vol. 51, no. 7

aclu news

NON PROFIT

ORGANIZATION

EES, POSTAGE

PAID

Permit No. 4424

San Francisco, CA

Volume LI

December 1986

No. 7

_ High Court Reverses Libel Judgment

the California Supreme Court on

November 13 unanimously reversed a

$1.6 million libel judgment against two

_ reporters, Raul Ramirez and Lowell

Bergman, and a $3.0 million judgment

against the San Francisco Examiner and

the Hearst Corporation.

The court ruled that a series of articles

written by Ramirez and Bergman and

published in the Examiner in 1976 about

the way police inspectors Edward Erdelatz

and Frank McCoy and former Assistant

District Attorney Pierre Merle had

investigated and prosecuted a controversial

Chinatown murder case were not written

with "actual malice."

The three officials filed a libel suit against

the reporters and the newspaper for accusing

them of misconduct in the trial of 19-year-

old Chinatown youth Richard Lee who was

convicted of killing Poole Leong in 1972.

The seven-figure libel judgment was

awarded by a San Francisco jury in 1979

_and upheld by the state Court of Appeal

in 1985.

I: a major victory for press freedom,

Reporter Raul Ramirez

ACLU-NC cooperating attorney Arthur

Brunwasser and staff attorney Margaret

Crosby represented the reporters on appeal.

The reversal opinion, written by Chief

Justice Rose Bird, was based on constitu-

tional decisions `which give special free

speech protection under libel laws to reports

about public officials.

Under a previous U.S. Supreme Court

ruling, a public official cannot recover

damages for libel unless there is clear and

convincing proof "of a knowing falsehood

or of reckless disregard for the truth." After

an independent review of the evidence, the

state Supreme Court ruled that this

standard had not been met.

According to Brunwasser, "It is unfor-

tunate that it took ten years to overturn

the multi-million dollar judgment which had

no merit from the beginning. The existence

of the judgment over ten years created a

chilling effect on investigative journalism."

The charge of libel was based primarily

on quotations from a sworn statement by

a key prosecution witness, Thomas Porter,

who said that the police officers had

esponding to a letter from the

Recs the University of

California (Berkeley) announced on

December 9 that it will temporarily suspend

its program of drug testing student athletes

and enter into discussions with the ACLU

about the constitutionality of the tests.

Applauding the University's decision,

ACLU-NC cooperating attorney Cliff

Palefsky said, "In light of recent legal

developments, many companies and other

institutions which had embarked on drug

testing have decided that there are serious

constitutional problems involved.

"We are pleased that the University has

agreed to temporarily suspend and reeval-

uate its drug testing program," Palefsky

added.

In the fall of 1986, the University

instituted a drug testing program for all male

athletes involved in intercollegiate sports.

At the request of student athletes opposed

- to drug testing, the ACLU-NC agreed to

challenge the drug testing as an unconsti-

tutional violation of student privacy rights.

A lawsuit, prepared by Palefsky,

ACLU-NC cooperating attorney John

Hillsman and ACLU-NC staff attorneys

Margaret Crosby and Edward Chen, was

to be filed in Alameda County Superior

Court on December 10 on behalf of the

Associated Students of the University of

California (ASUC), track and field athlete

Joseph Bourg, and Alameda County

taxpayer Neil Horton.

ASUC Vice-President for Campus Affairs

Tom Malinoswki said, "Each invasion of

privacy that we allow sets a precedent for

the next invasion of privacy. The time to

resist is at the beginning. We are simply

trying to say that the University cannot

search everyone, the innocent as well as the

UC Suspends Drug Tests

guilty, in order to find the guilty."

Track athlete Bourg added, "In opposing

drug testing, I do not condone drug use

among athletes. I simply don't believe that

testing is an appropriate way to address the

drug problem.

"Testing removes the responsibility for the

safety of the athlete from the coach and

the institution and places it in the hands

of the laboratory analyst. I don't want to

be a hero. I just want to do what's right

for myself, my fellow athletes, and students,"

Bourg said.

Attorney Palefsky said, "We do not call

these negotiations because we do not

negotiate on constitutional rights. We are

entering into the discussions in good faith

and are hopeful that the University will

recognize that random drug testing of

student athletes is unconstitutional."

The ACLU has successfully argued in

other court cases that random drug testing

violates both the Fourth Amendment of the

U.S. Constitution and the privacy rights

guaranteed by Article 1, Section 1 of the

California Constitution.

JUST SAY

Toa

DRUG TESTING

ASUS

UC Berkeley athletes sported these campaign buttons in their fight against drug testing.

The filing of the ACLU-NC lawsuit was

postponed as a result of the University's

December 9 decision to temporarily suspend

testing and agreement to enter into

discussions. The first meeting between the

University and the ACLU-NC was set for

December 17.

In October, the ACLU-NC won the first

court order in the state of California halting

company-wide drug testing of employees at

a Contra Costa oil refinery. Also in October,

the ACLU of Colorado filed the first lawsuit

in the nation on behalf of student athletes

who oppose drug testing.

physically assaulted him to get his

cooperation and that Merle wrote a script

from which he testified. After the articles

were written, Porter changed his story and

stated that he lied about official misconduct.

The three officials accused the reporters

and the Examiner of recklessly publishing

Porter's accusations without trying to verify

their truth.

Investigations

The court cited an extensive 18-month

investigation and several discoveries which

corroborated Porter's testimony as evidence

that the reporters "did not possess a

subjective awareness of probable falsity" at

the time the articles were published.

"Porter's charges that he had been

coerced, struck and otherwise improperly

induced to testify are not inherently

improbable," wrote Bird.

The court noted that the plaintiffs' charge

that it was reckless to rely on statements

by Porter, a prisoner with something to gain,

were weakened by the fact that the law

enforcement officials themselves relied

heavily on Porter's testimony.

During the trial court proceedings, the

plaintiffs made many irrelevant accusations

about reporter Bergman's personal and

political past. The court did not rule on

whether the trial court erred in admitting

such statements.

Bergman, now a CBS producer for "60

Minutes," responding to the decision, said

he feels like he's "being released from a

10-year prison sentence."

Ramirez, currently an assistant city editor

at the Oakland Tribune, said, "We were right

in the first place."

Attorney Crosby noted, "It is sadly ironic

that this major press freedom decision

written by Chief Justice Bird is of great

benefit to the Examiner-a newspaper

which editorially campaigned against the

Chief Justice and Associate Justices Joseph

Grodin and Cruz Reynoso in the recent

retention elections.

