vol. 50, no. 1

Volume XLX

lu new

January-February 1985 (c)

ACLU-NC 50th Anniversary

Bill of Rights Day Honors C.L. Dellums

`7 am fortunate that in my lifetime I

have helped to build three organizations

- the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car

Porters, the American Civil Liberties

Union and the NAACP. These organiza-

`tions are still needed. If we let them

down, our grandchildren will regret it.''

This warning thundered through the

600-plus audience in the Grand Ballroom

of the Sheraton Palace Hotel on

`December 9, as the stentorian tones of

this year's Earl Warren Civil Liberties

Award recipient C.L. Dellums made the

message of activism and commitment

even more meaningful and alive for ap-

preciative ACLU supporters.

The 84-year old Dellums, founder

with A. Philip Randolph of the

Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters,

first western chair of the NAACP and

longest serving commissioner with the

state Fair Employment and Housing

commission, was presented with the

award by national ACLU Vice-Chair

Eva Jefferson Paterson for his ``lifelong

leadership in the civil rights and trade

union movements."'

Paterson noted that among the hun-

dreds of well-wishers who came to honor

Dellums that day was his nephew, Con-

gressman Ronald V. Dellums, who had

flown in from Washington, D.C. for the

occasion. The Congressman received a

standing ovation when Paterson told the

Two generations of Dellums

crowd he had just been arrested for pro-

testing apartheid at the South African

Embassy.

This year's Bill of Rights Day Celebra-

tion also marked the fiftieth anniversary

of the ACLU-NC: that legacy was

underscored by the presence of half a

dozen former Board chairs at the event.

Paul Winternitz

" embrace at Bill of Rights Day.

Immediate past chair Davis Riemer in-

troduced the former chairs with

highlights of the civil liberties battles dur-

ing their tenure: John Merryiman,

1957-60, Howard Friedman, 1961-65,

Howard Jewel, 1969-73, Richard

DeLancie, 1973-77, and Drucilla Ramey,

1978-81. He then introduced newly

Protesters Testify on Police Abuse

fot

----

=

HAVEN'T You READ THOSE SIGNS,

NUSE YA TONGUE ,

GO To JAIL" (c)

RD 5

The San Francisco Supervisors Board

Chambers was filled to overflowing on

the afternoon of January 10 as

demonstration organizers, victims of

police abuse, legal observers, arrestees

and witnesses came to tell their stories of

police misconduct at protest demonstra--

tions to the Supervisors' ee Protec-

tion Committee.

The hearings were largely initiated and

organized by ACLU cooperating at-

torney John Crew, who, during the July

Democratic National Convention, coor-

dinated a task force which worked with

50 organizations to exercise their First

Amendment right to demonstrate.

Following a presentation by Super-

visor Harry Britt who ``demanded a

response from the Police Department"'

and Deputy Police Chief George Eimil

who refused to give an adequate one,

Crew opened up the public testimony.

`"A pattern of police misconduct, over-

reaction and questionable crowd control

tactics has created an atmosphere that is

dangerously hostile to the peaceful exer-

cise of free speech rights in San Fran-

cisco,'" he said.

``In the last nine months alone, major

San Francisco demonstrations have

resulted in at least 700 arrests, numerous

injuries and repeated complaints of ex-

cessive force being used by members of

the Police Department,'' Crew said.

Crew and other witnesses concen-

trated their testimony on police miscon-

duct at six 1984 demonstrations: the

April 17 demonstration against Henry

Kissinger, an anti-Moral Majority pro-

test and two ``War Chest Tours'' and the

Hall of Justice demonstration which

took place during the DNC, and the

November 8 protest of Caspar

Weinberger..

continued on p. 3

S

No. 1

elected Board chair Nancy Pemberton

who presided over the occasion. _

ACLU-NC_ Executive Director

Dorothy Ehrlich emphasized the half-

century of civil liberties victories and

defeats as she gave the 1984 annual

report: ``It is shocking that in 1984 as in

1934 we still fight to desegregate the

schools, that in 1984 as in 1934 police

still stifle protests with guns and clubs,

that we face the brutality of the death

penalty, the official racism of immigra-

tion laws.

`"`But our memories are vivid,"'

Ehrlich charged, ``We remember Ronald

Reagan's promises to put prayer in

public schools, to illegalize abortion and

to turn the clock back on civil rights.

And we remember Governor Deukme-

jian's veto of ABI and strip search

restrictions, and his defunding of the

state Public Defenders Office.

`After 5O years, this affiliate has truly

learned that no victory comes easy,"'

Ehrlich said.

Ehrlich also introduced George Hut-

chins, the 1984 recipient of the Lola

Hanzel Advocacy Award given to the

outstanding ACLU volunteer each year.

(see sidebar)

In accepting the Earl Warren Award,

C.L. Dellums shared some _ insights

continued on p. 4

1984 Board

Elections

As provided by the ACLU-NC by-

laws, revised in 1980, the ACLU-

NC membership is entitled to elect

its 1985-86 Board directly. The

Nominating Committee is already

seeking suggestions from the

membership to fill at-large. positions

on the Board.

ACLU members may participate

in the nominating process in two

ways:

1. They may send suggestions for

the Nominating Committee's con-

sideration before March 25, 1985.

(Address suggestions to Nominating

Committee, ACLU-NC, 1663 Mis-

sion St., S.F. CA 94103. Include

your suggested nominee's qualifica-

tions and how the nominee may be

reached.)

2. They may suis a petition of

nomination with the signatures of

15 current ACLU members. Peti-

tions of nomination, which should

also include the nominee's qualifica-

tions, must be submitted to the

continued on p. 2

aclu news

2 jan-feb 1985

Sobering Debate on Drunk Driving Roadblocks

by Dorothy Ehrlich

Executive Director

hile KCBS told its listeners that the ``California Highway Patrol

has gone about this backwards. .

.' the San Francisco Chronicle

chided the ACLU for attempting to stop a ``sensible new program.''

- In dozens of editorials, on talk shows, in letters to the editors, and

letters written directly to the ACLU, the debate over drunk driving

roadblocks raged during the recent holiday season.

It was not surprising that the ACLU-

NC's challenge to the institution of

roadblocks would create such a con-

troversy. For the roadblocks were

heralded as a device which could combat

the deadly serious problem of drunk

drivers - why would anyone want to in-

terfere with that laudable goal?

The debate was provoked by a legal

opinion issued by Attorney General John

Van De Kamp on November 8 which

gave state law enforcement the green

light to set up the roadblocks. This

served as an end-run around the

Legislature which has in the past two ses-

sions refused to pass legislation authoriz-

ing the roadblocks. The first police

roadblock was scheduled for November

16 in Burlingame.

The ACLU-NC believes roadblocks

violate the constitutional right to be free

from unreasonable search and seizures.

The Fourth Amendment and_ the

California Constitution prevent law en-

forcement officers from stopping drivers

randomly without reasonable suspicion

of wrongdoing.

This message from the ACLU was

repeated time and time again. Indeed,

the roadblock controversy created an im-

portant forum for debate on this critical

civil liberties issue. The question forces

the public, and our own ACLU-NC

membership, to re-examine the value of

the Fourth Amendment's protection

against ``unreasonable search and

seizure'' in the context of a serious pro-

blem - removing dangerous drunk

drivers from the road.

On the same day the Attorney

General issued his opinion, the ACLU-

NC Board of Directors - responding to

rumors that roadblocks were to be in-

stituted - debated the issue and over-

whelmingly voted to authorize legal ac-

tion to stop the roadblocks.

