicly called

on the San Francisco Police Chief to halt the

sweeps and asked the state Attorney General to

investigate the police roundups.

Although the attorney, who was handcuffed,

pat searched and taken to the Hall of Justice, was

booked for obstruction of justice, all charges

against him were later dropped.

The lawsuit, filed in Septerriber, charges the

police with false arrest and asks for damages and

that the attorney's record be cleared of the arrest.

Stevens v. Hance

(San Francisco Superior Court)

The ACLU filed a personal injury and civil

rights lawsuit in February on behalf of two

Rastafarian priests who were arrested and strip

searched dy San Francisco narcotics officers. The

suit alleges that the men were falsely arrested,

beaten, and strip searched because of their race

and religion.

Three plainclothes narcotics officers

approached the Rastafarians at a Fillmore District

home and addressed them in a manner

disrespectful of their religion. When they protested,

they found themselves under arrest for interfering.

with an investigation and resisting arrest.

Janese and Becker v. Letona

(Court of Appeal)

The ACLU successfully defended a victim of

oolice abuse when he was sued by two police

officers for filing a complaint against them with

the San Francisco Internal Affairs Bureau, alleging

that they had used unnecessary force in arresting

him. The police libel suit, filed under a statute

passed by the Legislature in 1982, was dismissed

by the superior court in March and is now awaiting

resolution in the Court of Appeal.

Ramey v. Murphy -

(San Francisco Superior Court)

In April the ACLU lost its appeal in the state

Court of Appeal of a ruling by a superior court

judge upholding the San Francisco Police

Department's practice of using an obstruction of

sidewalks law as a means of detaining persons

who could not otherwise be punished by legal

means. The California Supreme Court refused to

hear the ACLU appeal.

The ACLU argued that since the courts have

struck down vagrancy and loitering laws, the police

still sweep the streets of undesirables as they had

under the old laws, but avoid submitting the arrests

for judicial determination by routinely dismissing

the cases before prosecution.

Sundance v. Municipal Court

(California Supreme Court)

The ACLU filed a brief in the state Supreme

Court challenging the widespread arrests without

prosecution or trial of public inebriates in Los

Angeles County. The record in the case shows

over 150,000 arrests for public inebriation, with

only eight convictions after trial. The ACLU argues

that people cannot constitutionally be subjected

to arrest, booking, and incarceration when

arresting officers reasonably know that the persons

arrested will not be prosecuted or convicted. The

case was argued before the high court in May

and a decision is pending.

Roman and Guillory v. City of Richmond

(U.S. Court of Appeals)

The ACLU joined the defense of the $3 million

dollar judgment awarded by a federal jury in 1983

to the families of two black men shot by Richmond

police officers.

The four month trial focuses on the racist and

brutal practices of the Richmond police toward

the black community. The City of Richmond

appealed the trial court judgment and the ACLU

took on the appeal for the families. The matter

was settled prior to a determination of the appeal.

Please make checks or money orders payable to the ACLU Foundation of Nor-

thern California and send to ACLU Foundation, 1663 Mission St., S.F. CA 94103.