"Perhaps now the Examiner and other

newspapers who value their own constitu-

tional rights will realize the importance of

an independent judiciary," Crosby added.

aclu news

december 1986

illof Rights Day Celebration

Paul Winternit.

Keynote speaker Laurence Tribe with ACLU-NC chair Nancy Pemberton (center) and

executive director Dorothy Ehrlich.

am honored to address the group which

Attorney General Meese calls the

"criminals' lobby," said constitutional

scholar Laurence H. Tribe, and 800

members of the "criminal's lobby" roared

their approval. The occasion was the 14th

annual ACLU-NC Bill of Rights Day

Celebration on December 7 at the Sheraton

Palace Hotel in San Francisco.

The event, emceed by ACLU-NC

chairperson Nancy Pemberton, featured a

keynote address by Tribe, the Tyler Professor

of Constitutional Law at Harvard Univer-

- sity; presentation of the Earl Warren Civil

Liberties award to sanctuary activist Sister

Darlene Nicgorski; and the Lola Hanzel

Advocacy Award to ACLU's volunteer

librarian Clara MacDonald (see box).

The event, which is the culmination of

the ACLU-NC fundraising campaigns and

commemorates the anniversary of the

signing of the Bill of Rights, opened with

an Annual Report by executive director

Dorothy Ehrlich.

"In a terrible climate for civil liberties,"

Ehrlich said, "the activists of the ACLU have

made some remarkable gains this year. We

won a major victory for freedom of the press,

maintained funding for reproductive rights

for poor women, and won the first court

order in the nation halting company-wide

drug testing of employees."

Ehrlich noted that in a period "when

minorities are scapegoated, when three

distinguished jurists were removed from the

California Supreme Court, and when the

Attorney General is using the Justice

Department as an ideological engine to

attack civil liberties," it is the "scrappy,

independent, and dedicated individuals of

the ACLU" who ensure that the ACLU "can

hold our own, make gains, and be ready

for another year."

Keynote speaker Tribe echoed Ehrlich's

theme, charging that under the Reagan

Winternitz

Administration "the only rights that count -

are the rights of those in power. There is

a double standard operating in this country,"

he said, "law and order for those on the

`outside' and freewheeling, gun-toting

policies for those on the inside."

To underscore his point, Tribe noted the

difference between the treatment given to

honoree Sister Darlene Nicgorski and other

sanctuary defendants who were prosecuted

by the government because they gave shelter

to victims of terror in Central America,

while Colonel Oliver North who violated

the Boland Amendment, the Anti-Terrorism

Act, and other U.S. laws was `deemed a

"hero" by the President.

"A few months ago," Tribe noted,

"Attorney General Meese-the strict

constructionist-said that people would not

be suspects if they had not broken the law.

Now, the strict constructionist is adamant

that Lt. Colonel Oliver North is `innocent

until proven guilty.'

"This is more than the ordinary amount

of doublespeak," Tribe said.

Jingoism

But the distinguished constitutional

scholar said that he is optimistic that

perhaps the pendulum which had swung

toward "greed in the boardroom, jingoism

in the White House basement, and Big

Brother in the bedroom" has begun to swing

back.

Earl Warren Civil Liberties Award winner

Sister Darlene Nicgorski.

"The men in the White House may be

patriotic men according to their lights, but,

alas, their lights are dim," he said. "I believe

they will pave a road that Americans will

refuse to take. It will be `the road not taken."

"I used to take solace just in the struggle

itself," Tribe concluded, "but now I am

beginning to feel the stirrings of victory."

Attorney James Brosnahan, who served

as defense counsel in the Tucson sanctuary

trial, presented the Earl Warren Civil

Liberties Award to Sister Darlene Nicgorski.

"Whatever has been fought for and achieved

in this country," he said, "has been won

by people like Sister Darlene."

Nicgorski accepted the award before a

standing ovation, saying, "I don't know if

Lola Hanzel

Advocacy

d Winner

this is a first-the ACLU giving an award Awar

to the nun, but you know that nuns are

called the abused women of the church!"

The sanctuary defendant who was

convicted of conspiracy and other charges

as a result of her efforts to shelter

Salvadoran and Guatemalan refugees said,

"IT accept this award in the name of our

sisters and brothers in Central America. It

is they who give us courage, and if this

award helps give further credence to their

struggle, then it will help raise the voices

who otherwise would never be heard."

Thanking the ACLU for its support of

the defendants, and particularly the work

of ACLU-NC public information director

Elaine Elinson who helped coordinate the

media work during the nine-month

sanctuary trial in Arizona, Nicgorski

promised, "Although this Administration is

pledged to silence the truth, we will not

stop working for justice."

She said we must fight against "the Moral

Majority, the Jesus Cruz's [the chief

government informant who infiltrated the

sanctuary movement and bugged church

services], and the absolutizing of evil as

communism which allows our society to go

uncriticized."

2 N

=

ss

SN

2

os

-

Ss

Q

Clara MacDonald

lara MacDonald works at one

desk in one corner of one small

room in the ACLU-NC, but her

work literally touches everyone at the

affiliate. For the past five years,

MacDonald, a retired librarian, has

organized the massive ACLU-NC subject

files so that anyone doing research can

easily find information on everything

from Abortion to Zoning.

At the December 7 Bill of Rights Day

Celebration, MacDonald was rewarded

for her efforts with the Lola Hanzel

Advocacy Award. This award was

established to honor all ACLU-NC

volunteers and is presented each year at

the annual Celebration to an individual

who has made an extraordinary contri-

bution to the organization in a voluntary

capacity. It is named in memory of Lola

Hanzel, a dedicated ACLU volunteer

who served the affiliate for more than

a decade before her death in 1980.

Bill of Rights Committee chair

Richard Grosboll, on presenting the

award to MacDonald, said that her skill

and decades of experience as a profes-

sional librarian made MacDonald a

natural to tackle the ACLU-NC subject

files.

Grosboll also spoke of MacDonald's

long history as an activist, including her

work with the California Youth Legis-

lature, San Francisco's Russian War

Relief Center, the California Labor

School, and the ILWU.

On receiving the award, MacDonald

said she found the ACLU to be a

"stimulating, adventuresome atmos-

phere" in which to do her work. "People

often think of librarians as working in

an `ivory tower'-but the swirl of activity

at the ACLU is anything but," she said.