"ACLU member Bill Ingersoll, a Burl-

ingame resident, and three others step-

ped forward as taxpayer plaintiffs and

staff attorney Amitai Schwartz prepared

the lawsuit asking the California

Supreme-Court to stop the scheduled

roadblock in Burlingame and any other

roadblocks in California.

no suspicion that a driver is under the in-

`fluence of alcohol or drugs, those

resources Ought to be devoted to stop-

ping drivers who exhibit evidence of

drunkenness.

In Burlingame, for instance, more

than two dozen police officers were sta-

tioned at one corner (as opposed to

patrolling the entire city searching for

drunk drivers) where they stopped 233

cars and found no one driving under the

influence.

The roadblocks raise a serious ques-

tion about our willingness to forfeit the -

right to privacy, the right to be free from

unreasonable siezures - for the i//usion

of more safety on the road.

Unfortunately, more and more peo-

ple are being lulled into accepting

``minor'' violations of our rights as a

cost of doing business - searches are the

price you pay for traveling on an airline;

`If for nothing else glasses

full of the best strong stuff

should be raised often this holiday season to the ACLU for

its stubborn courage. When everybody else is saying ``Do

it,'' the ACLU is very apt to reply ``Don't."'

Abe Melinkoff

S.F. Chronicle

It immediately became evident that

the Attorney General was not the only.

person in California with an opinion on

roadblocks. For the institution of

roadblocks seemed to touch everyone's

life - the ACLU-NC's mettle was tested

as we sought to explain our position in

an emotionally charged atmosphere.

The ACLU-NC insisted that law en-

forcement agencies have the duty to

abide by the law. That means that rather

than devote police resources to stop 0x00B0

drivers indiscriminately, where there is

or for eradicating the Med fly; or for

locating undocumented workers. The

more violations there are, the more ac-

tions of privacy plummet lower and

lower.

The Supreme Court immediately

transfered the ACLU-NC's case to the

Court of Appeals, which, although

refusing to take extraordinary action to

temporarily stop the roadblocks before

the holiday season, did agree to hear the

case.

ACLU-NC staff counsel Schwartz

argues that established California law

condemns these types of roadblocks. "`If

the courts uphold roadblocks for catch-

ing drunk drivers, they will have to

discard much of the settled search and

siezure law which protects us all. That's

why the implications of this case are

much greater than the question of how

best to detect drunk drivers.''

The ACLU continues to press for

solutions to the problem of drunk driv-

ing which do not interfere with constitu-

tional rights. The debate will surely con-

tinue in the Legislature, the courts and

before the public in the coming year. At

stake are key civil liberties questions

about the right to privacy and the

amount of unfettered power law en-

forcement will be afforded in misguided

attempts to protect us from ourselves.

Letters

Board of Directors by May 29,

1984. (20 days after the May Board

meeting.)

(Current ACLU members are

those who have renewed their

membership during the last 12

months. Only current members are

eligible to submit nominations, sign

petitions of nomination and vote.)

ACLU members will select Board

members from the slate of can-

didates nominated by petition and

by the Nominating Committee. The

ballot will appear in the June issue

of the ACLU News.

ARTICLE VII, SECTION 3: The

final report of the Nominating

Committee to nominate .members-

at-large to the Board shall be

presented at the May Board

meeting. Members of the Board

may propose additional nomina-

tions. If no additional nominations

are proposed by Board members,

the Board, by majority of those

present and voting, shall adopt the

Nominating Committee's report. If

additional nominations are pro-

posed, the Board shall, by written

ballot, elect a slate of nominees with

Board Elections continued from p. 1

each member being entitled to cast a

number of votes equal to the vacan-

-cies to be `filled; the Board slate of

nominees shall be those persons,

equal in number to the vacancies to

be filled, who have received the

greatest number of votes. The list of

nominees to be placed before the

membership of the Union for elec-

tion shall be those' persons

nominated by the Board as herein

provided, together with those per-

sons nominated by petition as

hereafter provided in Section 4.

SECTION 4: Any fifteen or

more members of the Union in good

standing may themselves submit a

nomination to be included among

those voted upon by the general

membership by submitting a written

petition to the Board not later than

twenty days after the adoption by

the Board of the slate of Board

nominees. No member of the Union

may sign more than one such peti-

tion and each such nomination shall

be accompanied by a summary of

qualifications and the written con-

sent of the nominee.

ceptable they become, and our expecta-

On Board

NATIONAL...Former ACLU-NC

Vice-Chair Eva Jefferson Paterson, cur-

rently an at-large member of the national

ACLU Board of Directors, has been

elected to serve on the national Board's

Executive Committee. Paterson was the

top vote-getter in the election to the

prestigious Committee, and was also

reelected as Vice-President of the Na-

tional ACLU Board.

AFFILIATE. ..Debbie Lee, an activist

in the area of domestic violence, has

been selected to fill an interim vacancy

on the affiliate Board of Directors. Lee,

the Special Projects and Medical Unit

Director of San Francisco's Domestic

Violence Project, has a wide variety of

experience in public education, fundrais-

ing and community organizing. Lee is

also on the boards of California Women

of Color Against Domestic Violence and

the Women's Foundation.

Several members of the board of

directors of the Gay Rights Chapter of

the ACLU were dismayed by the article

on Steve Block's death. Certainly the ar-

ticle included the important contribu-

tions Steve made during his life, his com-

mitment to public service, his

achievements in the area of civil rights

litigation, his devotion of time and

energy to the causes of civil liberties. But

the most prominent facet of his death -

that he was a victim of AIDS - was

omitted.

Many of us knew Steve. We mourn his

loss and will treasure his memory and

our awareness of his accomplishments. It

is partly for this reason that we feel it im-

portant that the cause of his death be

duly noted. AIDS is robbing, not only

the gay community, but all of us of some

of our best and brightest young leaders.

Perhaps by heightening society's

awareness of the terrible toll of AIDS,

we can encourage a greater mobilization

of the resources necessary to combat it.

We imagine Steve would have agreed.

Tom Reilly

- for the Gay Rights Chapter

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 PembertonChairperson Dorothy Ehrlich, Executive Director

Elaine Elinson, Editor

Marcia Gallo,

Chapter Page

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

Medi-Cal Fund Victory

Another unanimous decision by the

Court of Appeal on October 16 marked

the seventh consecutive success for the

ACLU-NC in the long-running battle to

preserve Medi-Cal funding for abor-

tions. On December 14, the state

Supreme Court denied a hearing on the

state's appeal of that decision thus ensur-

ing continued funding for the 100,000

women and teenagers who seek Medi-

Cal abortions each year in this state.

The ACLU lawsuit, Committee To

Defend Reproductive Rights (CDRR) v..

Rank IT, filed last July by ACLU-NC

staff attorney Margaret Crosby chal-

lenged the Legislature's 1984 Budget Act

restrictions on Medi-Cal abortion fund-

ing. The Court of Appeal order prohibits

state officials from implementing the

Legislature's Budget Act restrictions and

orders state Health Services Director

Peter Rank to ``perform all ministerial

duties necessary to insure that health care

providers receive reimbursement for

abortion services performed, including

certification of claims. ..''

The Court stated that the issue is the

same as that decided last year in CDRR

v. Rank. In doing so, they rejected.

Director Rank's contention that because

the limited ``Special Fund"' set up by the

Legislature for abortion funding was

separate from the General Fund (in the

1983 Budget Act the Special Fund was

within the General Fund) the legal cir-

cumstances of the case are different.

This argument ``is an attempt to respect -

form over substance,'' the Court stated.

As in previous years, the ACLU-NC

lawsuit was filed on behalf of a coalition

of women's groups, welfare rights

organizations, health care providers and

taxpayers in order to challenge cuts in

state funding for abortion services. Sole-

ly because of court orders issued in these

challenges has Medi-Cal funding for

over 100,000 women in California been

- maintained.

Pro-Choice Lobby

Sacramento: On January 22, the 12th

anniversary of the landmark U.S.

Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade,

more than 50 supporters of the Northern

California Pro-Choice Coalition and

others came to the state capital to lobby

legislators on the choice issue. More

details on anti-abortion measures being

introduced in the Legislature and new ef-

forts to maintain and expand reproduc-

tive freedom in the next issue of the

ALCU News.

ACLU Bombing

Washington D.C.: On January 21, the

New York Times reported that officials

from the federal Bureau of Alcohol,

Tobacco and Firearms, which is in-

vestigating the rash of abortion clinic

bombings, found evidence linking three

men arrested in the bombing of clinics in

the capital area to the November bomb-

ing of the ACLU office in Washington,

D.C. Fingerprints of the suspects, who

were arrested on January 19; match

those found on tape used in the device

left at the ACLU bombing.

Suit Seeks Police Records

by Michael P. Miller

Associate Director

The ACLU will soon file an appeal of

a San Francisco Superior Court ruling

refusing to order the release of public

records concerning San Francisco police

activity in monitoring and controlling

political protests during last summer's

Democratic National Convention.

The lawsuit filed on behalf of the

ACLU in October, charged that under |

the California Public Records Act the

public has a right to look at a video tape

and related police records documenting

police activity in halting a Convention-

time march by six members of the Ku

_ Klux Klan. The ACLU suit also asks that

Police Department guidelines for

monitoring of protest groups at the time

of the Convention be made public.

In late December, San Francisco

Superior Court Judge Roy Wonder ruled

against the ACLU.

According to July press accounts,

police stopped a proposed Klan

demonstration by effectively arresting all

six Klan members and forcing them to

drive their mobile home to the S.F. Hall

of Justice where, in a videotaped session,

Police Chief Murphy told the group they

could not demonstrate. No charges were

filed against the group members who

were then immediately escorted out of.

San Francisco.

``The method in which the police stop-

ped the Klan group from protesting

raises serious First Amendment ques-

tions. The public has a right to know

what happened and why. And the public

has a right to know whether the police

action is typical of the way the Depart-

ment treats controversial groups and

opinions,'' commented ACLU staff

counsel Amitai Schwartz.

In response to an August 28 ACLU (c)

letter concerning records related to the

Klan incident, Murphy refused to make

those records public.

The ACLU is also seeking Department

`"`rules, orders, and memoranda govern-

ing intelligence gathering by the Depart-

ment'' in order to determine whether -

police surveillance of all political groups

is carried out according to the Constitu-

tion and state and federal law. :

`In San Francisco police methods on

the street in handling demonstrations

frequently raise problems. We suspect

that similar problems may be found in

their intelligence work,'' commented

Schwartz.

Before the Convention, the ACLU

twice asked the Police Department to

reveal its intelligence guidelines. Neither

request was answered before the suit was

filed.

In a sworn declaration filed in the

lawsuit, a police official stated that no

guidelines or other directives exist gov-

erning the gathering and dissemination

of intelligence information. A week later

the Department reversed itself when a

new sworn declaration was filed stating

the guidelines do exist for intelligence

gathering, but not for disemmination.

aciu news

jan-feb 1985 oO

Neyman Gift to ACLU

Professor Jerzy Neyman, world-

renowned statistician and member of the

ACLU-NC, has left the ACLU Founda--

tion of Northern California a bequest of .

- $22,000. Professor Neyman died in

1981 and the estate was settled in 1984,

leaving his son and the ACLU as the

main beneficiaries.

Professor Neyman, who died in

Oakland at the age of 87, was the Direc-

tor of the University of California's

Statistical Laboratory. He has been call-

ed ``one of the founders of modern

theoretical statistics."'

Born to Polish parents in Russia in

1894, Neyman's early life was marked by

political turmoil and poverty. He rose to

international prominence for his work in

clarifying statistical theory and applying

it to the sciences, receiving numerous

honors and awards for his research.

Neyman came to Berkeley in 1938 and

worked to found the University's

Department of Statistics which became

one of the most important statistical

centers in the world. . :

His gift, combined with bequests from

other devoted ACLU-NC friends, have

enabled the organization to establish an

endowment fund. ``Each year bequests

play a greater role, insuring that the

` ACLU will be strong for years to come,"'

said ACLU-NC Associate Director

Michael Miller.

The Neyman bequest will go into the

ACLU Foundation's Special Gifts Fund

which endows the ACLU legal program.

The Special Gifts Fund contributed

$33,642.00 in earned income toward the

ACLU's legal program in 1984. The

Fund received a total of $38,026.00 in

new bequests during the year.

Donors who wish to leave a bequest to

the ACLU should designate the

`"American Civil Liberties Union Foun-

dation of Northern California'' in their

will.

For further information on how to

make a bequest to the ACLU Founda-

tion of Northern California, call or write

to Michael Miller, Associate Director,

ACLU Foundation, 1663 Mission Street,

San Francisco, 94103.

1980

cent 333 MG = Major Gifts

298 BRC = Bill of Rights

Pus

"3D

60

B

oo0' Ss

ACLU-NC Foundation Support: 1980-1984

82 1984

1983

This chart shows the steady growth in individual support for the ACLU Foundation

of Northern California. In 1984, ACLU supporters gave $92,000 to the Bill of Rights

and $241,000 for the Major Gifts campaigns. Since 1981, the two campaigns have

received over $1,100,000 to underwrite the ACLU-NC legal program.

Protesters Testify

continued from p. 1

Crew ae criticism of the following

police activities:

e steel barriers which _ trap

demonstrators in small and inadequate

areas, making it difficult for people to

join or leave an event.

(c) excessive force including the ``over-

whelming deployment'' of horses,

motorbikes and Tactical Squad officers

dressed in full riot gear with batons

drawn, and batons being swung wildly

and __indisciminately against

demonstrators, onlookers, legal

observers, medics and media people.

e use of horses and motorbikes driven

directly into crowds in a threatening and

dangerous manner.

e unidentified officers dressd in

plainclothes and refusing to identify

themselves as police even while physical-

ly handling demonstrators. .

e mass arrests including surrounding

large numbers of demonstrators without

warning and placing them all under ar-

_ rest without an opportunity to disperse.

"It is imperative that this pattern of

police misconduct be broken,"' conclud-

ed Crew, ``and that San Franciscans be

assured that the peaceful exercise of free

speech rights will be met with a peaceful

and restrained police response."'

Dozens of others also testified in-

cluding Pat Warner of the National

Lawyers Guild, Nora Roman of People's

Medics, Reverend Jim Claitor, Ernest

Cardenas who suffered severe head and

body wounds as a result of a beating by

police officers at the Kissinger

demonstration, Anne Vanderslice. who

was run over by a police motorbike at

the Moral Majority protest and Nancy

Netherland who, while unconcious from

a police chokehold, was searched by a

male officer and arrested during the

DNC War Chest Tour.

aclu news

4 jan-feb 1985

Rights Day

continued from p. 1

gained from his over SO years of ac-

tivism. An organizer of the first interna-

tional union led by blacks, Dellums said,

``The Brotherhood was led by Negroes

not because we excluded anybody but

because the Pullman Company would

not hire anybody else.