Ironic parallel

Nicgorski also drew the ironic parallel

between the prosecution of sanctuary

workers which was characterized by the

court as a "simple criminal alien smuggling

case" and the current treatment of

government officials involved in illegal arms

deals and siphoning of funds to the contras.

"If the Iranian arms deal was boiled down

to its basic ingredient, President Reagan

should be prosecuted on simple gun running

charges," she laughed.

Observing many longtime activists in the

ACLU audience, Nicgorski acknowledged

that in the past five years she had learned

a great deal through her work in Guatemala,

as a "refugee" in Mexico after her village

priest was assassinated and through her

underground railroad sanctuary work in the

Us: :

She said she valued "the words of Alice

Walker who said we must acknowledge

those who came before," and the call to

action from the German, Marxist theologian

Dorothy Sohle, "It doesn't matter at what

age or through what issue we come to

struggle for justice, as long as we come."

aclu news

issues a year. monthly except bi-monthly in January-February, June-July,

August-September and November-December

Published by the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California

Nancy Pemberton, Chairperson Dorothy Ehrlich, Executive Director

Elaine Elinson, Editor Marcia Gallo, Chapter Page -

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, Crvil Liberties.

aclu news

december 1986 3

Court Upholds Medi-Cal Abortion Funds

n November 21, the California

O Supreme Court upheld the August

Court of Appeal decision striking

down the Legislature's cuts in Medi-Cal

abortion funding. With a one-line order, the

state high court refused to grant a hearing

to the state health director appealing the

ruling that the cuts are unconstitutional.

For the ninth consecutive year, the

ACLU-NC representing a coalition of civil

rights groups, women's organizations, health

care providers, and taxpayers challenged the

Budget Act restrictions on the funds.

Because of the ACLU-NC's annual

lawsuits, Medi-Cal abortion funds have

been maintained for over 90,000 women and

teenagers in California who need them each

year.

Every year since 1978, the Legislature has

struck Medi-Cal abortion funds from the

Budget Act. In 1981, the California Supreme

Court struck down the Budget Act

provisions which would deny funds for

abortion while granting funds for other

aspects of childbearing.

ACLU-NC staff attorney Margaret

Crosby, though pleased with the Court's

decision, lashed out at the Legislature,

saying "Each year, despite the Court's ruling,

the Legislature goes through the charade

of cutting the funds and endangering the

lives and health of indigent women and

teenagers in California.

"This year, the Legislature's action was

even more disturbing as it followed on the

heels of a failed attempt by anti-choice

organizations to eliminate Medi-Cal

funding through the initiative process.

Those groups could not even get enough

signatures to qualify for the ballot.

"It makes you wonder who our elected

representatives are representing," Crosby

added.

For the first time, two Supreme Court

Justices, Malcom Lucas and newly-

appointed Edward Panelli, voted to hear

Horsewoman Wins the Day

esponding to an ACLU-NC sex

RR acini lawsuit, the San

Mateo Superior Court ruled on

November 12 that the all-male Mounted

Patrol in Woodside cannot exclude women

from membership as long as it maintains

its "symbiotic" relationship with the Sheriffs

Department.

The ACLU-NC represented Sonya

Sokolow, an experienced and accomplished

horsewoman, who sued the Mounted Patrol

and the San Mateo County Sheriff's

Department for sex discrimination after

unsuccessfully attempting to become a

member of the all-male Patrol for almost

a decade.

In agreement with arguments from

ACLU-NC cooperating attorney Leigh Ann

Huntington, the court ruled that the

Mounted Patrol's policy and practice of

limiting its membership to men violates the

_ equal protection guarantees of the California

Constitution and the Fourteenth Amend-

ment of the federal Constitution.

The Patrol is not able to claim special

exemption from these guarantees as a

_ private organization because of its affiliation

with the county Sheriffs Department.

Therefore, the Court ordered, the Patrol

must either admit Sokolow to membership

and thus end its sex discrimination or sever

its relationship with the Sheriff's

Department.

The Sheriffs Department has actively

maintained a close relationship with the

Patrol by deputizing all Patrol members,

assigning a salaried Sheriffs Department

employee to supervise training of members

of the Patrol in search-and-rescue tech-

niques, conducting security checks on

candidates for membership and calling on

the Patrol to assist the Department in

searching for lost persons. Patrol members

also wear insignias of the Department on

their uniforms. The partnership has been

furthered by the Sheriffs position as

honorary Commander-in-Chief of the

Patrol.

"I belong to four equestrian clubs and

would like to belong to the Mounted Patrol,

too," said Sokolow. "It would combine my

civic and equestrian interests and give me

a chance to serve my community in yet

another way-a way in which I am well

qualified."

According to the court, "[A]part from

her sex, Ms. Sokolow is fully qualified for

membership in the Mounted Patrol." In

addition to directing the Patrol and the

Sheriff's Department to sever their

relationship or admit Sokolow, the Court

also directed the Sheriffs Department to

call upon Sokolow for search and rescue

training and missions in situations which

normally involve members of the Patrol.

Fund Campaigns Near Goal

With one third of the budget year

remaining, the ACLU-NC Development

Department reports that gifts and pledges

to the affiliate are slightly over 2/3 of the

1986-87 goal.

Davis Riemer, Development Committee

chair, noted that the overall goal of the three

fundraising compaigns-Strategic Gifts,

Founders Circle, and Bill of Rights-is set

at $450,000. "We are pleased that we have

raised almost $300,000 of that ambitious

goal," Riemer said.

Riemer noted that December is a

critical-and traditional- month for gifts

to the ACLU-NC because of tax. benefits.

"This is especially true this year," he noted,

"because of the pending tax law changes."

The tax law changes make it more

advantageous for donors to give tax-

deductible gifts to the ACLU-NC Founda-

tion before the end of 1986.

ACLU-NC Board chair Nancy Pember-

ton urged all members and supporters who

have not yet pledged a gift to the ACLU-NC

to use the remaining days of December to

do so. "Although we still have a long way

to go to reach our goal, we are confident

that our dedicated solicitors will press on

this month to complete the task so that we

can confidently proceed with our budgeted

programs for next year," she said.

To make a tax-deductible donation to

the ACLU-NC Foundation, use the coupon

on p. 4 of the enclosed 1986 Legal Docket.

the state's appeal. In previous years, Justice

Lucas was the sole vote for reconsidering

the state's arguments. Four votes on the

seven-member court are needed to review

a case.