``When a handful of Negroes took on

that powerful company, we were told -

"You ought to know better, the whites .

run this company and they are going to

keep on running it.' '' Dellums was fired

by the company shortly after he stood up

to challenge those remarks and became a

fulltime union organizer for the next five

decades.

``My time is limited,'' said the oc-

togenarian activist who still serves as a

Commissioner on the FEPC - his

booming voice belying his words. ``But

that name Dellums is going to be

around, because I've got a nephew."'

And then, addressing his nephew and all

those who surrounded him he added,

`"`We must work and not grow weary.

Fight on and faint not - justice will

prevail."'

Keynote speaker California Supreme

Court Justice Joseph Grodin addressed

ACLU-NC's longevity in a slightly dif-

ferent way: ``The ACLU seems to be in

something of a rut - the battles you are

fighting now are essentially the same

ones you fought 50 years ago. Moreover,

you seem to have an attraction to the

most undesirable in our society. But, in

George Hutchins, ACLU's Thurs-

day Compaint Desk couselor for the

last twelve years, is the 1984 recipient

of the Lola Hanzel Advocacy Award.

The award was established in 1981

in honor of Lola Hanzel, an inspiring

and inspired ACLU-NC volunteer for

more than a decade before her death

in 1980. It is presented each year at

the Bill of Rights Day Celebration to

an individual who has made an ex-

traordinary contribution to the af-

filiate in a volunteer capacity. ss

Hutchins, who was recruited by

Volunteer George Hutchins is presented with the Lola Hanzel Advocacy Award

by Executive Director Dorothy Ehrlich.

Hanzel to work on the Complaint

Desk, has a longer tenure at the

ACLU-NC than any current staff

member. ``George's patience and

compassion as a complaint counselor

has been exemplary,''? said ACLU-

NC Executive Director Dorothy

Ehrlich on presenting him the award,

"`many, many callers have benefited

from George's wisdom and from his

efforts at personal advocacy on their

behalf."'

Hutchins commitment to the

ACLU-NC began almost 40 years ago

Paul Winternitz

when he joined the affiliate's efforts

in fighting the dismissal of two San

Francisco City College teachers for

refusing to sign the loyalty oath.

An. instructor in physics and

mathematics at San Francisco' City

College since the late 1940's, Hutchins

was also an active labor organizer ser-

ving as the American Federation of

Teachers representative to the San

Francisco Labor Council and as presi-

dent of the San Francisco City Col-

lege Faculty Association.

Although Hutchins retired fromhis

lifelong profession of teaching in

1970, he never retired from being an

activist. In addition to his work at the

ACLU, Hutchins has been an

energetic campaigner for the nuclear

freeze, the farmworkers union, and

many other peace and environmental

issues.

Hutchins said, ``When I started

to volunteer, I never thought Thurs-

day would become the most signifi-

cant day of my week.

`*To Lola, and to all of you - Iam

forever grateful."'

The audience responded with a

standing ovation.

tie long.run, ~ he added, "you are

right.'

Grodin cited the ACLU-NC's defense

of the right of labor to engage in

peaceful picketing, religious liberty, and

the fight against racial discrimination in

housing and employment. ``You were

creating laws as you went along,'' he

said. ``Take the Korematsu case (against

the wartime internment of Japanese

Americans), you lost the legal battle but

you won the moral war."'

He. also echoed the warnings of

previous speakers, ``Although we have

survived 1984 with our collective vital

signs relatively intact, there is a current

threat to our freedoms.

"When lapses do -oceur, Fhe

Associate Justice said, ``the ACLU will

be around to call our attention to them

just as it has in the past."'

Calendar

B.A.R.K.

BOARD MEETING: (Usually fourth

Thursday of each month.) Volunteers are

needed to staff hotline. Contact Joe Dorst,

415/654-4163.

EARL WARREN

BOARD MEETING: (Third Wedneday

each month.) Special Event: Wednesday,

January 16, Guest Speaker: Jenni

Morozumi, National Coalition for Redress

Reparations, will speak on Japanese

Reparations. Agenda item: Police prac-

tices in Oakland. Special Event: Wednes-

day, February 20, Elaine Elinson, Public |

Information Director, ACLU, will speak

on Chapter Public Relations. Contact

Larry Polansky, 415/ 530-4553.

MARIN

BOARD MEETING: Contact Leslie Paul,

415/381-1088.

MID-

PENINSULA

BOARD MEETING: (Usually

_ Contact Harry Anisgard, 415/856-9186.

MONTEREY

last

Wednesday of each month.) Special joint

meeting with the Women's International

League for Peace and Freedom on

January 30, 7:30 p.m., at the Friends

Meeting House, 957 Colorado Street, Palo

Alto. Guest speaker: Anne Fagan Ginger.

will speak on threats to our civil liberties.

FRESNO

each month. Contact:

209/486-2411.

GAY RIGHTS

BOARD MEETING: (Third Wednesday

Sam Gitchel,

BOARD MEETING: (Fourth Tuesday

each month.) No regular January board

meeting. Annual Meeting, Saturday,

February 2, 1:00 - 4:30 p.m. at the Cross

Roads Community Room, Rio Road,

Mouth of Carmel Valley. Contact Richard

Criley, 408/624-7562.

MT. DIABLO

BOARD MEETING: (Fourth Wednesday

BOARD MEETING: (First Tuesday each

month.) Tuesday, February 5, and March

5, ACLU, 1663 Mission Street, 4th Floor,

S.F. at 7:00 p.m. Contact Douglas

- Warner, 415/863-0487. Watch for an-

nouncement of further details of Alan

Berube's slide show, Sunday, March 31;

sponsored by Gay Rights Chapter.

of every month.) Contact Barbara Eaton

for location, 415/676-5160 or 939-ACLU.

NORTH

PENINSULA

BOARD MEETING: (Second Monday of

every month.) Contact Sid Schieber,

415/345-8603.

SACRAMENTO

BOARD MEETING: (Note change. Now

the second Wednesday each month.)

Wednesday, February 13, 7:30 p.m. at the

- County Administration Center on I Street,

Sacramento. Contact Mary Gill,

916/457-4088.

SAN FRANCISCO

BOARD MEETING: (Usually fourth

Tuesday each month.) Contact Chandler

Visher, 415/391-0222.

SANTA CLARA

BOARD MEETING: (First Tuesday of

each month.) Contact Steve Alpers,

415/792-5110.

SANTA CRUZ

BOARD MEETING: (Usually second

Wednesday each month.) Contact Bob

Taren, 408/429-9880.

SONOMA

BOARD MEETING: Contact . Andrea

Learned, 707/544-6911.

ANNUAL DINNER: Friday, Feb. 15 at 7

p.m. at Druids Hall, Santa Rosa; Guest

speaker; Justice Joseph Rattigan. Contact:

Delna Garrison, 707/544-7108.

STOCKTON

BOARD MEETING: (Third Wednesday -

each month.) Contact Bart Harloe, (c)

209/946-2431 (days).

YOLO COUNTY:

BOARD MEETING: (Thursday, January

17. Contact Michael Laurence,

916/756-8621.

Field Committee

Meetings

PRO-CHOICE TASK FORCE:

Wednesday, February 6 at 7:30 p.m. and

Wednesday, March 6 at 6:00 p.m. ACLU,

1663 Mission Street, 4th Floor, S.F. All

Pro-Choice supporters and_ friends

welcome. Contact: Marcia Gallo,

415/621-2493.

RIGHT TO DISSENT SUBCOMMIT-

TEE: Wednesday, February 6 at 6:00 p.m.

and Wednesday, March 6 at 7:30 p.m.

ACLU, 1663 Mission Street, 4th Floor,

S.F. Contact Marcia Gallo 415/621-2493.

DRAFT OPPOSITION NETWORK:

(Usually second Tuesday of Month). Con-

tact Judy Newman, 415/567-1527.

IMMIGRATION WORKING GROUP:

Thursday, February 14 at 6:00 p.m.

Organizing Town Meetings on Immigrants

Rights. Contact Cindy Forster,.

415/021-2493,

PROTEST ARRESTS of sanctuary

workers! Support freedom of conscience

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 _% Oppose deportations to death. Call

Cindy or Marci at 415/621-2493 to send

mailgram.

AMERICAN CIVI LLB eA tT U

oe aA

N (c) Ral ee E RN

CAL

FORNIA

Doc. es

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE

ACLU FouloaTion oF

ACLU Figurs For

A ee

NORTHERN CALIFORNIA

As we celebrate our first half century of existence (the ACLU of Northern

California was founded in 1934 during the San Francisco General Strike to

help protect workers' rights), the list of cases on this year's docket becomes a

somber reminder that no civil liberties victory ever comes easy -- nor ever stays

won.

In 1984, as in 1934, we had to go to court to protect the basic right to dis-

sent -- and we won some stunning victories including the striking down of a

parade ordinance in Richmond which prevented immediate protests by com-

munity groups to acts of police violence, the right of anti-nuclear activists to

put their literature in the Visitors Center at the Lawrence Livermore Lab, and

the elimination of a city-imposed price tag for a march against nuclear war in

Novato.

In 1984, as.in 1934, we are fighting against official acts of racism -- a probe

of bilingual ballot seekers by the U.S. Attorney and massive raids on im-

migrant workers by the INS and Border Patrol.

And in 1984, the new `moral McCarthyism" has also affected our legal

agenda as we Carry on our fight for public funding for abortion, keeping prayer

out of public schools, and an end to encroaching censorship and chilling libel

suits.

The ACLU-NC staff counsel, Margaret Crosby, Alan Schlosser and Amitai

Schwartz have for eight years shared responsibility for directing our

remarkable legal program. This year they were joined by temporary staff at-

torney Donna Hitchens, and Democratic National Convention Project attorney

John Crew, and ably assisted by Pat Jameson and Cati Hawkins. The 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 the docket, there are hundreds

of civil liberties conflicts which are resolved administratively. ACLU's Com-

plaint Desk, staffed by a dozen volunteers, receives more than 200 phone calls

each week. Assisted by the legal department and the ten law students who

clerk for the ACLU during the course of the year, these lay counselors often

provide the advocacy necessary to resolve a particular grievance.

In addition, the ACLU's public education program, directed by Elaine Elin-

son, 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 our history -- and that will continue to challenge

us in the years ahead. We hope you will take this opportunity to join a growing

number of ACLU supporters who give us the strength we need now to continue

our work in defense of the Bill of Rights.

Nancy Pemberton

Chairperson

Dorothy Ehrlich

Executive Director

The 1984 Legal Docket was written by ACLU News editor Elaine Elinson.

LOCAL 280

`Committee to Defend Reproductive

Rights (CDRR) v. Rank Ii

(California Court of Appeal)

Following the Legislature's passage of

a Budget Act severely restricting Medi-Cal

funds for abortion, the ACLU filed the 7th

annual lawsuit challenging the cutbacks.

The Court issued an immediate stay conti-

nuing the funding and in October issued an

order prohibiting the state from implemen-

ting Budget Act restrictions and from mail-

ing out notifications of proposed cutbacks.

In addition, the Court ordered all state

health officials to comply with the duties of

their offices and certify all claims and per-

form all tasks necessary to ensure con-

tinued Medi-Cal funds.

In December, the California Supreme

Court refused to hear the state's appeal,

thus ensuring the continuation of Medi-Cal

funding for abortion for the 100,000 women

and teenagers who seek such aid each year

in this state.

Margolis v. Deukmejian

(Sacramento Superior Court)

In September the ACLU asked for a sum-

mary 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 abor-

tion. The suit, filed on behalf of doctors who

perform abortions and taxpayers, disputes

an interpretation of the act by the former

state Attorney General George Deukmejian

that the 20-week time limit be enforced

unless prosecutors conclude that the fetus

was not viable or the life or health of the

pregnant woman was in danger.

The ACLU argues that this interpreta-

tion violates several U.S. Supreme Court rul-

ings and that the Attorney General does not

have the power to rewrite the law.

Miller v. California Commission on the

Status of Women

(California Court of Appeal)

In April, the Court of Appeal lifted a

19-month injunction prohibiting the Califor-

nia 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 Commis-

sion, 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.

Bohemian Club v. Fair Employment

and Housing Commission

(California Court of Appeals)

The Bohemian Club is an all male

private club with several northern California

facilities. The state Fair Employment and

Housing Commission (FEHC), after a hear-

ing, 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 facili-

ty. 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 cer-

tain minimal adjustments by the Club could

afford women equal employment opportuni-

ty 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.

Isbister v. Santa Cruz Boys Club

(California Court of Appeal)

In 1983, the state Court of Appeal revers-

ed the 1980 landmark ruling by the Santa

Cruz Superior Court which determined, in

agreement with ACLU arguments, that the

Boys Club policy of excluding girls was il-

legal and that membership in the club must

be open to children of both sexes. The

ACLU argued the case before the California

Supreme Court in June.

2

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

horsewoman is suing the Mounted Patrol

and the San Mateo County Sheriff's Depart-

ment, 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.

me Cres

International Molders v. Nelson

(U.S. District Court) .

In November, the ACLU and other Bay

Area legal organizations argued in federal

court for an injunction against INS pro-

cedures which violate the civil liberties of

workers who look Hispanic or are of

Hispanic background.

The lawsuit stems from a_ highly

publicized nationwide series of raids on

worksites in 1982 by the INS euphemistical-

ly called `"`Operation Jobs." The ACLU,

MALDEF and others filed a class action suit

against the INS, charging that in northern

California INS and Border Patrol agents

violated the constitutional rights of

employees and employers by illegally enter-

ing worksites without warrant, probable

cause or consent, by detaining workers

simply because they looked Hispanic

without any reasonable suspicion that they

were undocumented aliens and by depriv-

ing those detained, often with violence or

threats of violence, of their due process and

Fourth Amendment rights.

Olagues v. Russoniello

(U.S. Court of Appeals)

The U.S. Court of Appeals heard

arguments in August after a federal court

judge ruled the courts have no power to en-

join a U.S. Attorney's investigation of per- ~

sons seeking bilingual election materials.

The discriminatory probe of persons

who seek bilingual election materials in-

itiated by the U.S. Attorney in nine northern

California counties, just weeks before the

1982 spring election registration deadline,

was challenged by the ACLU and MALDEF

in a class action suit on behalf of Chinese

and Spanish speaking voters. The ACL"

charges that the investigation was in viola-

tion of the Constitution and federal Voting

Rights Act.