Pro-Choice

Pamphlets

In light of new state and federal

court rulings, the ACLU-NC has just

published an updated version of the

brochure How Do | Make My

Choice?: Questions and Answers

about Abortion, Birth Control, Ster-

ilization, and Other Reproductive

Rights in California.

To order: Single copies are free

(bulk orders are $10 per 100) and are

available from: Publications Depart-

ment, ACLU-NC, 1663 Mission Street,

San Francisco, CA 94103.

INS Ban Stays

he U.S. Court of Appeals reconsi-

dered its earlier ruling in the case

of International Molders Union vy.

INS and determined on December | that

the preliminary injunction prohibiting INS

agents from unlawfully detaining and

arresting workers did not have to be lifted

prior to the trial.

In September, the Court of Appeals had

ruled that these restrictions on government

immigration raids had to be lifted even

though the case would not come to trial

before the summer of 1987.

The landmark injunction was issued by

U.S. District Court Judge Richard Aguilar

in October 1985 in a class action lawsuit

filed by the ACLU-NC, MALDEE CRLA,

the Asian Law Caucus, and the National

Lawyers Guild challenging a nationwide

sweep by the INS called Operation Jobs

and subsequent INS raids.

Had the preliminary injunction been

lifted, thousands of workers, primarily of

Hispanic background, would have again

been subject to artibrary detention by the

INS.

The case will now proceed to trial before

Judge Aguilar in U.S. District Court; the

- injunction will stay in place until the end

of the trial.

Club Must Hire Women

; `ea private, all-male Bohemian Club

cannot refuse to hire women, ruled

the state Court of Appeal on

November 20.

The Fair Employment and Housing

Commission (FEHC) had earlier ruled

illegal the Club's disciminatory policy, but

the FEHC ruling was reversed by Sonoma

County Superior Court Judge Kenneth

Eymann who wrote, "[MlJale gender is a

bonafide occupational qualification at the

Club."

The FEHC appealed the lower court's

decision, and the ACLU-NC and California

Women Lawyers filed an amicus brief which

argued that certain minimal adjustments by

the Club could afford the women equal

employment opportunity while protecting

members' privacy rights.

The court's three-member panel unanim-

ously agreed with the ACLU that associ-

ational rights of Club members can be

regulated to further equal employment

opportunity. According to~ the opinion

written by Justice William Newsom, "Even

[if] we assume that the members' associ-

ational rights would somehow be constricted

by the Club's forced hiring of women, [such]

infringement would be justified by the

State's compelling interest in eradicating

employment discrimination."

The court also noted that "limited federal

regulation of discrimination does not

necessarily indicate a congressional intent

to preempt state laws with broader anti-

discrimination provisions," concluding that

"states can extend anti-discrimination laws

to areas not covered by Title VII."

The Bohemian Club is a century-old,

exclusive organization that counts among

its 2,000 male members Ronald Reagan,

George Bush, and William Buckley, Jr.

Gov. Anaya Commutes

Death Sentences

n the day before Thanksgiving, New

O Mexico Governor Toney Anaya

commuted the death sentences of

all inmates on New Mexico's Death Row.

Governor Anaya stated that after much

soul-searching he wanted to take this action

before leaving the governorship at the end

of 1986.

ACLU-NC executive director Dorothy

Ehrlich sent the following telegram to

Governor Anaya, "On behalf of the 20,000

members of the American Civil Liberties

Union of Northern California, we applaud

your courageous and principled action of

commuting all of the death sentences for

inmates in New Mexico.

"The ACLU has long opposed the death

penalty as cruel and unusual punishment

and has fought on many fronts-in the

courts, in the Legislature, and in the public

realm-to have it abolished.

"Your bold action gives greater meaning

to this long fight and inspires all of us who

oppose capital punishment with the hope

that this brutal policy of state executions

may someday be abolished," Ehrlich stated.

All opponents of the death penalty are

urged to write their support to Governor

Anaya and to send copies of your letters

and telegrams to Amnesty International.

Please send correspondence to the following

addresses:

Governor Toney Anaya

c/o Governors Office

State House

Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501

Amnesty International

Death Penalty Project

633 S. Shatto Place

- Los Angeles, CA 90005

ag

-_

aclu news

4 december 1986

with:

MC: Kris Welch-kpra

Sunday, January 18

8 PM

$8.00 at the door

COURT JESTERS

Comics attack the attack on

the California Supreme Court and Civil Liberties

Doug Fer rari-winner, 1984 S.F. Comedy Competition

Don Stevens, Bob Weider-special guests

an evening of political satire to benefit the ACLU-NC

Bill of Rights Campaign

Tickets: $7.00 in advance from all BASS outlets

LIPP'S

201 Ninth Street, S.F.

Your right to reproductive choice in 1987:

DON'T TAKE IT FOR GRANTED!

The events of the last year-from

attempts to qualify anti-abortion funding

measures for the ballot, to the near-

passage of a `parental consent' bill in

Sacramento, to Californias November

election results-clearly point to the need

for all of us who support reproductive

choice to make our voices heard, loudly

and clearly, NOW.

In the next year, we will surely have our

work cut out for us: two new bills have

already been introduced in the state

Legislature that would restrict teenagers

access to reproductive services, and the

fight to continue Medi-Cal funding for

abortion looms large.

Don't take your reproductive rights for

granted: join pro-choice advocates

throughout California on January 22-in

Sacramento and in your hometown-to

show your support for "Families for

Choice, Families by Choice." We already

know that the anti-choice forces are

planning a major showing in Sacramento

on January 22, complete with a telephone

hook-up to the highest level supporter in

the White House.

You Can:

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_1986.batch 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 join or help organize a morning

"Human Billboard" in your area

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_1986.batch 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 come to Sacramento for a noon rally

celebrating choice

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_1986.batch 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 lobby your elected representatives

Together, we can make a difference!

| ll work for "Families for Choice, Families by Choice'

| Name

| Address

Telephone

I'd like to:

L] come to Sacramento for the rally

CL) | can help with transportation

CJ other

(day)

LI I'll need help with transportation

Zip ee

(eve)

CL] join a delegation to lobby my representative in Sacramento

| Please return to: Pro-Choice Task Force, ACLU of Northern California, 1663 Mission

| Street, Suite 460, San Francisco, CA 94103, 415-621-2488.

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

LO take part in the "Human Billboard" in my area |

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

| Let us hear from you no later than January 16.

--- SS Ss A a GE GE suo coenees Gee comes oo

Board Meetings

B.A.R.K. BOARD MEETING: (Usually

fourth Thursday) The Chapter is reviewing

complaints on the compulsory drug testing

of the athletes at U.C. Berkeley. Volunteers

are needed to staff hotline. Contact Florence

Piliavin, 415-848-4752. or 415-848-5195.

EARL WARREN BOARD MEETING:

(Third Wednesday) Wednesday, December 17,

January 21, and February 18, 7:30 pm

prompt, Sumitomo Bank, 20th and Franklin

Streets, Oakland. Contact Rose Bonhag,

415-658-7977.

FRESNO BOARD MEETING: (Usually

third Wednesday) Contact Sam Gitchel for

details: 209-486-2411 (days), 209-442-0941

(evenings).

GAY RIGHTS BOARD MEETING: (Usu-

ally first Tuesday) January 6 and February

3, 7:00 pm, location to be decided. Call Doug

Warner for more information: 415-621-3900.

MARIN COUNTY BOARD MEETING:

(Third Monday) February 16; Film Benefit,

Friday, February 20. Contact Jack Butler,

415-453-0972 or June Festler, 415-479-7317.

MID-PENINSULA BOARD MEETING:

(Usually last Wednesday) Board will not meet;

the president is recovering from surgery.

Contact Harry Anisgard, 415-856-9186.

MONTEREY BOARD MEETING: (Usu-

ally fourth Tuesday) Board Meeting will not

be held in December. The next Board

meetings are Tuesday, January 27 and

Tuesday, February 24, 7:30 pm, Monterey

Library, Pacific and Jefferson Streets,

Monterey. BOARD MEETINGS ARE

OPEN TO ALL MEMBERS. Contact

Richard Criley, 408-624-7562.

MT. DIABLO BOARD MEETING: (Usu-

ally third Wednesday or third Thursday) The

Chapter is having a Christmas Party in lieu

of a Board Meeting, December 17, 7:30 pm.

Board Meeting schedule for 1987 is January

15, February 18, March 19, April 15, May

21, June 17, July 16. For location, contact

Andrew Rudiak, 415-932-5580.

NORTH PENINSULA BOARD MEET-

ING: (Second Monday) Contact Sid Scheiber,

415-345-8603.

Individual $20

( )

( ) This is a gift membership from

Name

Chapter Calendar

SACRAMENTO VALLEY BOARD

MEETING: (Usually second Wednesday)

Contact Joe Gunterman, 916-447-8053.

SAN FRANCISCO BOARD MEETING:

(Usually fourth Tuesday) Tuesday, January 27

and Tuesday, February 24, 6:00 pm,

ACLU-NC, 1663 Mission Street, Suite 460,

San Francisco. Contact Suzanne Donovan,

415-642-4890.

SANTA CLARA BOARD MEETING:

(Usually the first Tuesday) Tuesday, January

6 and Tuesday, February 3. Community Bank

Building, San Jose. For further information,

contact Michael Chatsky 408-379-4611.

SANTA CRUZ BOARD MEETING:

(Second Wednesday) January 14, 7:30 pm,

411 Feeder Street, Santa Cruz. Contact Bob

Taren, 408-429-9880.

SONOMA BOARD MEETING: Annual

Dinner Meeting, Friday, January 23, Druid's

Hall, Santa Rosa. Volunteers needed. Please

call 707-546-7711. For more information,

contact Colleen O'Neal 707-575-1156.

STOCKTON BOARD MEETING: (Third

Wednesday) Contact Eric Ratner,

209-948-4040 (evenings).

YOLO COUNTY BOARD MEETING:

(Fourth Thursday of each month) January

28. Contact Dan Abramson, 916-446-7701.

Field

Committee Meetings

FIELD COMMITTEE: Field Committee

Annual Priority Setting Session, Saturday,

January 31, 10:30 am. Contact Marcia Gallo,

415-621-2494.

PRO-CHOICE TASK FORCE: Wednesday,

January 14, 6:00 pm. Preparation for January

22, Roe v. Wade Anniversary in Sacramento

and throughout Bay Area. Contact Marcia

Gallo for location, 415-621-2494.

DRAFT OPPOSITION NETWORK: Con-

tact Judy Newman, 415-567-1527.

Give a Cause

for Claus

Join the ACLU

( ) Joint $30

Address

City

a

|

|

a

and

a

i

i

i

i

: and an additional contribution of $----

i

a

|

i

i

G

a

i

i

a

Zip

Return to ACLU-NC, 1663 Mission St., S.F. 94103

Lance aes aaa noneanmnaneadmanaunnaann acon

ACL

- American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Northern California

ACLU Fights for the Rights of...

Women

ACK

Committee to Defend Reproductive

Rights v. Kizer

(California Supreme Court)

In August, the state Court of Appeal struck

down the Legislature's cuts in Medi-Cal abortion

funding for the ninth consecutive year. The

appellate court ruled that the same cuts were

unconstitutional only a month after the ACLU-NC

filed its challenge to the 1986/87 Budget Act

restrictions on the funds. The state's petition for

review is pending before the California Supreme

Court.

The ACLU suit was filed on behalf of a coalition

of civil rights groups, women's organizations, health

care providers and taxpayers. The ACLU has

successfully challenged the cuts since 1978 when

the Legislature first restricted Medi-Cal funding for

abortion.

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 post13 week

abortions and post 20-week abortions was

thwarted when the ACLU intervened.

ACLU arguments stopped the issuance of a

Temporary Restraining Order and an injunction.

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.

Sokolow v. Mounted Patrol

(San Mateo County Superior Court)

In November, the San Mateo Superior Court

ruled that the all-male Mounted Patrol in Woodside

cannot exclude. women from membership as long

as it maintains its relationship with the sheriffs

department.

The ACLU represented an experienced and

accomplished horsewoman who sued the

Mounted Patrol and the San Mateo County Sheriff's

Department for sex discrimination after unsuc-

cessfully attempting to become a member of the

all-male Patrol for almost a decade.

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

0x00B0

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

,

should not be barred from employment in all other

jobs where they would not interact with members

in their private associational activities.

__a

Miunorities

A

Olagues v. Russoniello

(U.S. Court of Appeals)

Spanish- and Chinese-speaking voters

gained a major victory in August when the Ninth

Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that U.S. Attorney

Joseph Russoniellos 1982 probe of bilingual ballot

seekers violated the voters' constitutional rights.