Roman and Guillory v. City of Rich-

mond

(U.S. Court of Appeals)

The ACLU has 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 of-

ficers.

The four month trial focused on the

racist and brutal practices of the Richmond

police toward the black community. The Ci-

ty of Richmond appealed the trial court

judgment and the ACLU is handling the ap-

peal for the families.

Johnson v. Orr

(U.S. District Court)

In October, the ACLU and the Lesbian

Rights Project filed a lawsuit on behalf of

an officer in the California Air National

Guard (ANG) who was_ involuntarily

`discharged simply because she wrote a let-

ter 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 homosex-

ual activity or illegal conduct of any kind.

The lawsuit charges that the Air Force

`violated the former lieutenant's constitu-

`tional 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: Califor-

nia law prohibits the termination of govern-

_ ment employees solely on the basis of sex-

ual orientation.

In November, the court rejected the

ACLU arguments for a preliminary injunc-

`tion and the ACLU is now awaitingthe writ-

ten decision of the judge beforedeciding

whether or not to appeal.

Adolph Coors Co. v. Howard Wallace et

al.

(U.S. District Court)

In February, a U.S. District Court judge

ruled that the Adolph Coors Brewing Com-

pany's antitrust suit against gay rights and

labor groups that have a boycott against

the company's beer products was an at-

tempt to use the legal process to chill free

speech rights.

The ACLU represented Solidarity, a gay

rights group in San Francisco that produc-

ed a leaflet supporting the boycott of Coors

beer, outlining Coors' objectionable labor

policies and political activities. Coors sued

the AFL-CIO Coors Boycott Committee and

Solidarity, claiming that in a successful ef-

fort to persuade KQED television to cancel

a special `COORS DAY' auction they

violated antitrust laws.

During the course of the suit, the ACLU

was also 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.

Coors has appealed the trial court's rul-

ing.

Brinkin v. Southern Pacific

(San Francisco Superior Court)

The ACLU is representing a gay

employee of Southern Pacific who was

denied the contractual 3-day funeral leave

when his lover of 11 years died. The suit, fil-

ed 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 require-

ment for benefits and for discriminating

against homosexuals who are prohibited

from achieving the legal status of marriage.

BP LS

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 in the streets

to protest police abuse in the black com-

munity in the fall of 1982 was struck down

by the federal Court of Appeals in

September 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 ap-

peal. The Court of Appeals held that the or-

dinance was in clear violation of the First

Amendment.

People v. Brannon

(Appellate Department, Alameda Superior

Court)

~ An ACLU amicus brief challenged the

convictions of anti-nuclear protesters at the

Livermore Laboratory who, in the fall of

1983, peacefully blockaded roadways in

order to prevent Lab employees from enter-

ing the Lab to work on nuclear weapons

development. The ACLU is arguing 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 ac-

ting ``maliciously"" meant acting with intent

to obstruct.

ACLU Legal Docket

unusual punishment.

The lawsuit also engendered im-

provements in the provisions for prisoners'

safety at Santa Rita, particularly in the

transportation facilities.

DeLancie v. McDonald

(San Mateo Superior Court)

Ad Hoc Committee for Nuclear Disar-

mament in Novate v. City of Novato

(U.S. District Court)

When the Ad Hoc Committee for

Nuclear Disarmament planned a rally and

march in Novato in 1982, they had to obtain

insurance and pay fees for additional police

protection in order to get a permit. The

ACLU represented the Committee in a suit

challenging the price tag on First Amend-

ment rights.

In March the U.S. District Court approv-

ed an agreement that reimbursed the Com-

mittee for insurance and police fees paid to

the city of Novato for their anti-nuke march,

and a new parade ordinance was enacted

by the City Council.

Bennett v. Livermore Unified School

District

(Alameda County Superior Court)

When graduating seniors at Granada

High School in Livermore objected to hav-

ing a prayer at their 1983 school graduation

ceremony, they were opposed by several

school committees, the principal, and the

school board. The ACLU went to court on

behalf of one of the students and a Liver-

more taxpayer charging that inclusion of

the prayer was in violation of the constitu-

tional 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 May of this year, the Alameda County

Superior Court issued a final order holding

that the inclusion of a prayer in the high

-school's ceremony is impermissible under

the state and federal Constitutions. The

school district has appealed; the continu-

ing litigation could affect public school

graduation ceremonies statewide.

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 Enlish classes where they had

been previously used.

The ACLU appealed that decision argu-

ing that the superior court erred in holding

that the books may be banned from

classroom use; the school board also ap-

pealed, arguing that the books should not

be returned to the school library.

md EN

Torrey v. County of Alameda

(Alameda Superior Court)

In October, the ACLU won a settlement

of $40,000 for a former Santa Rita inmate

who was raped and physically abused by

another inmate while being transported on .

a county vehicle and in the care of two

Alameda County deputy sheriffs. The ACLU

sued Alameda County and the Sheriff's

_ Department on behalf of the former inmate

claiming that the systematic indifference to

prisoners' rights and safety at the jail and

the subsequent endangerment of prisoners

is a violation of the constitutional

guarantee of freedom from cruel and

~ electronically monitoring and

In a landmark prisoners' privacy rights

case, the California Supreme Court ruled

that the monitoring of detainees' conversa-

tions for the purpose of gathering in-

criminating evidence was illegal. ;

The ACLU, representing a detainee, his

wife and his lawyer and local taxpayers,

had argued in the Supreme Court that the

San Mateo County Sheriff's practice of

recording

conversations between prisoners and their

visitors violated the California

Constitution's guarantee of privacy. The

high court decision is the first one in the

country to determine that inmates' conver-

sations may be monitored solely for securi-

ty reasons and not for the purpose of ob-

taining evidence against them. After the rul-

ing. the case was sent back to the trial

court, where, in January, a consent decree

was issued halting the bugging.

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 regulations on the

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 harass-

ment of the inmate editor. However, the

CDC issued new regulations in the wake of

the Supreme Court decision in Bailey, and

the new restrictions were upheld by the

superior court last October despite an

ACLU challenge to them as being un-

constitutionally vague and overbroad.

In re Charles Williams

(California Court of Appeal)

The inmate editor of the San Quentin

prison newspaper filed a _ petition for

habeas corpus challenging the rules

regulating prison newspapers. The ACLU ~

filed an amicus brief in the Court of Appeal

arguing that the rules are vague and over-

broad, but the court upheld the rules. The

California Supreme Court has now been

asked to review the case.

Underwood v. Compoy

(U.S. Court of Appeals)

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.

- v/ UVENILE

OFFENDERS

Arias and Bolton v. California Youth

Authority

(California Court of Appeal)

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 in-

mates' rights of religious freedom and

ACLU Legal Docket

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.)

In October, the Court of Appeal upheld

the CYA's right to install and maintain the

bugging devices.

In re Jerald C.

(California Supreme Court)

Parents of a juvenile offender who is

placed in custody do not have to reimburse

the state for the support of the child as a

result of a May decision by the state

Supreme Court. The ruling invalidated Sec-

tion 602 of the State Welfare and Institu-

tions code which held parents liable for

"such payment.

The ACLU had argued as amicus

curiae that because both

`criminal statutes and its incarceration

statutes facilities serve special societal _

needs, the costs of incarcerating a juvenile

offender must not be borne by only a few

citizens - the offender's parents -but is the

responsibility of the state. The ACLU

argued that when the government elects to

use its judicial machinery to segregate a

child from his family based on a finding of

juvenile misconduct rather than parental

neglect, it must subsidize the incarceration

it demands.