In a 6-5 decision, the court determined that

language minority voters are a "suspect class'

entitled to special protection under the equal

protection clause.

Unless the government can prove that an

investigation of these voters is "necessary to

advance a compelling government interest," the

District Court is directed to issue injunctive and

declaratory relief to prevent future investigations.

International Molders v. Nelson

(U.S. Court of Appeals)

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in

September that recent restrictions of government

immigration raids on worksites must be lifted.

In October 1985, the U.S. District Court issued

a landmark preliminary injunction prohibiting INS

agents from entering worksites without a

particularized warrant or consent, and from

unlawfully questioning and detaining workers

without reasonable suspicion that the person is

unlawfully in the country.

The District Court ruling came ina class action

lawsuit filed in 1983 by the ACLU, MALDEF, CRLA,

the Asian Law Caucus and the NLG challenging

a nationwide sweep by the INS called Operation

Jobs and a subsequent series of INS raids.

Plaintiffs have petitioned for a rehearing in

the full Court of Appeals; otherwise, the injunction

will be lifted months before the trial challenging

the illegality of INS raids begins.

AN

Sanchez-Trujillo v. U.S.

(U.S. Court of Appeals)

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in

October that young urban males fleeing El

Salvador do not qualify for political asylum in the

United States as a persecuted "`social group."

The ACLU affiliates of Northern and Southern

California filed an amicus brief in the Ninth Circuit

Court of Appeals arguing that young urban males

from El Salvador should be granted political asylum

in the U.S., because they are singied out for

persecution by their own government.

The brief also argued that all Salvadorans in

the U.S. who fled the civil strife of their homeland

are entitled to protection under international

refugee law, and that they may not be repatriated

to El Salvador until the hostilities and human rights

abuses in the country cease.

A petition for rehearing in front of the full Court

of Appeals has been filed.

1956

LEGAL DOCKET

Youth

Arias and Bolton v. California Youth

Authority

(California Supreme Court)

The California Supreme Court ruled in

October that the use of an electronic listening

device in the chapel of a California Youth Authority

facility violates the religious freedom of the youthful

inmates.

The ACLU-NC filed an amicus brief in the

case arguing that a listening device violates

constitutional protection for privacy.

In 1982, the ACLU won a similar case before

the California Supreme Court that outlawed

electronic surveillance of adult inmates, Delancie

v. MacDonald.

2 ACLU LEGAL DOCKET 1986

Bennett v. Livermore United School

District

(California Court of Appeal) (continued)

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 school 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

principle 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.

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 has appealed; the

continuing litigation could affect public school

graduation ceremonies statewide.

Planned Parenthood v. Van de Kamp

(California Court of Appeal)

Privacy rights for minors were reinforced by

a unanimous ruling of the California Court of

Appeal in May that health professionals do not

have to report the voluntary sexual activity of

adolescents to law enforcement agencies.

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 required that health and

social work professionals file a report, or face

criminal prosecution, whenever an adolescent

under 14 sought prenatal care, an abortion,

treatment for a sexually-transmitted disease or

contraceptives.

The court agreed with the ACLU that the

reporting of adolescents voluntary sexual activity

violates the privacy guarantees of the California

Constitution, and would have prevented many

teenagers from seeking necessary and desirable

medical and psychological care.

People v. Stockton Pregnancy Control

Medical Clinic

(California Court of Appeal)

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.

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.

UNA

@)

~

Wn

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 eleven

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 the two-day trial in 1985, the court upheld

SP's denial but noted that the state laws barring

same-sex marriages discriminate against homo-

sexuals. The ACLU is appealing the ruling.

Johnson v. Orr

(U.S. District Court)

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 find that she had engaged

in homosexual activity or illegal conduct of any

kind.

The lawsuit charges that the Air Force violated

the former lieutenants 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 decision was upheld

by the Court of Appeals.

ez

Voters

ANN

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.

Common Cause of California v. Los

Angeles County

(Los Angeles Superior Court)

A July ruling from the Los Angeles Superior

Court could bring about the registration of

hundreds of thousands of eligible low-income and

minority voters. In April, the ACLU-NC joined the

Southern California affiliate in filing the lawsuit

requiring local government officials to institute

affirmative voter registration programs where there

is evidence of underregistration of low-income and

minority voters.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Human SERVE,

the Southwest Voter Registration Project and other

voting rights organizations.

LEE

Demonstrators

ANNA

Democratic National Convention cases

(Bermudez v. Murphy; Hawley v. Murphy; Tideman

v. Murphy)

A settlement was reached a week before the

trial was to begin in September between

demonstrators and the San Francisco Police

Department whose officers had been charged with

unwarranted brutality, including the illegal use of

horses and motorcycles to disperse demonstra-

tions surrounding the July 1984 Democratic

National Convention. The ACLU filed civil rights

suits in 1985 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 argued that such excessive use

of force is not only illegal but has a chilling effect

on the First Amendment rights of demonstrators.

The settlement includes both monetary damages

for the victims and changes in the crowd control

policy and practice of the San Francisco Police

Department.

California Stevedore and Ballast Company

v. Bay Area Free South Africa Movement

(San Francisco Superior Court)

In March, the ACLU prepared an overnight

amicus brief which succeeded in preventing a

shipping company from stopping anti-apartheid

protests against the unloading of South African

goods at San Franciscos Pier 80. The brief was

filed in response to a Temporary Restraining Order

sought by the California Stevedore and Ballast

Company in order to stop anti-apartheid

demonstrations at the docks.

The ACLU argued that the injunction sought

by the shipping company was too broad both in

terms of whom it would prevent from activity and

the kind of activity it would prevent.

Regents of the University of California v.

Campaign Against Apartheid

(Alameda Superior Court)

The ACLU filed an amicus brief in Alameda

Superior Court opposing an injunction sought by

the University of California-Berkeley to prevent

three separate anti-apartheid organizations, eleven

named individuals and 1,000 unnamed individuals

from erecting shanties on campus, symbolic of

the conditions under which South African blacks

must live.

The ACLU asked the court to prohibit the

large-scale use of summary banishment orders

by the University, and to regulate the shanties only

if expert testimony shows that regulation is

necessary to prevent a substantial fire hazard. The

court permitted limited regulation of the shanties.

People v. Brannon

(U.S. District 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 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 only acting

with intent to obstruct. The District Court denied

the petition.