Christopher T. v. San Francisco Unified

School District

(U.S. District Court)

The ACLU-NC joined the national

ACLU's Childrens Rights Project and Legal

Services for Children in a class action suit

on behalf of disabled children who were

denied educational benefits accorded them

by law.

In violation of the provisions of the

Education for all Handicapped Children

Act, parents of handicapped children in San

Francisco and elsewhere have been forced

to give up custody of their children in order

to receive financial assistance for the cost-

ly residential education their children re-

quire.

The, District Court granted the plaintiffs'

motion for partial summary judgment com-

pelling the school district to assume the

cost of residential placements for the two

plaintiffs and to return both children to the

legal custody of the parents. Settlement

discussions to reach a class-wide resolu-

_ tion of the problem are proceeding.

wr amas

McCoy et al. v. Hearst Corporation et

al.

(California Court of Appeal)

The appeal of 1.6 million dollar libel

judgment against two former San Fran-

cisco Examiner reporter Raul Ramirez and

freelance writer Lowell Bergman was

argued in February and will be reargued by

the ACLU in the Court of Appeal in

February, 1985.

The seven figure libel judgment, award-

ed by a San Francisco jury in 1979, was the

result of 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.

The case strikingly documents the

potential of libel suits to limit journalistic

inquiry into the activities of public officials.

Pittsburgh School Employees

(California Court of Appeal)

An amicus brief by the ACLU in the

the state's (c)

Court of Appeal argues 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.

rad Nae,

THE RIGHTS

oe

Wd .444

Fiat 5to ae

University of California Nuclear

Weapons Labs Conversion Project v.

Lawrence Livermore Laboratory

(California Court of Appeal)

In December, Lawrence Livermore

Laboratory agreed to a judgment permitting

the U.C. Nuclear Weapons Labs Conversion

Project access to the Lab's Visitors Center

for anti-nuclear education materials and for

slide and film showings about the dangers

of nuclear weapons. The settlement follow-

ed an April state Court of Appeal ruling that

the anti-nuclear group has the right to use

the Visitors Center and auditorium at the

Lab. to distribute their educational

materials.

The ACLU represented the Project in

this landmark First Amendment lawsuit. In

1980, the superior court issued an injunc-

- tion allowing the group to use the Lab's

facilities for their First Amendment ac-

tivities; however, lawyers for the University

of California, which administers the Lab for

the U.S. Department of Energy, appealed

the lower court decision.

Allende v. Shultz (and other visa cases)

(U.S. Court of Appeals)

The ACLU-NC and the national ACLU fil-

ed four lawsuits challenging the Reagan

Administration's visa denials to Latin

critics including Tomas Borge, Hortensia

Allende, and two Cuban women leaders.

The ACLU argued the denials abridge the

freedom of speech and assembly

guaranteed by the First Amendment. -

In March, the district court upheld the

visa denials and the ACLU is appealing that

decision.

ACLU v. Murphy

(San Francisco Superior Court)

The ACLU filed a suit under the Califor-

nia Public Records act seeking records per-

taining 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 in-

telligence information by the San Francisco

Police Department.

Franklet v. U.S.

(U.S. Court of Appeals)

The ACLU is representing over a dozen

war tax resisters who are challenging a

1982 amendment to the Internal Revenue

Code which imposes a $500 penalty on per-

sons who filed a `frivolous' income tax

return. The ACLU argues 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 cons-

cience. In addition, the ACLU asserts 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.

ACLU affiliates are handling more than

half a dozen cases in other states challeng-

ing the imposition of the frivolous return

penalty.

Monterey County Democratic Central

Committee v. U.S. Postal Service

. (U.S. District Court)

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 declara-

tion that the U.S. Postal Service regulation

forbidding `partisan' groups to register

voters at post offices was unconstitutional.

In August, the court ordered the

postmaster to allow the group to register

voters in time for the registration deadline

for the November elections. However, in

December, the same judge refused to grant

a permanent injunction prohibiting the ban

on registering voters by partisan groups

and the case is being appealed.

Washburn v. City of Berkeley

(Alameda County of Superior Court)

The ACLU is representing several in-

dividuals who signed a statement in the

Berkeley voters handbook forthe November

1984 election who were sued by opponents

for allegedly making false statements

about a ballot measure.

After an agreement was reached cover-

ing changes in statements, the opponents

of the measure asked the court to award

them attorney's fees for bringing the

lawsuit. The ACLU claims that an award of

attorneys fees under such circumstances

will have a severe chilling effect on the will-

ingness of persons to sign ballot

arguments in the voters handbooks in the

future. In January 1985 the superior court

granted attorneys fees and the ACLU is ap-

pealing.

POA v. NAACP

(California Court of Appeal)

In an amicus brief filed in March, the

ACLU asserts 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.

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. (In 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 unconstitu-

tional under the First Amendment.

Schmid v. Lovette

(California Court of Appeal)

This year the Court of Appeal upheld an

award of attorney's fees to the ACLU ina

case in which the ACLU challenged the use

of a McCarthy era loyalty oath as a prere-

quisite for employment by the Richmond

Unified School District. The superior court

had previously struck down the oath as un-

3

constitutional and prohibited its use in

1981.

EMI Santa Rosa Limited Partnership v.

Sonoma County Nuclear Weapons

Freeze Campaign

(Sonoma County Superior Court)

In 1982 the ACLU won a preliminary in-

junction against restrictive rules for

political campaigners at a Santa Rosa

shopping center. The mall was subsequent-

ly sold and in January 1984 the new owners

issued new rules -- more restrictive than the

earlier ones -- including a limitation on cam-

paigning activity to once every six months,

no access on weekends and holidays and

no solicitation of donations.

In January the mall went to court to pre-

vent an anti-nuclear group and others from

leafleting in the mall. The ACLU filed a

countersuit two weeks later on behalf of the

campaigners. In February, the court issued

a preliminary injunction against the mall

and allowed the groups to carry out their

First Amendmeni Activites at the shopping

center.

Taxpayers for Vincent v. Los Angeles

City Council

(U.S. Supreme Court)

The U.S. Supreme Court struck a major

blow at poor people's speech in this case

where they upheld a city ordinance banning

the placing of election posters on public

utility poles because the posters created

"visual clutter."

The ACLU presented a friend of the

court brief in the case arguing that an ab-

solute ban on the posting of political signs

violates the First Amendment and

eliminates one of the only effective means

by which the economically disadvantaged

can participate in the electoral process.

Women's 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 or-

dinance was unconstitutional but stated

that the city could ban the WILPF signs

because they advocate illegal activity, i.e.,

not registering for the draft. Both sides are

appealing the decision and the ACLU is

representing WILPF on the appeal.

Carr v. Warden and Pacifica

(California Court of Appeal)

When Friends of Pacifica, an en- .

vironmental group, was sued by members

of the city Planning Commission for slander

based on a statement made by the

organization's chair and reported in a local

newspaper during the campaign for a local

growth control measure, the ACLU defend-

ed the group.

In 1982, the San Mateo Superior Court

dismissed the $125,000 slander suit, agree-

ing with the ACLU argument that

statements made by the chairperson of

Friends of Pacifica during the campaign

were expressions of opinion and thus pro-

tected under law. That decision was upheld

by the Court of Appeal in July.

Franklin v. Stanford

(California Court of Appeal)

In 1972, during the height of the Vietnam

War, Stanford University professor Bruce

Franklin was fired for speeches he made

during campus protests. In December, 1982,

after a decade of hearings and litigation,

the ACLU filed its challenge to Franklin's

dismissal in the state Court of Appeal.