_Ha

the Disabled

=z

ANAK

j

White v. Department of Developmental

Services

California Court of Appeal)

yey

The ACLU is appealing a May decision by

the Sacramento Superior Court that develoomen-

tally disabled children may not receive funding

for treatment of developmental disabilities unless

records of their intimate behavior are placed in

a centralized state computer.

The ACLU filed a lawsuit on behalf of two

children in March 1985 contending that the

collection and storage of the children's records

by the government violates their constitutional and

statutory rights of privacy.

ie

tr

-

Cs

=

(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

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.

eZ

the Press

DX

=

McCoy et al. v. Hearst Corporation et al.

(California Supreme Court)

In a major victory for press freedom, the

California Supreme Court unanimously overturned

a $1.6 million libel judgment against former San

Francisco Examiner reporter Raul Ramirez and-

freelance writer Lowell Bergman in November.

The seven-figure libel judgment, awarded 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 Court ruled that damages could not be

awarded, because the articles were not written

or published with "actual malice."

The ACLU represented the reporters, 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.

44

Prisoners

=

WA

Rios et al. v. McCarthy

(Sacramento Superior Court)

Mothers incarcerated in California prisons

were reunited with their babies following a 1985

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 affiliates of Northern

and Southern California and Legal Services for

Prisoners with Children charged that the

Department of Corrections was wrongfully

separating mothers from their infants. The

Temporary Restraining Order allowed certain

named plaintiffs to be placed in the program with

their children, and discovery is proceeding for the

larger class of plaintiffs.

Underwood v. Compoy

(U.S. District Court)

The ACLU is representing a black prisoner -

at Folsom who was given ten 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.

After the federal district court dismissed the

prisoner's lawsuit as frivolous, the federal appellate

court vacated the dismissal and ordered the lower

court to consider the value of the prisoner's First

Amendment claims. A trial is scheduled for

February, 1987.

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.

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 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 in the Court

of Appeals the new regulations as being

unconstitutionally vague and overbroad.

Toussaint v. McCarthy

(U.S. Court of Appeals)

This case was a major (and successful)

challenge to conditions of confinement for

prisoners in administrative segregation. It was

litigated by a coalition of public interest law firms

and pro bono private counsel, and relied heavily

on work by law students and paralegals. The ACLU

along with other groups filed an amicus brief in

the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals solely on the

issue of attorneys fees-that for the prevailing party

entitled to attorneys fees, work of paralegals and

law students should be computed at market rates

rather than at actual costs.

=

Death Row

Inmates

ANN

Davenport v. Vasquez

(Marin County Superior Court)

Charging that the administration of the Inmate

Welfare Fund is "unequal, unfair and oppressive"

for Death Row inmates, the ACLU filed a class

action suit in 1985 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 art work for the primary

source of income.

In re Neely

(California Court of Appeal)

The ACLU and the Prison Law Office filed

a habeas corpus petition in December 1985

challenging San Quentin's blanket denial of family

visiting privileges to Death Row inmates. The Marin

County Superior Court denied the petition and the

ACLU has appealed the ruling.

Vickers v. Ricketts

(U.S. Court of Appeals)

In August, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

reversed the death sentence of an Arizona inmate

who was not given the opportunity to present

evidence of emotional instability and who was

defended by incompetent counsel. The ACLU filed

the petition for habeas corpus in December 1985

after the sentence was upheld by the Arizona

Supreme Court.

The reversal was based on the trial court's

failure to instruct the jury on second degree

murder, a violation of due process which left the

jury with no middle option between conviction on

first degree murder and acquittal.

Unless it is reversed by the U.S. Supreme

Court, the case will return to the Arizona courts

for retrial.

And for the

Rights to.

EZ:

_ Free Expression

ANN

\

:

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.

Simpson v. San Francisco State

(San Francisco Superior Court)

The ACLU filed a lawsuit in San Francisco

Superior Court in September challenging the

unprecedented decision by San Francisco State

University to bar faculty and students from

attending a guest lecture given by the controversial

Rabbi Meir Kahane, founder of the Jewish Defense

League.

Filed on behalf of faculty and students, the

suit seeks an injunction preventing the University

from interfering with academic freedom and

discriminating on the basis of the political

viewpoints of guest lecturers. It also seeks

damages for violations of plaintiffs First Amendment

and statutory rights.

Women's International League for Peace

and Freedom v. City of Fresno

(California Supreme Court)

The Women's International League for Peace

and Freedom (WILPF) opposes draft registration

and sought to put up signs in Fresno 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, i.e. not registering for the draft. In February,

the state Court of Appeal reversed the trial court

and upheld the constitutionality of the ordinance

without addressing the legality of the signs.

The California Supreme Court granted the

ACLU's petition for review and will decide whether

the ordinance is constitutional and whether the

WILPF message is constitutionally protected

speech.

Allende v. Shultz (and other visa cases)

(U.S. District Court and U.S. Supreme Court)

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 1985, the district court denied the State

Department's motion to dismiss the ACLU lawsuit.

In March of this year, the Court of Appeals reversed

a lower court ruling dismissing several related

lawsuits, which challenge visa denials to other Latin

critics from Nicaragua and Cuba. The Adminis-

tration has petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for

review.

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 will seek to have the

courts rule the membership question unconsti-

tutional under the First Amendment.

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. After 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 malls burdensome rules, the mall

management issued new, less restrictive rules.

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.

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 1984 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 in

_November to the Court of Appeal where it is now

pending.

ACLU LEGAL DOCKET 1986 3

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 on appeal 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.

LE

Privacy

=

G

Washburn v. City of Berkeley

(California Court of Appeal)

Price v. Pacific Refining Company

(Contra Costa Superior Court)

The first California court order halting

company-wide drug testing of employees was

issued in October in a class action lawsuit brought

by the ACLU and the Employment Law Center

on behalf of workers at a Bay Area oil refinery.

The Temporary Restraining Order put a halt

to the drug tests, to the termination or suspension

of employees who refused to take the test, and

to the dissemination of any information gained from

the tests until a hearing is held in January 1987.

The ACLU is challenging the drug testing

policy as a violation of the workers' privacy rights

protected by the California Constitution. It has

successfully challenged drug testing in a number

of other states.

Railway Labor Executives Association v.

Dole

(U.S. Court of Appeals)

In February, the ACLU-NC filed an amicus

brief in support of the railroad workers' union in

the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals arguing that

the Federal Railway Regulations which authorize

involuntary blood, urine and breath testing of

employees violate the Fourth Amendment.

The ACLU is asking the appeals court to

reverse a U.S. District Court ruling that the tests

may be done without probable cause or

individualized suspicion.

Cohen v. Superior Court

(San Francisco Superior Court)

In October 1985, the California Supreme Court

sent back to the Court of Appeal a case

~ challenging the constitutionality of a San Francisco

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 pre-

empted from such regulation by state laws. The

Supreme Court ruled that the city was authorized

to require licensing of escort services, and directed

the Court of Appeal to consider the constitutional

privacy issues involved in the ordinance's

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 ACLU filed an amicus brief in the Court

of Appeal before its original decision stating that

the language of the ordinance violated privacy

rights. The parties settled case. The City has

repealed the routine disclosure provision.

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.

4 ACLU LEGAL DOCKET 1986

Due Process

-_

People v. Spain

U.S. District Court)

AK

(continued)

Johnny Larry Spain, a former Black Panther

Party member who was convicted for murder

during the notorious San Quentin 6 trial, had his

conviction thrown out by the U.S. District Court

because he had been shackled to the courtroom

floor during his trial.

The ACLU filed an amicus brief challenging

Spain's conviction because of the shackling and

the improper conduct between the trial court judge

and a juror who had prejudicial opinions about

the Black Panther Party.

The state has appealed the ruling; the ACLU

is again submitting an amicus brief in support of

Spain's habeas corpus Claim.

People v. Caswell

(California Supreme Court)

The ACLU affiliates of Northern and Southern

California filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the

state Supreme Court in September challenging

a vagrancy law which violates the California

Constitution's guarantee of due process and its

requirement that laws be enforced uniformly.

The brief argues that the law, which forbids

loitering around a public toilet for the purpose of

soliciting or engaging in a lewd act, encourages

arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement by

requiring police to guess at the intent of a person

lingering in a restroom. -

Rippberger and Middleton v. Superior

Court; Walker v. Superior Court

(California Supreme Court)

The ACLU-NC joined the Southern California

affiliate in filing a friend-of-the-court brief in the

California Supreme Court on behalf of parents

whose children died after receiving care from

certified Christian Science healers. The parents

were Charged with felony child endangerment and

involuntary manslaughter for relying on healing

through prayer.

The ACLU argues that the statutory scheme

under which the parents were arrested failed to

provide fair notice of unlawful conduct and that

the parents reasonably believed they were exempt

from criminal liability because they relied on a law

which exempted healing through prayer from the

definition of child neglect.

The lawsuit appeals a lower court ruling that

parents providing spiritual healing for their children

are liable if treatment is unsuccessful.

Kirk v. City of San Francisco

(U.S. District Court)

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.

Although the district court originally ruled that

the federal courts would not entertain the lawsutt,

the complaint has been reinstateed upon

reconsideration.

ANAK,

Be Free from

Unreasonable

Search

California v. Ciraolo

(U.S. Supreme Court)

In a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court

ruled in March that warrantless surveillance and

photographing of a residential backyard by police

do not violate constitutional rights of privacy.

The case stems from an incident where the

police, acting on an anonymous tip, went to a 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 1,000 feet. They observed

and photographed some marijuana plants.

The ACLU filed an amicus brief in the case

which argued that such warrantless surveillance

and photographing violates reasonable expecta-

tions of privacy protected by the Fourth

Amendment.

Estes v. McCarthy

(Marin Superior Court)

The ACLU is challenging new regulations of

the California Department of Corrections which

impose random parking lot searches of visitors

to inmates incarcerated in California prisons. The

visitors and their vehicles are searched by armed

guards and police dogs, even though they

subsequently have to go through a standard, metal

detector search before entering the prison itself.

The lower court ruled that the searches were

not in violation of the Fourth Amendment, but did

agree with the ACLU argument that those visitors

who did not want to be searched would be allowed

to leave-previously, they had been detained

against their will.

There is a petition for review pending in the

California Supreme Court.

Ingersoll v. Palmer

(California Supreme Court)

The state Supreme Court decided in April to

hear the ACLU appeal of a 1985 decision by the

state Court of Appeal which determined that drunk

driving roadblocks, conducted by police according

to certain guidelines, are permissable under the

United States and California Constitutions.

Charging that the roadblocks are in violation

of the Fourth Amendment, the California Consti-

tution and California law, the ACLU originally filed

suit in November 1984 on behalf of four taxpayers

to prohibit the use of such roadblocks throughout

the state.

In a related case, In re Richard Tf, the

ACLU-NC joined the ACLU of Southern California

as a friend of the court in asking the California

Court of Appeal to suppress evidence in a criminal

trial gained from a drunk driving roadblock set

up by the California Highway Patrol. The appeal

was successful, and although the CHP has

appealed, the CHP will not set up roadblocks until

a final ruling is made.

Scott v. Oakland

(Alameda Superior Court)

The ACLU represented 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:

A settlement was reached in September

granting monetary damages to the strip search

victim; however, a separate aspect of the lawsuit-

challenging the strip search policy of the Police

Department-is still pending.

Be Free from

Police Abuse

Crew v. Delagnes

(U.S. District Court)

AA

New arrest regulations forbid police round-

ups of so-called undesirables in downtown San

Francisco, except in cases of `individualized

suspicion of criminal activity.' The regulations also

state that refusal to show identification to the police

can no longer be cause for arrest.

The new regulations were part of a June

settlement in a lawsuit filed by the ACLU on behalf

of one of its own attorneys who was arrested while

monitoring police sweeps downtown. The ACLU

attorney also received monetary damages and had

his record cleared of the arrest.

Janese and Becker v. Letona

(Court of Appeal)

The ACLU successfully defended a victim of

police 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, a ruling which was upheld

by the Court of Appeal in March.

Stevens v. Hance

(San Francisco Superior Court)

The ACLU filed a personal injury and civil

rights lawsuit in 1985 on behalf of two Rastafarian

priests who were arrested and strip searched by

San Francisco narcotics officers. The suit alleges

that the men were falsly 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.

The ACLU petition to compel production of

police records or prior complaints of misconduct

was denied by the Court of Appeal and the

California Supreme Court.

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.

Ecus

?

204 Toca: 280

The 1986 Legal Docket

was produced by ACLU News

editor Elaine Elinson.