The ACLU challenge allows the ap-

pellate court to consider for the first time in

4

this lengthy case whether, as the ACLU is

arguing, Franklin's constitutional rights

were violated by the Stanford firing.

Robbins v. Superior Court

(California Supreme Court)

Sacramento County requires

employable persons receiving general

assistance live in a poorhouse as a condi-

tion of county support. In a case challeng-

ing the poorhouse for indigents, the ACLU

is arguing as a friend of the court that the

involuntary poorhouse condition violates

the right to privacy, freedom of movement

and due process.

Rush v. Obledo

(U.S. Court of Appeals)

In April, the ACLU joined other public in-

terest and women's legal organizations in

filing an amicus brief arguing that state of-

ficials should not be allowed to conduct

warrantless surprise inspections of

residential child care centers.

The ACLU supports the district court rul-

ing that warrantless searches of private

family day care homes by agents of the

Department of Social Services violate the

Fourth Amendment.

Fort Help v. Municipal Court

(Alameda County Superior Caurt)

The ACLU is representing a methadone

program in its attempts to protect the con-

fidentiality of clients' records against a

search by Berkeley police officers. The

court ruled the September 1983 search was

illegal and the ACLU is seeking civil

remedies from the City of Berkeley.

that ,

The ACLU was a friend of the court on

behalf of an unlisted phone company

subscriber arguing that the warrantless

search by a San Bernadino sheriff's deputy

violated the privacy provisions of the

California Constitution and that the

evidence obtained as a result of the search

had to be excluded.

Citizens for a Better Environment v. Ci-

ty 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 or-

dinance is unconstitutional as it violates

the canvassers' privacy and their First

Amendment right to communicate with the

people of Vallejo.

Cohen v. Superior Court

(California Court of Appeal)

The ACLU filed an amicus brief in the

Court of Appeal challenging the constitu-

tionality of a San Francisco ordinance

passed in 1981 establishing a comprehen-

sive regulatory system for the very broadly

defined category of ``escort services." The

ACLU is asking that the ordinance be struck

down because the constitutional guarantee

of privacy is violated by its requirement that

escort services maintain a daily register,

open to the police and health departments,

showing the names and adresses of

patrons, their escorts, times and places

where escort services took place and the

fee charged.

People v. Chapman

(California Supreme Court)

Ingersoll v. Palmer

(California Court of Appeal)

The California Supreme Court upheld

the principle of personal privacy in ruling

that the police, acting without a search war-

rant, are prohibited from obtaining the

name and address of an unlisted telephone

Charging that the police roadblocks set

-up to deter drunk drivers are in violation of

the Fourth Amendment, the California Con-

stitution, and California law, the ACLU filed

suit in November on behalf of four Califor-

nia taxpayers to prohibit the use of, such

Janese and Becker v. Letona

(San Francisco Superior Court)

The ACLU successfully defended a vic-

tim of police abuse when he was sued by

two police officers for filing a complaint

against them with the San Francisco Inter-

nal 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.

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.

Ramey v. Murphy

(San Francisco Superior Court)

The ACLU has appealed 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 would not

otherwise be punished by legal means.

During a lengthy and complex trial in

1982, the ACLU had sought an injunction

and a declaration that the bad faith en-

forcement by the police of Section 647c of

the state Penal Code was unconstitutional.

Evidence produced at the trial indicated

Be Free FROM UNREADNABLE SeARCH AND SEIZURE

MW -Taz a a ae

lawsuit was filed following the establish-

ment of a roadblock in Burlingame and the

announcement by several other police

departments and the California Highway

Patrol that they were planning to set up

roadblocks during the holiday season.

In December, the court agreed to hear

_arguments in the case in the future but

refused to issue an immediate order halting

the holiday season roadblocks.

roadblocks throughout the state. The

ay CAN S Ween Tus Docker"

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.

subscriber from the telephone company.

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

Enclosed is my tax-deductible contribution of

c $1000 (c)$500 0$250 0$100 0$

Name

Address

City State Zip

Phone

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.

(o ee me ew eo om om om ow ew ew ee ee Oe OP Se ee ee eam em)

Game GED GED GEE GED GED GED GED GE GED GEE GED Gu ame a= amp awe see ww SP SD @ @ GS ap Gp a =!

Oliver v. U.S.

(U.S. Supreme Court)

In a landmark decision whose _ per-

nicious effects will be felt for years to

come, the U.S. Supreme Court held that

Americans have no reasonable expectation

of privacy in the land surrounding their

homes. Stating that even fenced and guard-

ed fields are not protected by the Fourth

Amendment, the court held that even if the

police commit trespass, their entry is not

"unreasonable". As a result, the police can

move onto an individual's land and surveil

his activities from that vantage point full-

time for weeks or months and the Fourth

Amendment would not be offended at all.

The ACLU-NC was amicus in this case

which stemmed from the arrest of a retired

farmer by government agents who, without

warrants, drove on to his property, passing

four "No Trespassing" signs and a locked

metal gate where they found a marijuana

field a mile from the farmer's house which

was apparently being cultivated by tenants.

The ACLU argued that the ``open fields" ex-

ception to the Fourth Amendment should

only justify warrentless searches if the .

owner of the land has not exhibited an in-

tent to retain privacy.

ACLU Legal Docket

that 94% of the people arrested under 647c

have their charges dropped at their first ap-

pearance in court and that less than one in

200 persons is actually convicted of

obstruction. The ACLU appeal argues that

since the courts have struck down vagrancy

and loitering laws, the police now sweep

the streets of undesirables as they had

under the old laws, they just avoid submit-

ting thearrests for prosecution.

Britt v. Police Commission

(San Francisco Superior Court)

Despite the fact that San Francisco

voters approved the establishment of the

Office of Citizen Complaints in the

November 1982 election to investigate com-

plaints of police investigation replacing the

police department-run Internal Affairs

Bureau, the OCC was not completely fund-

ed by the City. The ACLU filed a suit to force

the San Francisco Police Commission to

consider a larger budget for the OCC as the

budget allocated is insufficent for the OCC

to carry out all necessary investigations.

The court ruled in March that resolutions of

the suit was premature.

Sundance v. Municipal Court -

(California Supreme Court)

The ACLU filed a brief 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

brief argues that people cannot constitu-

tionally be subjected to arrest, booking, and

incarceration when arresting officers

reasonably know that the persons arrested

will not be prosecuted or convicted.

Penny v. Fremont

(Contra Costa Superior Court)

In September, the ACLU finally resolved (c)

a landmark settlement with the City of Fre-

mont limiting strip searches at the Fremont

Detention Facility. New guidelines issued

for all police personnel at the Fremont

Detention Center require that there be in-

dividualized suspicion warranted before

any strip search can be conducted and that

there must be a written record of the

reasons for the search and the search

itself.

The ACLU represented a Fremont

mother of four with no previous arrest

record who was strip searched at the deten-

tion facility for failure to pay a dog license

fee for a dog which she no longer owned. As

part of the settlement, the strip search vic-

tim was awarded monetary damages. Prior

to the settlement, Fremont had a policy of

randomly strip searching all persons de-

tained in the jail without individualized

suspicion that the person was carrying con-

traband.

Scott v. Oakland

(Contra Costa Superior 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 in- -

formed that her father was en route to the

jail with bail money.

The case is still pending in superior

court. :